Atheism

RebuttelsR1: If something can come from nothing, then that's all I need. It is all I need for the flowing reasons:1. It disproves my opponent's statement about something can not come from nothing. 2. It proves that it is possible that something such as the material need for the formation of the Universe can be brong forth through reactions of different particles. Which disproves the idea that a universal, all-powerful, and causelee god is the only why the Universe can come into existence. These particles while not lasting long since some have high amounts of energy, can also stay for long amounts of time. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that a system can never have precisely zero energy and since energy and mass are equivalent, pairs of particles can form spontaneously as long as they annihilate one another very quickly. The less energy such a system has, the longer it can stick around. Thanks to gravity – the only force that always attracts – the net energy balance of the universe may be as close to zero as you can get. This makes its lifespan of almost 14 billion years plausible [1]. Furthermore, it is not this 'Particle of the Gaps' that my opponent has stated. Particles we have observed, Quantum Mechanics we have observed, and Evolution we have observed. A god is something that has not been observed. R2: My opponent's refutation of the Fossil record is not even a refutation. He merely dismisses it with a bunch of unscientific babble that is not even worthy of a response. Fossil isn't as rare as my opponent wants to make the voters think. We have recovered 250,000 different fossilized species and the amount of fossils are in the millions [2]. DNA sequencing proves that all species share DNA with one another [3]. Virus's can even mutate into even stronger virus and can evolve a immunity against medcines and anti-viruses, so if you think take medicine then you defeat your own point of veiw because if it wasn't for Evolutionay Biology then we have died long ago from different diseases [4].Different sources may differ from time to time, just like the different versions of your Bible. It has already been proven that all species on earth including plants come from a single common ancester [5]. My opponent fails with his analogy.Science disproves my opponent yet again [6]. He should really state more sources for his claims. Also, Morality isn't objective. As David Hume argued one can not get an ought from an is [7]. Morality is relative and the proof is all throughout history. It used to be that Women could be raped and that was OK, and now it is considered wrong by the majority, Slavery used to be permissible, and now it is morally rejected by the majority, and even now the death penalty is being increasingly looked at as wrong.R3: I said that one can redifiend the word, but the concept can not be changed. My opponent does not even sources this claim, so I will dismiss it without sources. Defense of Contention 1I have not ran. It is my opponent that has put up a failed attept to prove his claim. He challeged me to this to challenge the plausability of Atheism, therefore it is up to me to defend against his claims. He is also claiming that something exists, ehich means he alone has the Burden of Proof. If I say that I say that Ghosts are real, then it is up to me to provide the evidence, or else there is not reason to assume that what I say is true. The same goes to my opponent's claims of the existence of a god.Defense of Contention 2Does my opponent have proof that god exists? There is nothing in my opponent's source that affirms his claim. The idea that he can lift a rock that he also at the same time can not lift is illogical, and proves all-powerful gods can not exist. Defense of Contention 3My opponent's first claim is unsourced, and he ignores my other two methods that are used in predicting the age of the Earth. Planets are not expanding, the galaxies are expanding and sooner or it will expand to far to where nothing will be left. Also, my opponent's last answer is ignorant. Evolution is proven, god is not nor does it have evidence. Scientists do not accept Evolution and Sciencetific facts because they hate god, it is because facts are facts!. And there is no real reason to think that gods exist.ConclusionI have disproved every single one of my opponent's claims and have defended mine. I have proven that morality is relative and not objective, I have proven that Evolution and the old age of the Earth is fact, and have proven that there is no way that a god could be so stupid as to design a Universe and take 14 billion years to do so, and make species that inheret defects, and a Universe that is on it's way to destruction by random events. I have proven that Omnipotence is impossible, I have proven that the cause of the Universe does not have to be a god, but is merely science in action. My opponent has spent most of the debate trying to disprove Evolution, however, I have fented it off and I contend that even if evolution was false and the Universe is 10,000 it does not in no way prove the existence of a god.Thank You[1]http://www.newscientist.com...[2]http://facstaff.gpc.edu...[3]Douglas J. Futuyma (1998). Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed.). Sinauer Associates Inc.. pp. 108–110.[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[6]http://news.discovery.com...[7]http://michaeljohnsonphilosophy.com...