A Christian Creationist Takes the Atheistic Evolutionist Side as a Debate Experience

[KillerArgument]

1) I see no reason to believe that God exists because I see no physical evidence of Him.

2) Abiogenesis: Evolution does not address origins. The fact that life is here means that it obviously came into existence. Logically, God cannot be proven to exist. Obviously, life came into existence, and obviously God doesn't exist. Regardless how it happened, God had nothing to do with it, because He doesn't exist.

3) Nothing non-physical exists.

Bring it on, Christians and Creationists!! Bring your logic and evidence. You cannot win. I have 3 Killer Arguments and you can't prove me wrong!

You might as well all just go on home right now! :)

I am the Gladiator!! (picture Russell Crowe)

[Zhavric]

Wow. I'm honestly impressed.

Quote by: KillerArgument 1) I see no reason to believe that God exists because I see no physical evidence of Him. 2) Abiogenesis: Evolution does not address origins. The fact that life is here means that it obviously came into existence. Logically, God cannot be proven to exist. Obviously, life came into existence, and obviously God doesn't exist. Regardless how it happened, God had nothing to do with it, because He doesn't exist. 3) Nothing non-physical exists.

I'd re-word those slightly:

1) There is no evidence god exists and considerable evidence suggesting no god(s) exist.

2) There is no evidence anything beyond the physical universe exists.

3) Asserting god is the origin of life on Earth is "god of the gaps" reasoning and is not supported by evidence.

[KillerArgument]

Remember, now, I'm only pretending... :)

Maybe some who are on the other side would be willing to use the best Creationist arguments they can, to try, though it is not possible :) to defeat me.

[Paleface2500]

Quote by: Zhavric Wow. I'm honestly impressed. I'd re-word those slightly: 1) There is no evidence god exists and considerable evidence suggesting no god(s) exist. 2) There is no evidence anything beyond the physical universe exists. 3) Asserting god is the origin of life on Earth is "god of the gaps" reasoning and is not supported by evidence.

1. That is a fairly large statement. You should support it with some facts.

[Paleface2500]

I bring forth this argument

A. Newton’s 1st 2nd and 3rd law

B. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

C. There must be a first cause

D. in nature there are things whose existence is contingent, that is, possible for it to be and exist and not to exist. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which such things did not in fact exist. Thus, on probabilistic grounds, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If that is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence. Thus contingent beings are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings, meaning there must exist being for which it is impossible not to exist, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived.

This argument is posited on the assumption that everything in the experience of our five senses is natural and that everything natural is caused, and is contingent and subject to cause by the uncaused cause.

Thomas Aquinas

[Zhavric]

C. There must be a first cause

This is a fairly large statement. You should support it with some facts.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric Wow. I'm honestly impressed. I'd re-word those slightly: 1) There is no evidence god exists and considerable evidence suggesting no god(s) exist. 2) There is no evidence anything beyond the physical universe exists. 3) Asserting god is the origin of life on Earth is "god of the gaps" reasoning and is not supported by evidence.

1) Just be wary. Zhavric depends on his custom definitions. He basically quit a debate we where having when I would not use his definition of a god. For him, a being can only be a god if it can do things that we believe are physically impossible. Conveniently impossible definition there.

2) The evidence supports big bang theory, and certainly supports a starting point for our 3D space, which is what I assume Zhavric means by the word 'universe'. Unless you subscribe to acausality, our universe had to come from somewhere. That is evidence for something outside of our universe.

3) I actually agree with his third point. There is nothing that says a god of gaps argument necessarily has a false conclusion, but such arguments should always be viewed with great doubt.

[Osborn F Enready]

Paleface said: This argument is posited on the assumption that everything in the experience of our five senses is natural and that everything natural is caused, and is contingent and subject to cause by the uncaused cause.

The uncaused cause is quite caused. It is caused by the nature of galaxies, and the universe.

For example....

My theory on the Big Bang.

We know black holes exist, the questions we have now are about what happens to what is consumed by a black hole?

Is information lost, or is all information stored within the black hole?

I think the information, and all matter is retained.

