The Existence of God

Although this debate isn't about evolution or the Big Bang Theory, I will still respond to my opponent's points. "My opponent said that it would be useless to talk about god being responsible for the universe because I would have to then explain where god came from, the same can be said about the big bang. Where did the big bang come from. I posted a video that speaks about the big bang and a little on evolution." How did the universe come into being? The Big Bang. But the Big Bang would need a cause, which must be God. But what created God? But what created the Big Bang? But what created God? But what created the Big Bang? See, this is simply circular reasoning. Scientists may never know what actually caused the Big Bang, so we should either admit that we don't know, or try to find out the answer through science. I watched the video you posted and I noticed it contains a lot of fallacies. The presenter claims that evolution could not have happened because mutations are usually harmful and are improbable. This is wrong because when a bad mutation happens, the new strain of species has less of a chance of survival. Because of this, species with harmful mutations typically die out, while the offspring with beneficial mutations typically survive. This is known as 'survival of the fittest,' and is a driving force of evolution. Mutations are not as improbable as many creationists think, because much of DNA is 'junk' information, and mutations within that are harder to detect. Also, a reason why evolution can take millions of years to occur is because major mutations aren't common. He then tries to prove that stars could not have formed in an expanding universe. This is false, because dust and gases still form space clouds, even when the space around them is expanding. The cloud then collapses due to gravity, and begins to swirl. The collapsed cloud heats up over millions of years, due to the hydrogen pulled into the swirling cloud. Once a certain temperature is reached, atoms fuse together to form Helium and a protostar is formed. The protostar gains mass until it stabilizes, and a star is formed. See, no God or supernatural powers are needed to explain the formation of stars. He then claims that if the Big Bang is right, then everything should just be expanding instead of some things rotating around others in the universe. First, everything was simply expanding. Until the planets and suns formed. The suns had much greater masses than the planets, so the planets were pulled into orbit around the suns, because of the stronger gravity emitted from the suns' mass than the planets'. Then moons formed, and were pulled into orbit around the planets. Orbit in solar systems does not mean that the universe isn't expanding. He then claims that the surface of the Earth in its early days was much like it is today. This is false, when the Earth was formed, the surface was an extremely hot toxic wasteland covering in volcanoes. He even contradicts himself, at one point of the video he says that a local flood happened to the Earth opposed to the global flood, but then he claims that the layers of the Earth are evidence of a 'global flood.' Obviously this isn't a reliable video if the presenter bases all of his arguments against "What science says" http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.odec.ca... "Another counter argument my opponent posted was that science explains most things but agreed that there are still some things that science can't explain and that is why some scientists out there do believe in god" Actually this is false, 93% of the National Academy of Science members are atheists. http://en.wikipedia.org... And over 99% of scientists in the fields of life sciences are evolutionists. http://www.talkorigins.org... "how do you describe miracles" 'Miracles' are simply events with perfectly logical scientific explanations, that either weren't known at the time, or weren't investigated. Often when things turn out far better than expected, people label it as a miracle because they think it was too good to be true. "And how do you describe ghost if ghost are real then that must mean that there is an after life and if there is an after life there must be a god." Creaks in an old house or doors opening because of pressure changes could trick people into think ghosts are haunting their houses. People who are unable to sleep for several days because of an illness might hallucinate and 'see' dead relatives while he/she is still awake. A person might confuse dreams with actual things they've experienced. Photographs of ghosts are little more than out-of-focus specks of dust or other airborne particles too close to the flash and lens of the camera. Other photographs are merely misuse of the camera. A shaky hand can cause blurs, and a person who doesn't know how to properly use the night portrait setting on a camera might see 'energy' from distant lights. When people visit a 'haunted house' they've usually been told what 'ghost' is there and where. That subconsciously biases the visitor and often causes them to 'feel' something. 'Psychics' who claim to talk to the dead are only skilled in an art called "Cold Reading". A major factor in a successful "Cold Reading" is the psychic tossing out very vague references ('I'm seeing water.') and the person being 'read' only remembering the 'hits' - the vague references the psychic got right - and forgetting the 'misses'. Still other 'experiences' of feelings of unease can be caused by very low frequency sound waves, such as from a passing vehicle, wind across an open window, etc. There is also no evidence that human bodies contain souls. "Consider this. If a paranormalist could really give an unequivocal demonstration of telepathy (precognition, psychokinesis, reincarnation, whatever it is), he would be the discoverer of a totally new principle unknown to physical science. The discoverer of the new energy field that links mind to mind in telepathy, or of the new fundamental force that moves objects around a table top, deserves a Nobel prize and would probably get one. If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake." -Richard Dawkins But let's say ghosts do exist, and there's proof of them. That still doesn't necessarily prove God, it could just mean that there are other types of energy on Earth that were unknown to us. I personally don't believe in ghosts or an afterlife, but even an afterlife doesn't mean God exists. It could mean that energy escapes humans after they die, or something similar to that. In conclusion, a significant case for the existence of God has not been presented yet. Evolution and the Big Bang both are well established scientific theories, and ghosts/an afterlife have no evidence. But even if evolution and the big bang were proven wrong and ghosts/an afterlife were proven right, it would not necessarily mean God exists.