Is God Real?

calebsica

I except I believe God is real

RichardCarter2021

I want to thank my opponent for accepting the debate. Let's begin.

I. His concept came from a book [Bible]
     The Bible was made through different stories and writings in Hebrew, starting back around 2nd century BC till 1200 AC, shortly around the time of the Renaissance. [1] This would be referred to as the Old Testament. These stories typically relate around many other people but Jesus Christ is what you think of when you think of the Christian God. While it's still argued of his actual existence, Jesus Christ is believed to have been a real person who was a preacher and a religious leader. [2] Many of the stories (including Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, the Flood, etc.) could be disproven (i.e. fossil life and how many animals were actually at the Flood/Noah's Ark [3]) With a lot of this being disproven/argued with sound evidence, it'd safe to say that the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is false. Scientifically, it wouldn't make much sense. Even if God had the medicines to try to resurrect him, medicine during this time was lackluster including knowledge of human anatomy. [4]

     Let's also remember that the Bible has been rewritten many many times to the point where a "first edition" of the Bible doesn't even exist or is hard to find/confirm. For all we know, the New Testament may be completely altered from what might've happened centuries ago and we're worshipping an evil person. Is people suggesting that the rewrite of the Bible is somehow more accurate, despite the fact it was translated so many times as well? [5] It only confirms that more when Old Testaments supported slavery as shown in Exodus 21:2-11, 20-21: "When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment. If he came single, he shall leave single; if he had a wife, his wife shall leave with him. If his master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children, the wife and her children shall belong to the master, and he shall leave alone..." [6, full quote in the link)

II. Big Bang Theory
     This is a very popular scientific theory of how the universe came to be which counters the argument that God created the universe, which is impossible. The Big Bang Theory, in short, is when extremely high degree clouds of protons, neutrons were flying around before it cooled down enough to allow electrons inside. Eventually, a bunch of gas in space was created which pulls together into the BANG occurs, creating the start of the universe and many of the elements in the Periodic Table. [7]

     Creationists argue that God took 6(?) days to create the universe, Heaven and Hell, and the Earth. I did my best to research the specifics but it was very difficult, which might be the reason why it's so hard to believe.
III. Evolution
     Another popular and even more widely accepted theory is how everything evolved from ancestors and animals, and we grew smarter due to natural selection. This is always thanks to DNA and how dominant and recessive traits are passed down to their offspring. A common argument against this that I've heard is how there can be a monkey and a human in the same room. Simple, it's because we did not directly evolve from monkeys and apes, but a different now-extinct type of species of primates. That same primate is the ancestors of monkeys, apes, and chimpanzees. [8]

I have provided 3 solid arguments against the existence of God and how he created the universe, and I return the floor to For.

EDIT: Forgot the citations.

1. https://www.biblica.com/resources/bible-faqs/when-was-the-bible-written/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
3. https://ncse.com/cej/3/3/six-flood-arguments-creationists-cant-answer
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_medicine_and_medical_technology
5. https://www.businessinsider.com/bible-changes-altered-jesus-testament-dead-sea-scrolls-gospel-2015-11
6. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/biblical-slavery/
7. https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang
8. http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

calebsica

There is lots of evidence for the flood. The major evidence is that there is sedimentary rocks layers continent-wide. That shows that water was over the whole continent. 

The big bang is the theory that nothing evspoded and created everything, does that sound logical to you? A singularity, which is what they say blew up, is nothing. 

I will provide you with details about the creation.
it happened over six days and about 6000 years ago. There is evidence that the earth is very young like that the moon is moving away from the earth. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/moon/lunar-recession/  https://answersingenesis.org/geology/  Please read that article and watch the video. There is evidence that the earth is very young like that the moon is moving away from the earth.   without billions of years, you can't have evolution. 

 You said "Another popular and even more widely accepted theory is how everything evolved from ancestors and animals, and we grew smarter due to natural selection."  natural selections does not create, it selects. natural selection does NOT create evolution it just keeps the species strong. 

