Belief And Faith - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is a leading online debate website and is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Belief And Faith
in Religion

By SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
Husband: Hey, I've booked the whole family into the most expensive restaurant in town tonight and got tickets to the most exclusive show.

Wife: What, Are you crazy? We can barely make ends meet and you're lashing out like that?

Husband: Don't worry, I've got it covered. And while I was at it, I put our house on the market, put a deposit on a $5 million estate, plus ordered a new Bentley. Oh, And I quit my job.

Wife: Quit your job!? Holy heck, and just how do you think we are going to afford such extravagances?

Husband: Well, I bought a ticket in the national lotteries and we are going to win $100 million first prize.

Wife: You are really off your rocker; our chances of winning that are almost zilch.

Husband: Ah, But you can't say that it is impossible for us to win, can you? You have to believe and have faith that we will win.

Wife: Well, I believe that you are a completely deluded twit and have faith that you will never walk back through the door that you are just about to leave through.
Happy_KillbotxlJ_dolphin_473PlaffelvohfenAlofRI



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • SandSand 213 Pts

    Exactly what the atheist wants you to do.

    The probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10^113. (1 followed by 113 zeros)
    Some 2,000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10^40,000.

    That number is larger than the estimated total number of atoms in the universe! (10^79)


    Atheists want you to believe something less credible than creation.

    But the chances for a miracle are 1 in 10^6.

    This makes the idea for God creating the Universe more credible than abiogenesis.


    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • @Sand ;

    You are calculating for a fully formed cell. The first organisms, or proto-organisms were most likely just bits of naturally formed protein wrapped in naturally formed lipid layers. We can prove that these things readily form in the environment, and this makes the odds much higher.

    There is also that bothersome question about entropy, which is that life maximizes entropy in ways that inorganic matter can not, thus it is a physical necessity in a world where entropy must increase. This makes the prospect for life, or some form of it, almost an absolute certainty.
    xlJ_dolphin_473Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Sand
    Your argument may seem convincing at first, but anyone who looks closely will see that it is riddled with fallacies. @Happy_Killbot gave an excellent rebuttal. I have something to add on to it, too.
    Sand said:
    This makes the idea for God creating the Universe more credible than abiogenesis.
    You forgot to calculate the odds of there being an omnipotent being who can create Universes. There really is no formula for this, but it's essentially zero, which makes abiogenesis more credible than God creating the universe.
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    You both have a good point, the proto-organisms were the simplest life form which has only 20 protein.

    The probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10^113. (1 followed by 113 zeros)
    Some 20 different proteins are needed just for a proto-organism to maintain its activity and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10^400.

    That number is larger than the estimated total number of atoms in the universe! (10^79)


    But the chances for a miracle are 1 in 10^6.


    Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God is omnipotent.

    Whenever we speak we use words that are all-inclusive. But even in our statements, the word “all” does not mean without exception. In the other sentence, I used the word ‘we’ that doesn’t include everyone on the planet or everyone who ever existed. There are scriptures that say ‘all’ but it has exceptions. Just because we cannot see the top of something doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a top. The Bible says “With God, all things are possible.” It is unfathomable for “all things to be possible”, but that is only part of the picture. The bible clearly paints limits for God, which clarifies the word ‘all’ in that scripture. The Bible says God cannot lie, die, be tempted by evil. These are limits that indicate a top, crest, or peak of God’s ability. There may be more limits to God that the scriptures do not touch on. So the word Omnipotent could not apply to God.

    xlJ_dolphin_473, you have an interesting argument, God can't create universes, but man will figure out abiogenesis and know-how?
    Do get me wrong, eventually, man will find a way to create life, but there will be another problem, trying to prove life came about by chance.
    Man creating life will represent our side of the argument, that it takes an intelligent designer to put things in motion.


    The abiogenesis way of thinking requires too many things to be perfect in order to be successful.
    Possible maybe, but very low probability, as you point out 1 in 10^400.
    Whereas the creationist way of thinking just requires an intelligent designer to put things in motion.
    Possible maybe, but much higher probability, as I point out 1 in 10^6.

    Until scientists are able to reduce the odds for abiogenesis.

    This makes the idea for God creating the Universe still more credible than abiogenesis.


    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • @Sand ;

    You are doing your math wrong. We know from experimentation that these proteins form readily in the environment, so presumably the odds are much higher.

    Also, consider that there are tons of chances for this to occur across billions of years and in quintillions of locations.

    The odds for a miracle are technically 10^inf because if there is a natural explanation, then by definition it isn't a miracle.
    SandPlaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @Sand
    "This makes the idea for God creating the Universe more credible than abiogenesis."

    Exactly right. The chances of both are very remote and you can keep arguing until the cows come home as to which has mathematically more chances.

    The fact is though, that one of them did perchance happen, and that was evolution through natural selection. We know that through masses of irrefutable evidence.
    The chance that there may be creation has been completely ruled out.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    If that is the case then show your references, not your opinions.