My theory is that the Big Bang was a result of Super Black Hole, one that grew so large on a constant stream of matter due to a "previous" big bangs random layout of matter and space, that it consumed all we can conceive of time and space, and beyond, or farther than any instrument created or conceived can see or measure. Once this super black hole, that consumed millions of gallaxies and their black holes feasted, it became so powerful that it couldn't feed itself anymore due to the universe being entirely consumed and creating a vacuum of proportions we see in space outside our atmosphere, and its circular motion and forces created from the mass at its base acted as a super-fast moving rotational balance, that suddenly became imblanced due to the sudden loss of matter to consume, resulting in a huge explosion of matter creating what we see, and call the universe. I theorize this happens repeatedly, over what we know as time, and that each time a super black hole is created to this proportion, another big bang ensues, re-creating time, space and the universe again, in another random form of distribution based on the size of the explosion from imbalance, and the random distribution of matter from that explosion in space.

I think this will happen in perpetuity, until a universe is created that has no black hole capable of growing to that size and scope, if it is possible to distribute matter in way to prevent black holes from reaching a level of non-stop consumption.

Does that make sense to you?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Paleface2500 I bring forth this argument A. Newton’s 1st 2nd and 3rd law B. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. C. There must be a first cause D. in nature there are things whose existence is contingent, that is, possible for it to be and exist and not to exist. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which such things did not in fact exist. Thus, on probabilistic grounds, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If that is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence. Thus contingent beings are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings, meaning there must exist being for which it is impossible not to exist, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived. This argument is posited on the assumption that everything in the experience of our five senses is natural and that everything natural is caused, and is contingent and subject to cause by the uncaused cause. Thomas Aquinas

Under this argument, god could be a banana. As long as it was the first cause, you could call it God.

Heck, many modern physicists believe that the universe began at time T=0, with nothing outside of our universe or our dimension of time to get it going. Thus, they also believe in an uncaused cause. For them, this first cause is a singularity. This argument fits just fine with Aquinas' argument because it ascribes no characteristics (other than existence) to that first cause. Was the singularity at the beginning of our universe something that should be called God?

Sounds iffy to me.


This whole uncaused cause business is just intellectual sleight of hand anyway. It is just a fancy way of saying "it just is" - either for theists or materialists, they often wind up playing the "it just is" card, or refusing to discuss it.

To me, acausality is about as intellectually weak as it gets. I find infinite regression far more palatable. If you take the stance that there is no uncaused cause, that the outermost dimension of time goes back forever, then you wind up making some fairly logical deductions. Reality makes more sense that way.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The uncaused cause is quite caused. It is caused by the nature of galaxies, and the universe. For example.... My theory on the Big Bang. We know black holes exist, the questions we have now are about what happens to what is consumed by a black hole? Is information lost, or is all information stored within the black hole? I think the information, and all matter is retained. My theory is that the Big Bang was a result of Super Black Hole, one that grew so large on a constant stream of matter due to a "previous" big bangs random layout of matter and space, that it consumed all we can conceive of time and space, and beyond, or farther than any instrument created or conceived can see or measure. Once this super black hole, that consumed millions of gallaxies and their black holes feasted, it became so powerful that it couldn't feed itself anymore due to the universe being entirely consumed and creating a vacuum of proportions we see in space outside our atmosphere, and its circular motion and forces created from the mass at its base acted as a super-fast moving rotational balance, that suddenly became imblanced due to the sudden loss of matter to consume, resulting in a huge explosion of matter creating what we see, and call the universe. I theorize this happens repeatedly, over what we know as time, and that each time a super black hole is created to this proportion, another big bang ensues, re-creating time, space and the universe again, in another random form of distribution based on the size of the explosion from imbalance, and the random distribution of matter from that explosion in space. I think this will happen in perpetuity, until a universe is created that has no black hole capable of growing to that size and scope, if it is possible to distribute matter in way to prevent black holes from reaching a level of non-stop consumption. Does that make sense to you?

This is a form of a cyclic universe theory.


Current observations indicate that space itself is expanding, not just matter and energy. I do not see how your theory accounts for that.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Captain Chaos This is a form of a cyclic universe theory. Current observations indicate that space itself is expanding, not just matter and energy. I do not see how your theory accounts for that.

Maybe matter and energy expanding expands space. Isn't space-time like a fabric?

[Lotharia]

I've always wanted to consider whether we are ascribing a characteristic to the universe out of ignorance -- do we know, or do we have any evidence that, the universe began? Perhaps it has always been. No beginning. Or, do we have some evidence that it sprang up somehow?
Are we saying that the universe had to have begun because we don't know of anything that didn't begin? Isn't that argument from ignorance, or something equally foolish?

