The rules (by WolfBitn)
1) the main topic of this debate must be theorizing on the cause.. an initial cause for the BANG of the big bang. the subjects introduced for debate must at least be a beginning of groundwork to eventually lead to this end... i say i can PROVE that creationism hold at least as much, if not more, merit as any theory you hold to, and in fact is more scientificly sound a theory than any you can present
2) Topics involved can include the history of the earth, fossile finds, geology, etc, in order to allow for good foundation for theory on both sides...
3)of course the bible must be examined as well in order for me to present MY debate
4) all quesitons addressed by the opposition must be fairly and honestly addressed, but also the questioning must be fair... for instance we cant give the opposition a list of 100 questions and then proceed to not even allow time for them to answer OR present their side, so the number of quesitons asked must be reasonable... at the same time they must be addressed in a fair and honest manner
5) both sides must agree to conceed honest points of debate
6) in the end, we will see who's theories hold more merit... the creationist or the atheist
My post
The claim has been made that God is an appropriate, scientific alternative to modern theories discussing origins, for example, the Big Bang Theory. In this, rather brief post, I will demonstrate logically that God, as he is not present within spacetime, is not subject to testing (ever) and as such can never be at the root of any scientific theory:
The assumptions made in this argument are assumptions made by the scientific method and the extra assumption that God does not exist within spacetime. I justify this last assumption for the sake of this debate as follows:
(1) Whatever began to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) The universe had a cause.
(4) This cause is God, who is uncaused.
This is not my argument, and most of you will recognize it as a brute version of the Cosmological Argument. However, the assumption is made in this argument that God is not subject to time. Time, as we know, is jointly (with space) known as spacetime. Thus, if God is acausal, as he is in the First Cause argument, he must exist "outside" (so to speak) of spacetime. Also, if God were within spacetime, he would be bounded within our finite universe; contradicting the notion held of him as infinite. Thus, we can conclude that God exists outside of spacetime.
My argument against God as a reason behind science goes as follows then:
(1) F --> O, where F is falsifiability and O is observable. This follows from simple reasoning. If a principle is falsifiable, then others must be able to make an observation about it, and come either to an agreement or a disagreement. Even if all agree, the possibility does exist that a contradiction could occur.
(2) O--> S, where S is senses. Again, simple reasoning. If something is observable, it must have been derived from our senses.
(3) S-->(ST), where (ST) is spacetime. Once again, if we are to use our senses, we must use them where they make sense; in spacetime! Our senses, (take for example the eye, which utilized photons) require space and time to interact with the environment. It would make no sense to say "I saw outside the universe".
(4) G-->~(ST), where G is God. This was the assumption made before. If a God exists, it must exist outside of space and time, lest it be limited in it's power and no longer considered a God.
It follows then from our previous chain of reasoning that (making use of modus tollens):
(5) G-->~(ST)-->~S-->~O-->~F. Our conclusion is then that, if there is a god, because he does not exist within spacetime, he can thusly not interact with our senses, and is therefore not observable and so not falsifiable. This means any claim to incorporate God as science fails because it violates a fundamental requirement of the scientific method; falsifiability.
1) the main topic of this debate must be theorizing on the cause.. an initial cause for the BANG of the big bang. the subjects introduced for debate must at least be a beginning of groundwork to eventually lead to this end... i say i can PROVE that creationism hold at least as much, if not more, merit as any theory you hold to, and in fact is more scientificly sound a theory than any you can present
2) Topics involved can include the history of the earth, fossile finds, geology, etc, in order to allow for good foundation for theory on both sides...
3)of course the bible must be examined as well in order for me to present MY debate
4) all quesitons addressed by the opposition must be fairly and honestly addressed, but also the questioning must be fair... for instance we cant give the opposition a list of 100 questions and then proceed to not even allow time for them to answer OR present their side, so the number of quesitons asked must be reasonable... at the same time they must be addressed in a fair and honest manner
5) both sides must agree to conceed honest points of debate
6) in the end, we will see who's theories hold more merit... the creationist or the atheist
My post
The claim has been made that God is an appropriate, scientific alternative to modern theories discussing origins, for example, the Big Bang Theory. In this, rather brief post, I will demonstrate logically that God, as he is not present within spacetime, is not subject to testing (ever) and as such can never be at the root of any scientific theory:
The assumptions made in this argument are assumptions made by the scientific method and the extra assumption that God does not exist within spacetime. I justify this last assumption for the sake of this debate as follows:
(1) Whatever began to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) The universe had a cause.
(4) This cause is God, who is uncaused.
This is not my argument, and most of you will recognize it as a brute version of the Cosmological Argument. However, the assumption is made in this argument that God is not subject to time. Time, as we know, is jointly (with space) known as spacetime. Thus, if God is acausal, as he is in the First Cause argument, he must exist "outside" (so to speak) of spacetime. Also, if God were within spacetime, he would be bounded within our finite universe; contradicting the notion held of him as infinite. Thus, we can conclude that God exists outside of spacetime.
My argument against God as a reason behind science goes as follows then:
(1) F --> O, where F is falsifiability and O is observable. This follows from simple reasoning. If a principle is falsifiable, then others must be able to make an observation about it, and come either to an agreement or a disagreement. Even if all agree, the possibility does exist that a contradiction could occur.
(2) O--> S, where S is senses. Again, simple reasoning. If something is observable, it must have been derived from our senses.
(3) S-->(ST), where (ST) is spacetime. Once again, if we are to use our senses, we must use them where they make sense; in spacetime! Our senses, (take for example the eye, which utilized photons) require space and time to interact with the environment. It would make no sense to say "I saw outside the universe".
(4) G-->~(ST), where G is God. This was the assumption made before. If a God exists, it must exist outside of space and time, lest it be limited in it's power and no longer considered a God.
It follows then from our previous chain of reasoning that (making use of modus tollens):
(5) G-->~(ST)-->~S-->~O-->~F. Our conclusion is then that, if there is a god, because he does not exist within spacetime, he can thusly not interact with our senses, and is therefore not observable and so not falsifiable. This means any claim to incorporate God as science fails because it violates a fundamental requirement of the scientific method; falsifiability.