    Here are my references:


    Ruled out by whom, you?
    Irrefutable evidence from whom, you?
    I'm sorry without your references the credible information is on creation side.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Swolliw

    Secular scientist:  I believe millions of molecules invented themselves simultaneously and somehow miraculously assembled themselves in just the right combination to form the first life form on earth.  

    Creationists:  Are you crazy?

    Secular scientist:  You call me crazy but you will be singing a different tune once you see me win $100 million in the next lottery drawing.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • rosendsrosends 46 Pts
    @Sand
    i believe that you are using the term "miracle" in a fast and loose manner. The idea of creation by a divine force is a miracle not in that it is statistically improbable at a scale of 1 in a million. It is that a divine force chose to manipulate the laws of science in a particular way with intention.

    The idea that one can, informally, use the word "miracle" to label events that occur against 1 in a million odds, and therefore anything running at 1:1000000 or higher can be called a miracle is a dangerous conflation of definitions.

    The odds of being struck by lightning twice are 1 in 9,000,000 but would you then label the occurrence a miracle?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @rosends

    The odds of accidental development and assembly of all the essential biological material which would have been requried for the first viable living organism to appear on earth is zero.
  • rosendsrosends 46 Pts
    @marke
    I have no opinion on that claim. I don't know how odds are computed, nor am I a scientist who understands all of what might or would be required. I can only comment on an inaccurate use of the word "miracle."
    Plaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @rosends

    This is how George Wald used the term:

    [Attributing the origin of life to spontaneous generation.] However improbable we regard this event, it will almost certainly happen at least once…. The time… is of the order of two billion years.… Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: time itself performs the miracles.
    — George Wald

  • rosendsrosends 46 Pts
    @marke
    So he used it in a non-divine (almost inevitable) way. Miracles are therefore no proof of divinity if, over time, they become possible as functions of the natural order of things. The argument being made was that miracles are more probable than other explanations, but by the use there, other, less likely explanations are still possible and would be (statistically speaking) equally "miracles."
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke

    You're guilty of resorting to yet more fallacious 'reasoning' this time it's the Lottery Fallacy ......



    The lottery fallacy arises when we invalidly infer x must be designed because x is improbable.

    Examples

    1) I conclude that Bob must have cheated when he won the lottery because the odds of him winning were twenty million to one.

    2) Some argue the teleological argument commits this fallacy because it is argued the universe must be designed because the laws of the universe (or some things in the universe) are so improbable.



    Plaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    I only use the word miracle for the sake of atheists.

    Nevertheless, energy/power is related to mass.
    God could have used energy/power to create mass.
    The opposite way that mass can be used to create energy/power.

    Isaiah 40:26 - "Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars, The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, Not one of them is missing."

    What I propose is God is only more advanced in technology and intelligence than man.
    God works in harmony with the laws of physics to create the universe.

    We are not proposing something preposterous.
    Nevertheless, I personally feel that abiogenesis works against the laws of physics.
    It proposes that it is possible to have an effect with no cause.
    It also proposes that it is more logical to choose an exponentially lesser probability versus a higher probability because it is not favorable.
    That to me is unreasonable.

    You tell me what is more likely.
    Man to eventually find a way to create a life with more intelligence and intent or Man to eventually find a way to create a life with no intelligence and no intent.
    So far all life comes from a previous life.
    We have never known life to come from lifelessness.
    Not to say it is impossible, just very highly improbable.
    So improbable that to base our existence on such a conclusion would be highly illogical.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • maxxmaxx 251 Pts
    belief and faith are human concepts and does not exist outside the human realm@Swolliw
    Sand
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @maxx

    Beliefs in the nonexistence of God are of human origin.
  • marke said:
    @maxx

    Beliefs in the nonexistence of God are of human origin.
    @marke
    The very concept of God is of human origin.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • maxxmaxx 251 Pts
    actually, it is belief in the lack of evidence of some sort of creator is of human origins.  We [humans} can create life simulations on a computer; who knows what a highly advanced civilization that dwells outside the realm of our universal time and space are capable of. Lack of evidence does not preclude something that may exist.@marke @xlJ_dolphin_473
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    If evolution is true then natural selection must be to blame for human imaginations about life on other planets or unexplainable origins of the universe.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @maxx
     "Lack of evidence does not preclude something that may exist."

     Come on now, get real. Did you get your ideology from the back of a packet of Fruit Loops?
    Regardless, I am telling you right now that green elephants with wings exist. Now, I don't have any evidence that they do exist but hey, according to you, they may exist.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @marke
    Beliefs in the nonexistence of God are of human origin.

    There is no such thing as believing in something that is nonexistent.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @maxx
    belief and faith are human concepts and does not exist outside the human realm

    Well, you got me on that one.
    Thinking about it, belief and faith are human behaviours. I believe my daughter is going to get her PhD and have faith in the fact that she has properly done her research on it.