I will end there for my first argument. you did not really give evidence but just gave statements which give me the knowledge to what you believe. please give more evidence so that we can debate about that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_E-GEVn8jo&t=1629s   
thanks

RichardCarter2021

I want to thank my opponent for his response.

1.  His concept came from a book [the Bible]
My opponent's only rebuttal/argument to this section was the proof of the Flood and how the proof of it happening was sedimentary rock layers continent-wide. What proof? Sedimentary rock was formed "by the accumulation or deposition of small particles and subsequent cementation of mineral or organic particles on the floor of oceans or other bodies of water at the Earth's surface". [1] They are caused by simple natural erosion that is not continent-wide, yet worldwide. And obviously, the Flood in the Bible did not happen worldwide.

Other from that, my opponent dropped the other arguments from this section, so I extend them as they currently remain unchallenged.

2. Big Bang Theory
My opponent questions the logicality of how "the Big Bang is the theory nothing exploded* and created everything". That's not what it was. As I stated from Round 2, "extremely high degree clouds of protons, neutrons were flying around before it cooled down enough to allow electrons inside. Eventually, a bunch of gas in space was created which pulls together into the BANG occurs, creating the start of the universe and many of the elements in the Periodic Table." [see 7 from round 2] The planets weren't created from the explosion as well. They were created because of two meteors crashing into each other, creating the start of Earth and a mess that soon became the Earth's moon billions of years ago. [2] Those electrons and the gas has the potential to combine to make all of the atoms to make up the elements, and that is wildly accepted in science, and that's illogical?

My opponent links a YouTube video (which isn't necessarily a reliable source) from a guy who asks the same question my opponent asks about the logicality of the Big Bang theory. See the above arguments. The man also uses bible quotes to attempt to disprove the Big Bang Theory. You can't just take lines from a Bible to form an argument against the possibility of the Big Bang Theory when it was made thousands of years ago. [see 1 and 5 from Round 2]

( * Opponent made a typo with "exploded")

2.1 The Earth was created 6000 years ago
This is extremely incorrect. With fossil evidence and research and studying, simply recalling the history of homo sapiens easily disproves this, showing how they started around 300,000 years ago in Africa. [3] Before, there were the dinosaurs, that are also supported through fossils founded. [4] What about the Cambrian explosion millions of years ago? [5] The multiple amounts of evidence heavily destroy the creationist argument of the universe, Earth, and everything being created 6,000 years ago. The opponent also used citations from "Answers in Genesis"'s official website. These are not very reliable sources. Their support of using "creation science" is pseudoscience that ignores scientific theories and makes up its own. [6]

3. Evolution
My opponent starts by saying "without billions of years, you can't have evolution". This contradicts both his argument that the universe was created 6,000 years ago and the whole point of arguing against it. Help me, do you believe the universe was made 6,000 years ago or billions of years ago? My opponent tries to correct me on how natural selection doesn't create, but just select. Not necessarily. Think about it-- natural selection goes to who is the smartest or who's capable of living out of a group. Those who don't die off into obscurity and those who do reproduce and CREATE offspring, meaning it IS creation.

4. My opponent claims I didn't produce evidence

Unless the edit I made did not show up to everyone, there are eight links and citations to every bit of research and evidence I did when creating my arguments in Round 2. That's quite a lot for three arguments and shows that I didn't just use my opinion or belief to make up what I made in Round 2. Please read till the very end and you will see all eight sources I got when making my arguments. This feels like a way to avoid rebutting my arguments.

I return the floor to For.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sedimentary%20rock
[2] https://www.space.com/19175-how-was-earth-formed.html
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_prehistory
[4] https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/dinosaurs-an-introduction
[5] https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/cambrian.php
[6] https://ncse.ngo/cej/6/2/scientific-creationism-as-pseudoscience

calebsica

Wikipedia is not a viable source, by the way, OK let's start I will start on the means of natural selection, Thank you for your statement about it, and I have to disagree. of course natural selection exists not even creationist disagree with that. Think about this. Natural selection kills all the bad species but does not create new ones. All it does is keep the good ones good, but it does not make the good ones better. 

Now for the next argument about 6000 years vs. billions of years. I apologize if I did not make by self-clear. You keep saying the earth can't be 6000 years old because it has been disproven by fossils and dinosaurs but how? Fossils do not disprove the young earth but help prove it.Fossils  have to be formed rapidlyhttps://www.americangeosciences.org/education/k5geosource/activities/investigations/fossils/fossils-from-living-things  
 https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/fossils-in-just-24-hours/
Flike Oin a flood. Dinosaurs lived among man lbut we called them dragons. I have read the articles and I did not see much evidence.  What is scientific evidence that the earth is more than 6000 years old? just telling the broad statement the fossils disprove it. I have stated evidence against how old the earth is.

clastic rock (as conglomerate, sandstone, or shale) formed of fragments of other rock transported from its source and deposited in water
sedimentary rock. 

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sedimentary%20rock 

I feel like this debate needs more rounds, would you be interested in continuing this debate longer?

I look forward to your responce

RichardCarter2021

I thank my opponent for his response once again.

My opponent starts immediately by claiming that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. While I would normally agree, I believe it depends greatly on what the actual information IS. When it's a commonly accepted thing, I doubt Wikipedia will have too much false-information. Perhaps on topics that aren't well-understood or very clear, then yeah, having sources other than Wikipedia might be necessary. In my case, however, I believe my Wikipedia citations are commonly understood and can be considered a reliable source in this argument.

1. Evolution
I can understand your more clear explanation. By this point, however, the argument is becoming a bit too irrelevant to the resolution at hand, and that might've been my fault.

2. The Earth was created 6000 years ago
My opponent clears himself on the confusion, and I thank him for this.

He claims that fossils proved the creationist argument of a young earth as they have to be formed rapidly and combines this that dinosaurs lived alongside man. Okay. Despite the fact of the crater evidence of a meteor hitting the Yucatán Peninsula 66 million years ago almost completely evaporates this. [1] So unless creationists can disprove that there was no meteor and dinosaurs had died during the Flood. Sure, it would make sense as they're made by dying in muddy and moist conditions [2], but with the research and studies of fossils that were made millions of years ago [3], this counters this.

3. Sedimentary rocks
My opponent simply places the Merriam Webster definition of this. Yes, I've read it as well while forming my arguments in Round 2. But why? What does them deposited in water have to do with anything necessarily? To prove the Flood? That only helps my argument here. Sure, a world-wide flood might have happened, but due to collection of minerals from sedimentary rocks, it only illogically proves the Flood. You'll find a more complicated understanding of this citation. [4] And something like this has happened as well during the first moments of the Earth years ago when it rained and rained until the whole Earth became an ocean, causing the Cambrian Explosion [see 5 in Round 2]

While I would love to continue debating about the existence of God and other arguments made here, it's not my type of thing to make repeated debates of the same topic with the same person. If DebateIsland extended the Round limit to something like 5, that would really help. I should ask them sometime.

In conclusion,

While this was actually a decently challenging debate, there were some logical discrepancies and fallacies within my opponent's arguments, and he also dropped a few of my arguments (specifically my Round 1 argument of the problems within the Bible and the obviously illogical supernatural abilities). I thank the audience for their time, and I allow them to consider a vote for Against. Thank you.

1. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/11/dinosaurs-extinction-asteroid-chicxulub-soot-earth-science/
2. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/11/dinosaurs-extinction-asteroid-chicxulub-soot-earth-science/
3. http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html
4. https://ncse.ngo/library-resource/yes-noahs-flood-may-have-happened-not-over-whole-earth