Pardon me if this question is out of line, this debate stuff is new to me, I'm learning SO MUCH from you all.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Maybe matter and energy expanding expands space. Isn't space-time like a fabric?

I believe that is one analogy, but not too terribly accurate.


There is evidence that spinning black holes can tear spacetime.


However, our universe is expanding at an increasing rate. An exploding black hole does not explain this.


I am personally biased towards granular theories of spacetime - theories that state that space time is granular in nature - divided up into finite quanta.

If spacetime is expanding, and is also granular, then you have to ask where the extra spacetime granules are coming from.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Lotharia I've always wanted to consider whether we are ascribing a characteristic to the universe out of ignorance -- do we know, or do we have any evidence that, the universe began? Perhaps it has always been. No beginning. Or, do we have some evidence that it sprang up somehow? Are we saying that the universe had to have begun because we don't know of anything that didn't begin? Isn't that argument from ignorance, or something equally foolish? Pardon me if this question is out of line, this debate stuff is new to me, I'm learning SO MUCH from you all.

Entropy always increases. The fact that we are not at maximum entropy implies that our universe had a beginning. There is also quite a bit of observational data to support big bang theories.

[Fonceai]

@Osborn
@Captain Chaos

The theory is almost identical to one I entertain.

Eventually, gravity always wins. All matter and energy in the universe will be drawn to a single point. Space will bend so much that it will rip, thus spewing all of that matter and energy into another space.

Or... as Osborn wrote, the vacuum left means that all matter and energy without the constant influx of material, will explode outward.

And Captain, that kind of theory does take expansion into consideration. It means that the expansion of space means we're closer to the beginning and not the end.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai @Osborn @Captain Chaos The theory is almost identical to one I entertain. Eventually, gravity always wins. All matter and energy in the universe will be drawn to a single point. Space will bend so much that it will rip, thus spewing all of that matter and energy into another space. Or... as Osborn wrote, the vacuum left means that all matter and energy without the constant influx of material, will explode outward. And Captain, that kind of theory does take expansion into consideration. It means that the expansion of space means we're closer to the beginning and not the end.

But it does not take into consideration the fact that our rate of expansion appears to be increasing.

[Paleface2500]

Quote by: Zhavric This is a fairly large statement. You should support it with some facts.

What is this? Third grade?:rolleyes:

[Paleface2500]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The uncaused cause is quite caused. It is caused by the nature of galaxies, and the universe. For example.... My theory on the Big Bang. We know black holes exist, the questions we have now are about what happens to what is consumed by a black hole? Is information lost, or is all information stored within the black hole? I think the information, and all matter is retained. My theory is that the Big Bang was a result of Super Black Hole, one that grew so large on a constant stream of matter due to a "previous" big bangs random layout of matter and space, that it consumed all we can conceive of time and space, and beyond, or farther than any instrument created or conceived can see or measure. Once this super black hole, that consumed millions of gallaxies and their black holes feasted, it became so powerful that it couldn't feed itself anymore due to the universe being entirely consumed and creating a vacuum of proportions we see in space outside our atmosphere, and its circular motion and forces created from the mass at its base acted as a super-fast moving rotational balance, that suddenly became imblanced due to the sudden loss of matter to consume, resulting in a huge explosion of matter creating what we see, and call the universe. I theorize this happens repeatedly, over what we know as time, and that each time a super black hole is created to this proportion, another big bang ensues, re-creating time, space and the universe again, in another random form of distribution based on the size of the explosion from imbalance, and the random distribution of matter from that explosion in space. I think this will happen in perpetuity, until a universe is created that has no black hole capable of growing to that size and scope, if it is possible to distribute matter in way to prevent black holes from reaching a level of non-stop consumption. Does that make sense to you?

Not being rude here but i don't think you understood the post. Please read the post again and pay special attention to D.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Captain Chaos But it does not take into consideration the fact that our rate of expansion appears to be increasing.

I'm curious how we can measure in only 200 years at best the rate of movement of celestial bodies with enough accuracy to determine acceleration.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai I'm curious how we can measure in only 200 years at best the rate of movement of celestial bodies with enough accuracy to determine acceleration.

Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I question the accuracy of such observations, because they (physicists) do seem to be constantly changing their minds.