    When you get someone who has a belief in God and faith that God is going to give him or her an eternity in paradise, we can quite rightly say that person has a false belief and blind faith. Summed up in one word.....deluded.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Swolliw

    You don't believe, like others, that God does not exist?
  • marke said:
    @Swolliw

    You don't believe, like others, that God does not exist?
    @marke
    I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'll respond anyway. I don't believe that God doesn't exist, but I think it's very unlikely that he does. Considering the abundant scientific information available to us, it seems illogical to invoke a physical-law-breaking, omnipotent, omniscient being (by the way omnipotent and omniscient are mutually exclusive) to fill in the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge.
  • maxxmaxx 251 Pts
    That is a bit inane.  Hundreds of years ago, many things about the universe that we take for granted today simply did not exist in the minds of humans and if they did, they would have been derided for believing in something without evidence. As to a creator of our universe, i am not talking about a god of any religion upon this earth.  I am talking about the possiblity that a higher life form using science created out universe in just the way we see it today. You find it impossible because you can not conceive of someone that huge; however it is us who are the miniscule ones and to a scientific creator, our universe may be no larger than a room to him.@Swolliw
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    There are hundreds of years of human constructions of suupport for atheist assumptions.  Many of those constructions have using biased interpretations and selective evidences to build support for their atheist biased speculations.  Those unproven speculations are not settled science.  Many of them have become accepted theories among secularists and atheists but that still does not prove them to be irrefutable scientific facts.
  • marke said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    There are hundreds of years of human constructions of suupport for atheist assumptions.  Many of those constructions have using biased interpretations and selective evidences to build support for their atheist biased speculations.  Those unproven speculations are not settled science.  Many of them have become accepted theories among secularists and atheists but that still does not prove them to be irrefutable scientific facts.
    @marke
    If you're going to question the scientific evidence for God not existing, then how about you provide some evidence that He does exist?
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    I cannot prove human souls or spirits do their thinking but neither can doubters prove they don't.  Likewise, nobody can either prove or disprove the existence of God.
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke

    I cannot prove human souls or spirits do their thinking but neither can doubters prove they don't. 

    The burden of proof is with you not your opponent to prove your claim this you cannot do 


     Likewise, nobody can either prove or disprove the existence of God.

    If one says they cannot say for certain a god or gods exist they have nothing to prove or disprove , you are saying they do exist again the burden of proof is with you and not your opponent 
  • @marke
    If God does exist, why are humans not punishing him for his sins?
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    I don't recommend asking that kind of question when you finally stand before him with everyone else in the Judgment.
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    God does not punish people for sins.
    People choose sin and death to rule over them.
    God gave a solution to save mankind out of sin and death.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 164 Pts
    @max  x
    i am not talking about a god of any religion upon this earth.  I am talking about the possiblity that a higher life form using science created out universe

    Yes, you are talking about God....call it by any other name or chuck a bit of the old "pseudoscience" nonsense into the mix as much as you like but the fact remains....it is not sanely possible to think that a "higher form" ever created the universe, the facts we have say otherwise. To falsely believe in creation or "higher form" is no more than blind faith and.....yes.....delusion.
  • marke said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    I don't recommend asking that kind of question when you finally stand before him with everyone else in the Judgment.
    @marke
    Thanks for the advice. Could you please answer the question? The question is:
    If God is omnipotent, then why are humans not punishing Him for his sins?
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Don't be silly.  Any human who thinks God sins is in gross ignorance.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Don't be silly.  Any human who thinks God sins is in gross ignorance.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Don't be silly.  God does not sin.
  • marke said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Don't be silly.  Any human who thinks God sins is in gross ignorance.
    @marke
    Very wrong. God commits lots of sins, as anyone who reads the Bible will see. For example, this verse where He condones human trafficking...
    "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1 Peter 2:18)
    Or this one, where God condones sexual slavery:
    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. Exodus 21: 7-8

    These are quite obviously sins. So, kindly stop avoiding my question, and please answer it: if God is omnipotent, why are humans not punishing Him for his sins?
  • SandSand 213 Pts

    Without the Bible what would be your objective moral basis?
    If the Bible is completely made up, fictitious, then morals are subjective, not objective.

    Do you personally feel that human trafficking is wrong, from what objective?
    Is this your personal view or the view of others?
    Is this a person evolving, survival?

    Why does anyone need to adhere to your point of view or the view of others?
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    edited August 4
    @marke


    Don't be silly.  God does not sin

    Well your god is a hypocrite  then as he approves of abortion , slaughter , pestillance and plagues once he’s doing it also he totally approves of slavery 



    Sin 
    an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    edited August 4
    @Sand

    Without the Bible what would be your objective moral basis?

    All morality is subjective 


    If the Bible is completely made up, fictitious, then morals are subjective, not objective.

    You got it 

    Do you personally feel that human trafficking is wrong, from what objective 

    All ethical statements are literally meaningless.They do not express any facts at all; what they express is the speaker’s emotions 

    Is this your personal view or the view of others?

    What do you mean?


    Is this a person evolving, survival?

    What do you mean?

    Why does anyone need to adhere to your point of view or the view of others?

    No one is required to do so when it comes to mine
    Sand
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch