WELCOME TO WoA!
Today is Tuesday, October 10th, and we will be getting this week started with a debate transcript. Enjoy!
I always tell you about arguments and all that but now you'll get a way different perspective.
This short debate was mostly based off the question of the origin of life. If the text is colored red, it is me speaking. If it is blue, it is my opponent.
__________________________________
For all of you who support evolution out there answer me this:
It has been proved (by an atheist...Dawkins) that at one point, at the very beginning of time, there was a zero point. A zero point means nothing existed. there was....zero. anything. nothing. no chemicals or gases or anything.
It has been proved (by the scientific community) that living things come only from living things. that is part of the Law of Biogenesis.
If it has been proved there at one point was no life, and it has been proved that life only comes from living things, then how did we end up with all the abundant life we see today?
The law of Biogenesis is only applicable to more complex things. Life is a set of self-replicating molecular patterns, and if a pattern like that appears, you have something that is in essence life. The probability of that happening is low, but that is also due to the environmental differences. Nowadays, life takes up most organic material, but previously, back when life first originated, the organic materials were floating around in the ocean. There was nothing to stop them from forming patterns.
I see your point. But I also see you completely avoid and skirt around the fact that it has been proved by Richard Dawkins that at once there was a zero point.
I like how you talk about life being a pattern and how organic materials formed together into life, but if what Dawkins (highly respected scientist) says is true, where do you get the organic materials to become life patterns from?
The Big Bang, which is the origin of the universe.
May I politely ask you...how did the Big Bang happen without anything existing to start it?
Something existed. A singularity, which is an infinitely dense block of matter. This began expanding and created the universe as we know it.
And just because you need something to exist to make it easy for you to get away with your argument, doesn't quite make it true that something existed. Like I said. shall I repeat? Zero point.
It has been proved (by an atheist...Dawkins) that at one point, at the very beginning of time, there was a zero point. A zero point means nothing existed. there was....zero. anything. nothing. no chemicals or gases or anything. No "singularity".
Look. Legos can't build themselves. They need something greater/outside their realm like humans to put them together.
Now take this analogy.
The physical realm can't build itself. It needs something greater/outside the physical realm to put it together.
Don't accuse me of being a religious debater. But I will say this. As a Christian, I believe that this "greater," this being "outside the physical realm" is God.
Okay. I accept this. However, there is no way we can determine anything that occurred before the Big Bang, so if God did exist, then we will have no way of determining it.
I would like to point out that nobody can 100% actually prove or know something to be true.
According to the philosopher Socrates, to claim 100% knowledge of something means to claim to be God. If you want more details, read The Best Things In Life by Kreeft.
If the Big Bang actually happened in the way accepted by science, it would have been the start of time.
You are saying that time had a beginning. Ok we're on the same page.
No photons could have moved before the Big Bang, therefore, we cannot make any observations about what happened before the Big Bang. Of course, all of this is reliant upon the existence of the Big Bang, which we seem to be temporarily accepting.
OK whoa slow down. No photons could have moved before the Big Bang. Why? You don't say but that's because they simply didn't exist. Your statement "therefore, we cannot..." is also true. But again you forget to say why. We cannot make any observations about what happened before the Big Bang because ________________ I request of you to fill in this blank.
Time had a start: The Big Bang.
Agreed.
We cannot make any observations before the Big Bang due to the fact that, before the Big Bang, the four dimensions of the universe did not exist.
Thank you. So you're answer to fill in the blank is due to the fact that, before the Big Bang, the four dimensions of the universe did not exist.
I would agree with this as well. Nobody was there to witness it and without any dimensions, it is unobservable.
But answer me this. Why is it unobservable? Is it because the four dimensions of the universe did not exist, or was it because there was nothing to observe?
The first time that something existed that would have been able to create photons was after the Big Bang.
Correct. But why? Because there was nothing?
This means that we are unable to make any observations of events that happened before the Big Bang occurred.
I don't want to know if we were able to observe what happened before the Big Bang. I want to know the origin Big Bang.
So you agree that the Big Bang occurred, and that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and that before the Big Bang, there was nothing that had any physical size to it?
I agree with everything. I have a little skepticism of how you will play with that last point, but yes, I do agree nothing physical was before the Big Bang.
So, before the Big Bang, nothing existed. Therefore, God didn't exist.
I'm not entirely sure if you read this:
Look. Legos can't build themselves. They need something greater/outside their realm like humans to put them together.
Now take this analogy.
The physical realm can't build itself. It needs something greater/outside the physical realm to put it together.
Don't accuse me of being a religious debater. But I will say this. As a Christian, I believe that this "greater," this being "outside the physical realm" is God.
God isn't limited to his own creation.
I did read it. And I accept that God existed before the Big bang. However, this has utterly no effect on the universe, as we have both agreed upon by saying that events before the Big bang cannot be observed. Therefore, that does not matter.
Ok. We both agree that God existed before the Big Bang.
You go on to say that because of this, this has utterly no effect on the universe.
You are correct that we agreed that events before the Big Bang cannot be observed.
Then you say "Therefore, that does not matter."
If I'm following you correctly, this is what I'm hearing: "Since we cannot observe events before the Big Bang, the fact that God exists has no effect on the universe."
Just because we can't observe what happened before the Big Bang doesn't say anything about if there is a God or not or if God is relevant or not.
How I'm seeing your argument is this: Because we don't know what happened before the universe was formed, we can fill it in with God. Also, I don't think that God existed before the Big Bang. I was saying that for the point of this I can accept that as a solution simply because we don't have an explanation.
You state that my argument goes as follows: Because we don't know what happened before the universe was formed, we can fill it in with God.
I would like to point out that I am not "filling in" anything with God. As a Christian, part of my worldview says that there is a supernatural God who made everything.
In our case, my statement is completely accurate: we've come to the conclusion that we need a God. I notice you always word it "fill in" with God when you forget that I am arguing for the existence of God. We don't need to "fill in" a God because I believe there already is a god.
And when you say this, do you mean to say "we" as in Darwinists?
We are trying to find the truth when we debate these topics. If you don't have an explanation, why argue for something you admit fails?
I encourage you to consider theism for a second. I encourage you to think about what the purpose of this debate is. Am I trying to hold my pride or am I trying to find the truth? Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true.
You believe that God exists. The issue with this is that you don't have the evidence to prove God's existence.
We means everyone. There is no scientific ability to explain it, as we can't observe it.
The purpose of this debate is to bring out all of the evidence for both sides so we can make an informed decision.
Also, what do you mean I'm arguing for a failed explanation?
I believe that God exists. If you want evidence to prove God's existence, look around. Go outside and take a hike. If you've taken biology, think about all the complex processes.
There is a lot of evidence for a Creator. Let's take a look at DNA super quick. That's information. Information can only come through a mind. This idea that since the world is so complex, there must be a designer, is called Intelligent Design. As a Christian I believe that the designer is God, but really, any religion could argue for Intelligent Design.
We means everyone? I am not part of the "we". I have an explanation. There is an Intelligent Designer who created everything.
You say the purpose of this debate is to bring out all of the evidence for both sides so we can make an informed decision. I would rather have this debate be to find the truth. Why else toy around with arguments and evidence?
And what I mean by saying "failed explanation" is a mis-interpretation of your usage of the word "we".
Alrighty! Well I think that'll wrap this article up. My opponent had to leave, and so we ended right here. Hopefully you got something out of this and I'm looking forward to posting more articles like this one!
Aaaand as always, thanks for reading and I'll see you next time!
~Caleb
No comments:
Post a Comment