frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





The Universe Does Not Have a Creator

Debate Information

Many people believe it does. Is their evidence to support their claims?
Evidencecheesycheese



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
44%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    The Universe cannot have a creator logically, and here is why.

    Let us assume that the Universe we know has a creator. In this case, as per definition of the Universe, that creator is a part of the larger Universe (Universe is basically "everything"). Now, if this is the original creator, then that larger Universe is the full Universe. However, that creator may have been created by another creator. Then the full Universe also features the "creator of creator". Now, there are two possibilities if we continue going up forever, layer by layer:
    1. Eventually we come to the "baseline creator" that was not created by anything. In this case, the Universe includes this creator and everything it created. This whole Universe was not created by anything, hence the Universe does not have a creator.
    2. We never come to the "baseline creator", and the loop of "creators of creators" continues infinitely. In this case, again, there is no entity that we can call the original creator, hence the full Universe was not created by anything.

    Of course, on could dispute the definition of "Universe", claiming that the Universe is only what we can perceive, and anything outside of our perceptions is not a part of it... But in this case, we have to ask the eternal philosophical question: "If we can never perceive something and interact with it, then what is the practical difference between its existence and its non-existence?"

    No matter how we try to look at it, the Universe cannot have a creator by definition.
    PieterPolaris95Zombieguy1987cheesycheese
  • JoesephJoeseph 653 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    Very well put and logically sound , what if any counters have you had to your argument by believers and were any able to offer a defense ?  
    Zombieguy1987cheesycheese
  • JoesephJoeseph 653 Pts   -  
    There is not one shred of evidence to back up the claim of a God , believers say they have a “ relationship “ with a god based on nothing but the imaginings of their own minds .

    They say their god “ exists” yet fulfills none of the criteria of existent things , the goalposts are then shifted to claim he /she / it exists and is “ supernatural “ yet not one shred of evidence exists for supernatural entities .

    It gets more ridiculous as they dismiss claims by others for their  gods which around the world are in their thousands  why ? Because there is no evidence for them .

    Their claims are based on circular reasoning , begging the question , red herrings and almost every other fallacy in the book such is the immense power of indoctrination 
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987cheesycheese
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @Joeseph

    I do not think I have ever put this argument forward in a discussion with someone who believes in a creator. That said, if I absolutely had to criticize this argument, I would point out that the argument is somewhat more on semantics than on physics. The definition of "Universe" can vary, specifically, depending on the outlook.

    For example, some of the Multiverse theories assume the possibility of interaction between the Universe. My argument would conclude that all of these "Universes" form one large entity which is Universe, since it encompasses all the physics that affect us - however, when someone says that there are "multiple Universes" according to this theory, we both understand what they mean.

    Similarly, take the world depicted in the Matrix movies. One could say that the simulated world is the Universe, and the non-simulated world is outside the Universe, with the machines in it being the Universe creators. I would say that the Universe encompasses both worlds, and the non-simulated world is a "more genuine" Universe, but, again, this would be an argument on semantics.

    Ultimately, it comes down to what we mean by "the Universe". It is hard to give a strict definition to such a fundamental term that we typically use with the assumption that its meaning is clear to everyone.
    Zombieguy1987
  • pocopoco 93 Pts   -  
    You seem to assume that a creator MUST follow your rules of logic. 

    I see you have a definition of a universe that must include "everything."   Please tell me how you know this definition is the holy grail, & one & only definition of a universe.  Please include your definition & cite it.

    Your "logic" assumes things.  That type of "logic" isn't logical tho is it?  It is a logical fallacy (post hoc), therefore cannot be used in a conclusion taken seriously.  Using, "if this, then that," as a basis of your argument has no real argument.  I suppose you are not attempting to make this a logical & serious argument are you? 
    Your #1 conclusion is guilty of this, especially when you have assumed something else with the use of, "may have been created by another creator."
    Your assumption cannot lead to a logical conclusion.  To make a sound argument, one must not use assumptions.  Both of your "possibilities" are based upon your argument that there exists layers of creators.  Ummmm, out of no where, you come to the conclusion that, "... hence the full Universe was not created by anything."  You never even attempt to make an argument that proves your claims of these layers of creators.  One just has to take for granted that your previous claims are true, which no one knows for sure right? 

    & if our universe is constantly expanding, does it just grow larger & make itself larger, or ..... just explain how our universe is a certain length one minute, then larger the next?  What is beyond the universe one minute, becomes the universe the next.  So, where does the universe get the extra real estate from?

    Why does your creator have to be included in this universe?  Just wondering if the creator is powerful & smart enough to create the Big Bang, wouldn't He/She have a much higher plane of knowledge & understanding than we could ever think of?  The question then is, why attempt to put this creator in a box when you're not sure of what the creator is capable of doing? 

    Your "philosophical" insert has nothing to do with supporting your argument.  It just attempts to form another argument in philosophical terms.  An age old question that only deals with sense perception philosophically, which has been a preoccupation of philosophers for centuries.

    Please tell me how unsubstantiated assumptions & an unanswered philosophical question can lead to your conclusion of, "No matter how we try to look at it, the Universe cannot have a creator by definition." 



    EvidencePieterZombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @poco

    Any logic has to make assumptions. With no assumptions, there is no baseline to build on, no train of thought can be built, and hence no conclusion can be reached. 

    In my logic, I make a simple assumption: "Universe includes everything that exists". In turn, I define "to exist" as "to be interactable with by us". Taking these assumptions, I investigate the possibilities of this Universe being created by some entity and, by considering all of them, come to the conclusion that a creator of the Universe cannot exist by definition of the "Universe" and of "to exist". A different definition of these terms could lead to a different conclusion.
    For example, if the Universe is only defined by the observable space-time of the expanding Universe around us, then a creator theoretically can exist outside of it, interactable, but beyond our grasp at the moment. There is no scientific evidence for such a situation, but logically it is not impossible.
    Or if we define "to exist" differently, including in it entities that cannot interact with us, then, strictly speaking, anything can exist.

    Of course, all of this assumes that the creator exists in the same "logical space" as us. If the creator does not follow our rules of logic (specifically, what defines our logic: causality principle), then we cannot describe this creator by our language, which, in terms, obeys the rules of logic. If we cannot describe the creator with our language, then, again, we must question if its "existence" means anything to us, aside from a philosophical construct. I take the stance that anything that exists must be describable; if it is not the case, then the whole scientific method crumbles, and that is truly a dire scenario.

    As for the Universe expanding - the current scientific stance is that it does not "expand" physically in some empty space. It expands in the sense that the measured distance between two points with the same velocity vector in the comoving coordinates increases with time in the physical coordinates. This explanation is somewhat convoluted, but let us just say that it is the space itself that expands, and it expands in itself, it does not expand relative to some bigger entity.
    There is no "beyond Universe" according to modern science - although various Multiverse and Simulation theories are regularly proposed. The Universe does not grow as a large bubble; rather, as a baked bread of an infinite size, at each point it becomes more and more stretched. The matter density drops steadily, as well as the distance between "static" objects.
    When we say that the Universe has a certain radius, what we mean is that at each point that radius is how far you can detect anything; it does not mean that the Universe is a sphere with you in the middle, but it does mean that the observable Universe is.

    Regardless, like I said above, this debate comes down to defining the terminology properly. Different definitions of "creator", "Universe" and "existence" lead to different answers to the possible options with regards to the original question.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Mr_BombasticMr_Bombastic 144 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    The universe is a place of order.  It's very existence is the result of the universal physical constants. The physical constants are immaterial, yet they affect the material universe. If there is no Creator,  then how can there be a physical universe that obeys physical laws? Also,  where did those laws come from? Without a Creator,  you are forced to admit that all of creation was caused by nothing. Which makes more sense? Nothing physical can create itself. Therefore,  it requires a Creator.  Simple logic. And God does not require a creator because He doesn't not have a physical nature. He is the original cause who was not caused. 
    with_all_humilityEvidencePieterZombieguy1987cheesycheese
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @Mr_Bombastic

    First of all, this argument is not self-consistent. "Physical" is a human concept, it is related purely to our ability to interact with something. What is not physical, is not interactable, hence effectively is not a part of the world. If the creator is a part of our world, then it is physical, hence it obeys the same causality principle as the Universe itself - so your question applies to the creator as much as it does to the Universe.

    And as it has already been said in other threads, the Universe does not have to come from "something". "Something", again, is a human concept; "nothing" is also "something", by the very definition of "something". Regardless of where the Universe came from, if at all, this argument really does not favor the possibility of it being artificially created in any way. If the Universe could be created artificially, then it also could appear naturally, since everything that can be used to create something artificial is a part of nature.

    This is not about what "makes sense"; this is about what is logically sound and what is supported by evidence. The existence of the Universe is supported by evidence; the existence of the creator is not. Hence the Universe exists, while the creator may or may not exist.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Mr_BombasticMr_Bombastic 144 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar We live in a PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. It is a scientific fact that nothing physical can create itself. That leaves us with two possibilities.  The universe always existed, or it was created. The first is a scientific impossibility, due to the law of entropy. So,  the universe could not have created itself, and an eternal universe is impossible. That only leaves one possibility. We've eliminated the impossible,  so whatever is left must be the truth. The universe was created. 
    PieterZombieguy1987cheesycheese
  • pocopoco 93 Pts   -  

    you:  Any logic has to make assumptions. With no assumptions, there is no baseline to build on, no train of thought can be built, and hence no conclusion can be reached.

    me:  While I agree that some assumptions can be made, making assumptions does not justify a valid conclusion, altho it may be a valid argument in the logic world bc it follows the logic supplied in the argument.  It may follow your logic assuming these things, but they have to be valid (true) to be considered a TRUE conclusion. 

    Using a logical argument, one can say things that are not true, yet the argument can be a valid logical argument such as:
    All actors are robots
    Tom Cruise is an actor
    Therefore, Tom Cruise is a robot.

    Above is an example of a valid logical argument, altho it is far from the truth.


    you:  In my logic, I make a simple assumption: "Universe includes everything that exists". In turn, I define "to exist" as "to be interactable with by us". Taking these assumptions, I investigate the possibilities of this Universe being created by some entity and, by considering all of them, come to the conclusion that a creator of the Universe cannot exist by definition of the "Universe" and of "to exist". A different definition of these terms could lead to a different conclusion.
    For example, if the Universe is only defined by the observable space-time of the expanding Universe around us, then a creator theoretically can exist outside of it, intractable, but beyond our grasp at the moment. There is no scientific evidence for such a situation, but logically it is not impossible.
    Or if we define "to exist" differently, including in it entities that cannot interact with us, then, strictly speaking, anything can exist.

    me:  Forgive me then, I thought your conclusion was to be considered as truth that followed your assumptions, while the conclusion only follows your argument from a logical point of view by rule, not by any truth whatsoever.


    you:  Of course, all of this assumes that the creator exists in the same "logical space" as us. If the creator does not follow our rules of logic (specifically, what defines our logic: causality principle), then we cannot describe this creator by our language, which, in terms, obeys the rules of logic. If we cannot describe the creator with our language, then, again, we must question if its "existence" means anything to us, aside from a philosophical construct. I take the stance that anything that exists must be describable; if it is not the case, then the whole scientific method crumbles, and that is truly a dire scenario.

    me:  I understand your reasoning, altho wonder why you would limit "existence?"  Have we not found living creatures on earth that we would have never believed existed b4 at the time of discovery throughout history?  As our own scientific world expands, do we not go back to the drawing board at times?  Just look at Newton theory of gravity.  With Einstein's theory of relativity, gravity had to go back to that proverbial drawing board in a way.  & in the last few years, dark energy & matter brings up new questions. 
    Do new discoveries that change scientific theories, (that's why they are called theories rather than facts in science) give to the scientific method a crumbling future?  Of course not.



    you:  As for the Universe expanding - the current scientific stance is that it does not "expand" physically in some empty space.
    It expands in the sense that the measured distance between two points with the same velocity vector in the comoving coordinates increases with time in the physical coordinates. This explanation is somewhat convoluted, but let us just say that it is the space itself that expands, and it expands in itself, it does not expand relative to some bigger entity.
    There is no "beyond Universe" according to modern science - although various Multiverse and Simulation theories are regularly proposed. The Universe does not grow as a large bubble; rather, as a baked bread of an infinite size, at each point it becomes more and more stretched. The matter density drops steadily, as well as the distance between "static" objects.

    me:  It is said that since dark energy & matter is the dominant space component, it expands along with everything else.  & since it is the dominant factor by far, it expands the universe as it expands.
    I'll certainly agree that the universe is, for all intent & purposes, infinite in size. 
    My previous question re this was to try to understand where you were coming from.  Thanx.


    you:  When we say that the Universe has a certain radius, what we mean is that at each point that radius is how far you can detect anything; it does not mean that the Universe is a sphere with you in the middle, but it does mean that the observable Universe is.

    me:  True


    you:  Regardless, like I said above, this debate comes down to defining the terminology properly. Different definitions of "creator", "Universe" and "existence" lead to different answers to the possible options with regards to the original question.

    me:  Since this is the religious section, I assumed, my bad, that you were attempting to "prove" something that many troll atheists attempt ...... that there is no intelligent design.  We do not not know enough either way at this point.

    cheesycheeseZombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited August 2018
    @Mr_Bombastic First, this is not what the law of entropy states. Second, you are still applying the same effect-cause connection to things it is not applicable to - I explained in another thread why this is the case. Third, the Universe could appear naturally; it did not have to be created by some outside entity, or have existed eternally. 


    @poco

    Any truth can only be established with certain assumptions in mind. With no assumptions whatsoever, no claim has any meaning. "2+2=4" makes no sense if we have not made assumptions about what "2", "+", "=" and "4" symbols mean, for example. Language itself includes certain assumptions by its design, but as you can see from this disagreement, those assumptions may differ between speakers.

    "Existence" is a core concept that ties a data to its interpretation. In case the data is absent, or the interpretation is impossible - the conclusion on the existence of something cannot be made. Something that exists, but cannot be measured in principle and explained, is somewhat of an oxymoron. 
    New forms of existence can be discovered over time, indeed. However, they all fall into the category of existence based on us being able to collect data on it and explain it. If one of these two is not possible, then pretty much any logical apparatus following Occam's Razor principle fails. And logical apparatuses not following it are arguably fallacious by their very design.

    With regards to the intelligent design, I did not consider it in my responses. I looked at this discussion from philosophical and logical point of view; now I see how it can be taken differently, based on the discussion being a part of the Religious section. 
    I would say that the intelligence of the design necessitates the analysis of the world outside the Universe, if such a world exists. Analyzing the Universe itself and cross-matching it with logical arguments, we can only investigate the question on whether the Universe was created from outside itself or not. If it was created, then a further analysis of the creation history is needed to be able to assess whether the design was intelligent, or spontaneous.

    I see that we are on the same page here, we are just looking at this question from different perspectives.
  • EtrnlVwEtrnlVw 32 Pts   -  
    @logicalcat181 I don't think so IMO, their beliefs would have to be squarely based on interpretation of certain sources of information, opinions, perceptions and worldviews/ideologies and perhaps misconceptions but not facts or evidence. All the universal facts about the Creator and the soul are based on observation/experience, common sense, reason and repeatable experiences so there's no true justification of its absence.
    John 17

    21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

    22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

    23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.


  • pocopoco 93 Pts   -  
    you:  "Existence" is a core concept that ties a data to its interpretation. In case the data is absent, or the interpretation is impossible - the conclusion on the existence of something cannot be made. Something that exists, but cannot be measured in principle and explained, is somewhat of an oxymoron. 
    New forms of existence can be discovered over time, indeed. However, they all fall into the category of existence based on us being able to collect data on it and explain it. If one of these two is not possible, then pretty much any logical apparatus following Occam's Razor principle fails. And logical apparatuses not following it are arguably fallacious by their very design.


    me:  How about having faith in something?  Could be anything we are not 100% sure of.  Like love, loyalty, quality & impression of beauty & art (5 different artists painting the same subject, yet the resulting artworks are very different from each other), God, & many other aspects of daily occurrences that we believe to be true & therefore have faith in what we believe that cannot be proven with 100% accuracy at the time we believe in them.
    I believe conclusions re faith cannot be made according to your 1st paragraph correct? 

    you:  With regards to the intelligent design ..."

    me:  It seems that this argument is impossible to have bc of the lack of data ..... at leas for now.

    I believe we do not have the required data re evolution of the human species either if we look at it from the perspective that God could have used evolution as a means to bring humans from the slime to where we are now.  True, we are missing that crucial direct link, yet that argument cannot take place until we have more pieces of understanding.


    Pieter
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    logicalcat181 said: The Universe Does Not Have a Creator

    Many people believe it does. Is their evidence to support their claims?
    And then he left the O.P. hanging. Like I want to waste my time on Troll-posts!?
    Erfisflat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @poco

    I do not need to have faith in love or beauty, because I know how they work. Love is a product of chemical reactions in our bodies appearing as a result of consistent pleasurable sensory inputs associated with a given entity, wiring up strong neural connections in our brains making us relieve those feelings every time we think of those inputs or receive them again. Beauty is similar, only it taps into our imaginative, "artistic", side, rather than our romantic one.

    Faith just seems to be an expression of wishful thinking to me. When someone says, "I have faith that my spouse loves me", what they really mean is, "I really hope my spouse loves me, because if he/she does not, then it would be very hurtful". But the concept of "hope" and the concept of "existence" are different things.

    Could there be a creator? Yes. Is there any practical reason to believe the creator exists? I would say no. Can we prove that the creator does not exist? Probably no, but nor do we need to: our scientific theories explain our observations very well, and a presence of unknown part of the equation that is not needed to explain the observations is not something that should be considered for the lack of a very good reason, in my opinion.
    ErfisflatEvidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @poco

    I do not need to have faith in love or beauty, because I know how they work. Love is a product of chemical reactions in our bodies appearing as a result of consistent pleasurable sensory inputs associated with a given entity, wiring up strong neural connections in our brains making us relieve those feelings every time we think of those inputs or receive them again. Beauty is similar, only it taps into our imaginative, "artistic", side, rather than our romantic one.

    Faith just seems to be an expression of wishful thinking to me. When someone says, "I have faith that my spouse loves me", what they really mean is, "I really hope my spouse loves me, because if he/she does not, then it would be very hurtful". But the concept of "hope" and the concept of "existence" are different things.

    Could there be a creator? Yes. Is there any practical reason to believe the creator exists? I would say no. Can we prove that the creator does not exist? Probably no, but nor do we need to: our scientific theories explain our observations very well, and a presence of unknown part of the equation that is not needed to explain the observations is not something that should be considered for the lack of a very good reason, in my opinion.
    @MayCaesar I-do-not-need-to-have-faith-in-love-or-beauty-because-I-know-how-they-work-Love-is-a-pro-duct-of-chemical-reactions-in our-bodies-appearing-as-a-result-of-consistent-pleasurable-sensory-inputs-associated-with-a-given-entity-wiring-up-strong-neural connections-in-our-brains-making-us-relieve-those-feelings-every-time-we-think-of-those-inputs-or-receive-them-again-Beauty-is-similar, only-it-taps-into-our-imaginative-"artistic"-side-rather-than-our-romantic-one-beep

    Image result for pic of asimo  Image result for pic of spock  Related image
    Love-is-a-pro-duct-of-chemical-reactions-in our-bodies  live-long-and-prosper-May-Caesar       can-you-spell-i-l-u-m-i-n-a-t-i

                                                                                                                                                          Image result for upside down illuminati sign

                                                                                                                                                                               Nano-Nano!



  • MayCaesar said:
    The Universe cannot have a creator logically, and here is why.

    Let us assume that the Universe we know has a creator. In this case, as per definition of the Universe, that creator is a part of the larger Universe (Universe is basically "everything"). Now, if this is the original creator, then that larger Universe is the full Universe. However, that creator may have been created by another creator. Then the full Universe also features the "creator of creator". Now, there are two possibilities if we continue going up forever, layer by layer:
    1. Eventually we come to the "baseline creator" that was not created by anything. In this case, the Universe includes this creator and everything it created. This whole Universe was not created by anything, hence the Universe does not have a creator.
    2. We never come to the "baseline creator", and the loop of "creators of creators" continues infinitely. In this case, again, there is no entity that we can call the original creator, hence the full Universe was not created by anything.

    Of course, on could dispute the definition of "Universe", claiming that the Universe is only what we can perceive, and anything outside of our perceptions is not a part of it... But in this case, we have to ask the eternal philosophical question: "If we can never perceive something and interact with it, then what is the practical difference between its existence and its non-existence?"

    No matter how we try to look at it, the Universe cannot have a creator by definition.
    Th universe has a creator for if it had not. It would be named something else. logically.
  • PieterPieter 40 Pts   -  
    Okeeeyy! I am a late debater in this one. I take the stance of those who believe in the existence of a Creator.

    To those who do not, I want to ask a few simple questions:
    1. What do you define as a fact? You claim that we have no evidence to support the existence of a Creator. I disagree. We have perfectly sound evidence of a Creator, namely: Our bible (if you're a Christian like me) - hold tight with me on this one. I believe in a Creator because it was written down. Much like you believe in the existence of Julius Ceaser. What evidence do we have of either's existence but what has been written down by those who knew them?

    2. How do you explain the start (if not creation) of the Universe? From our scientific observations: Something cannot come from nothing. However, the existence of the Universe is very evident so presumably it had to 'start' somewhere. Where did it start? How did it start?

    3. Quite close to #2, how do you explain the existence of Space, Time and everything else that forms our Reality? Even Time had to start somewhere.

    4. If the Universe (and everything that came with it) was not created, then we have to assume that we are 'creating' math, 'creating' science and 'creating' everything else instead of exploring already created patterns, rules and sequences. So then are we 'creating' evolution? And if evolution is 'created', does it really exist - seeing that under different circumstances we might never have created this thing we call evolution?

    5. Quite close to #4, how do you explain the existence of genders? Did we 'create' genders? Genders couldn't just have happened you know... You kinda need genders to reproduce.

    6. How do you explain the existence of Truth? And if you can't, then firstly, is evolution true? I mean, given that there cannot be a higher calling, or truth, then what is the truth? Secondly, what are you doing? If there is no such thing as an objective truth, then why roam the internet for it, spend thousands of dollars on college education seeking it, always wanting it?

    This last question is my strongest point. You see my friend evolutionist: If the truth is not founded within the existence of an All-Good Almighty Creator, then truth would vary from the perspective of every person. We would all be relativists, and no such thing as 'The Truth' could exist. Think about the absurdity of it: Robbery, rape, murder, every thing considered 'bad' would only be bad for those who happen to consider it bad. In the eyes of the one who did them, they were completely rational and good. He did what he thought best. So why punish him? And let's not stop there shall we, since we are talking about it, why do we spend any time or money on something that does not give us direct pleasure? If man's only purpose is to produce more of himself (I'm quoting Richard Dawkins btw) then what are you doing? Shouldn't you at least be trying to produce more of yourself? I mean, this isn't exactly the most effective way of doing it. You're quite wasting your 'reproduction' time on this website advocating a case that is not true to anyone but yourself. 

    That my friend is the absurdity of being a Rational Atheist.

    Please note, English is not my mother tongue. I sometimes have difficulty in expressing my thoughts directly in a second language. Secondly, my knowledge of science may be surpassed by many, I am but 18 years old and with a poor education in science. I am very fond of logic though, so the idea of this argument was to show to the reader the ridiculousness of being an atheist, not from a scientific point of view, but from a logical point of view. 

    I hope you found this interesting. Please challenge my ideas if you don't agree. I'd be happy to debate their truthness! (no pun intended)

    Happy Debating!
    Evidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Pieter ; excellent points, of course creation has a Creator, .. everything has a creator, .. except God/Infinite, right?

    Have you looked into the Flat Earth Reality yet, because if you haven't, you're in luck, our friend @Erfisflat has just about all the answers you'll need to come back down from imaginary sci-fi space, to Gods Flat Earth!
    As a Believer, this would be one of the most eye opening things you will ever face, Truth from real scientific observed perspectives, and not just a bunch of paintings of god-planets like Mars, Venus, Jupiter etc. with fantastic; "Once upon a time millions and billions of years ago, .." fairytales.

    God bless you friend!
    Pieter
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    Pieter said:

    1. What do you define as a fact? You claim that we have no evidence to support the existence of a Creator. I disagree. We have perfectly sound evidence of a Creator, namely: Our bible (if you're a Christian like me) - hold tight with me on this one. I believe in a Creator because it was written down. Much like you believe in the existence of Julius Ceaser. What evidence do we have of either's existence but what has been written down by those who knew them?
    There are very few things that can be called strict facts; for example, 2+2=4 is a fact. Most of the things science postulates are models closely fitting reality, not facts. Existence of Caesar in the past is not a hard fact, but it is very likely the case, given the evidence we need.

    We do not think that Caesar has existed because of a book. We think that Caesar has existed because of countless written testimonies, including his own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico We cross-reference all of those testimonies with archaeological and geological data, as well as with testimonies and the data from other historical periods connected in various ways to Julius' time. We see a very strong agreement between various pieces of evidence and very little contradiction, if any - hence we are fairly sure that Caesar existed, and we are fairly sure we know a lot about what he was like and what he did.

    This is what separates history from religion: in history, we do a lot of this cross-referencing and only state something as a historical event when a large amount of evidence aligns very well with the hypothesis of that event having taken place. In religion this is not done; even more so, religious books contain a lot of claims that not only are not reproducible, but contradictory to the results of that reproduction. Caesar documented a lot of weaponry Romans used at the time, and we can find a lot of evidence of that weaponry, including the remains of the actual weapons and various independent accounts. On the other hand, we cannot find any evidence of a talking snake from Eden's Garden, and everything we know about the physical properties of the Universe tells us that talking snakes on Earth do not exist and have never existed.

    In addition, it is important to separate historical science from historical mythology. There is a lot of hypotheses that are not supported by hard evidence, but nonetheless make their way into the popularized version of history. For example, returning to Caesar, the popular story tells that, when he was assaulted by a group of senators with knives, he saw his nephew, Brutus, among them and asked: "Et tu, Brute?" ("Even you, Brutus?")
    In reality, performing cross-referencing between the evidence behind the claims on this story, we find that it most likely has originated in several accounts written or verbally told by storytellers - that was popularized due to how glorious the story sounded. When it comes to hard science, we are not even sure if Brutus was present in the assault, let alone if he got to put a dagger into his uncle's chest, let alone if Caesar got to say something beyond "Uuuuuuaarrrghhhh!". 
    It is very hard for historians to separate between realistic accounts, and made-up stories, and that is why it takes many centuries of hard research to reconstruct what happened several millennia ago.

    Pieter said:

    2. How do you explain the start (if not creation) of the Universe? From our scientific observations: Something cannot come from nothing. However, the existence of the Universe is very evident so presumably it had to 'start' somewhere. Where did it start? How did it start?

    3. Quite close to #2, how do you explain the existence of Space, Time and everything else that forms our Reality? Even Time had to start somewhere.
    This is a pretty popular misconception, and I think the poorly chosen name for the dominant theory - "the Big Bang" - is to blame for this. Many people visualize it as an empty space in which suddenly a lot of matter appeared in one dot and exploded with a bang, spreading all around - much like, say, nuclear bombs do.

    The reality is much more complicated. The theory states that the space-time itself as we know it appeared at the moment of Big Bang. "Something" does not come from "nothing", because there was always "something": "before the Big Bang" makes no sense from our physical perspective, and the time as we know it can only be traced back down to the moment of Big Bang (or slightly lower than the moment of Big Bang) - "time" loses meaning beyond that point.

    To explain all of this properly would take a lot of time, and would require a pretty solid background in quantum mechanics and particle physics. Suffice to say that the spacetime with all the primal matter in it appears to have been in extremely dense state at some point, which, extrapolated further, leads to the Big Bang claims. Strictly speaking, our modern physics breaks at some point, so everything beyond that is our assumptions based on extrapolation of the known data, rather than strict analysis of just that data.

    Pieter said:

    4. If the Universe (and everything that came with it) was not created, then we have to assume that we are 'creating' math, 'creating' science and 'creating' everything else instead of exploring already created patterns, rules and sequences. So then are we 'creating' evolution? And if evolution is 'created', does it really exist - seeing that under different circumstances we might never have created this thing we call evolution?
    What we create are models, concepts, representations, interpretations. Evolution has always existed regardless of our idea of it; evolution is a natural way for complex entities to change over time, and it is dictated by basic properties of the Universe. What we call "evolution" is our description of that way. We created the description, but we did not create the way.

    And yes, indeed - under different circumstances, we might not have come across the idea of evolution. For example, it is possible that there is a civilization that appeared as a result of a technical collapse of the previous very advanced developed AI civilization, with all the historical data purged in the process. Seeing no living organisms around them, aside from the static AIs just like them, they might never need to conceive the idea of natural evolution, since that idea has never been needed to describe their observational data.

    That said, I doubt many real civilizations have managed to miss the evolution theory. As long as the civilization living in a more or less bio-diverse environment develops a systematic way of learning about the world around it and starts making basic observation, it will quickly notice the pattern of living beings adapting to their environment and changing accordingly.

    Pieter said:

    5. Quite close to #4, how do you explain the existence of genders? Did we 'create' genders? Genders couldn't just have happened you know... You kinda need genders to reproduce.
    Many creatures - fungi being one example - reproduce without genders. Genders, or rather, sexes ("gender" in English has a different connotation and relates more to the being's role in the collective), have appeared naturally as a way to streamline and, simultaneously, effectively limit reproduction, confining it to the demands of the given environment. Most more-or-less sizable creatures feature sexes, which indicates that they emerged a very long time ago - hundreds millions years ago, to be more precise.

    Pieter said:

    6. How do you explain the existence of Truth? And if you can't, then firstly, is evolution true? I mean, given that there cannot be a higher calling, or truth, then what is the truth? Secondly, what are you doing? If there is no such thing as an objective truth, then why roam the internet for it, spend thousands of dollars on college education seeking it, always wanting it?
    Different people will answer these questions differently. As a scientist and just a very curious individual, to me truth is a goal in itself: I am interested in knowing how the world works, because I find it fascinating. As a civilization in general, truth is important to us, because when we know the truth, we also know how to use it to improve our quality of life. Knowing the truth about how electricity works, for example, led us to creating complex machinery and significantly improved our lives through automatization and effective resource utilization.

    As for what "truth" is... Defining it has been a subject of debates among philosophers for many millennia. To me, truth is something that is supported by evidence hard enough for me to not allow any reasonable room for error.
    If someone says, "I was at a grocery store yesterday", and I look in their fridge and see fresh tomatoes in it, and I do not think they have a good reason to lie to me - then I assume that they are telling the truth. On the other hand, if someone says, "These apples normally sell for $2 per lb", while I have shopped in many places and saw them at $1 per lb in most of them - then this claim is false.

    Whether something one sees as truth is actually objective truth (if there is even such a thing) is another matter. But suffice to say that science is not really about seeking "truth". Science is about accurately and reproducibly describing the reality around us. Everything science states are simply models, the most solid of which are known to work in nearly 100% situations they might be used. But there is always some room for error, hence, strictly speaking, truth cannot be uncovered by humans.

    Pieter said:

    This last question is my strongest point. You see my friend evolutionist: If the truth is not founded within the existence of an All-Good Almighty Creator, then truth would vary from the perspective of every person. We would all be relativists, and no such thing as 'The Truth' could exist. Think about the absurdity of it: Robbery, rape, murder, every thing considered 'bad' would only be bad for those who happen to consider it bad. In the eyes of the one who did them, they were completely rational and good. He did what he thought best. So why punish him? And let's not stop there shall we, since we are talking about it, why do we spend any time or money on something that does not give us direct pleasure? If man's only purpose is to produce more of himself (I'm quoting Richard Dawkins btw) then what are you doing? Shouldn't you at least be trying to produce more of yourself? I mean, this isn't exactly the most effective way of doing it. You're quite wasting your 'reproduction' time on this website advocating a case that is not true to anyone but yourself. 
    We as a society do not punish people because they have sinned. We do not aim to punish people in the first place, strictly speaking. Our laws aim to defend people's fundamental rights from being abused by other people. We put people in jail or fine them to discourage certain behaviors violating people's rights, to isolate them from others to prevent further violations, and to rehabilitate them and to make them into productive members of the society. This is not always the case, and we have not completely risen over our primal instincts for violence and vengeance - but we are getting there, slowly but surely.

    With regards to the Dawkins' claim, it feels like it has been taken out of context. It is true that evolution favors reproduction strongly - but it is not true that our only purpose is to reproduce. Different individuals have different priorities. I, for one, do not care about reproduction, and I am absolutely fine with dying without having contributed to reproduction myself. People have the natural drive for reproduction (this is why sex is so pleasurable, for example), but this drive differs between people, and sometimes it is cast aside for ideological or practical reasons.

    ---

    I hope this sheds some light on the weak points of these arguments. ;) Peace.
  • PieterPieter 40 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    Thanks for your response. I disagree with most of what you said, but you stated it neatly. I would love to further go through with this debate, but I am quite busy for the moment. Can we take this further in PM?
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    If the universe had a creator then...

    Who created the creator?
    Polaris95Evidence
  • PieterPieter 40 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    @Zombieguy1987

    You see, the difference between Christians and atheists is that Christians acknowledge the fact that we cannot explain the logic of our version of how everything came to be. We don't have to. If you believe in a Being Who created our reality, then that Being will have He's own reality, something completely not liable to any of the scientific or logic rules from our reality. He created our reality, he will not be subject to it. That makes sense right? I mean, if I created a computer program then logically I wouldn't be subject to the rules I used for my program. I am above it.

    Let's take the evolutionist's view for a moment. Something came out of nothing. Follow me here, despite claiming that even nothing is something, something had to come from somewhere. How did it start? And unfortunately, you don't want to admit that we cannot explain it, so you invent a lot of ways that supposedly, something can come from nothing. Just think about it for a second. Nothing exploded... I am literally laughing right now. Do you know the definition of nothing? Not anything; no single thing. 

    You claim that evolution is rooted in science. How many times through history has science changed? Newton invented gravity, the earth was pulling us to it. Then came Einstein and proved that this was all wrong. The earth wasn't pulling us to it, space was pushing us away. Is the earth really orbiting the sun, because strictly speaking after Einstein's work, the sun could actually be orbiting the earth. 

    Scientific schoolbooks and other scientific formulas has to adjusted every year because we realize every year that we have been making mistakes in our assumptions. Science is not that clear after all.

    If we want to read from the past, we need to remember a few things. We can only look at page 2018. We may think that the discovery of a new fossil is actually looking back thousands of years, but we are just looking at the remains of what may have happened thousands of years ago. We can only look at the world through pictures. There is no written down history of the earth.

    If the earth is really that old, undeniably, then why can't evolutionists agree on an age? They seem to differ more than east differs from west!

    You're saying God doesn't exist because from what we know, it is impossible. Yet, from what we knew in the early 1400's, a lot of fruits, vegetables, and other stuff didn't exist. Did the fact that we didn't have evidence of the existence of say potatoes change their existence? Of course not. Potatoes does not exist because we know they exist, their existence is founded within themselves. They will exist whether we know of it or not. New species of animals are founded every year. You can't say something doesn't exist just because you don't have prove of it's existence. You need to have definite prove of it's non-existence for it not to exist. And no theory can prove that something does not exist. Why? Because a theory is a conclusion drawn from interpretation of certain facts. These facts (science) has been altered throughout history, and are therefore untrustworthy to say the least. Therefore, evolution only exists as long as it cannot be proven to be wrong. Doesn't that sound quite exactly like the definition of faith? God only exists as long as it cannot be proven to be wrong. Hey now who would have thought it! Evolution was a religion after all! The most pathetic of all religions if I may say so. Wasting your time trying to prove why you believe what you believe, and yet, it makes not much difference from your own worldview whether the earth was created or happened by chance, I mean, from your worldview we only have 80 years to live, so why not spend your 80 years more pleasant than arguing over something that you cannot prove? (Theory definition: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.)
    Zombieguy1987Evidence
  • PieterPieter 40 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    A theory is a supposition to explain a certain something. But, from any given something, unlimited possible theories can arise, and with every one being proven wrong, a new set of unlimited possible theories could arise to prove that the original one is right, within a certain set of circumstances. Therefore, no theory can ever be proven right, or wrong.

    My example: You have a theory that the moon is made of rocks and sand. I don't agree. The moon is made from cheese. OK so what can you do? You can send a spaceship to take a picture and then send it to me, but I simply have to argue that the cheese is covered by a thin layer of sand. You can send someone to bring me a rock from the moon, but I'll just say that this is a special kind of cheese that turns into rock as soon as someone touches it. Similarly, I can never prove that you are wrong. 

    A theory then, is just another faith, because it can never be proven, and hence require faith to be believed. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • Polaris95Polaris95 147 Pts   -  
    @Pieter

    But faith based on evidence and logical conclusions is different from blind faith. In science a theory is presumed false until proven otherwise. If the existence of a god was a scientific theory, then it would be presumed false, because there is no evidence. On another thread you said the bible counted as evidence, yet using your reasoning, Judaism, Islam and the like are also true. You also say that the bible has no contradictions, yet the biggest one lies in god himself. In the bible he is represented as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If he is all-knowing, how can free will exist? If he is all-powerful, can he create a rock too heavy for him to lift it? If he can, he is not omnipotent, and if he can't he is still not omnipotent. If he is omnibenevolent, how is their evil in this world? If he simply can't stop it, then he is not omnipotent. If he chooses not to stop evil, then he is not omnibenevolent.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    @Pieter ;
    "Christians acknowledge the fact we cannot explain the logic of our version of how everything came to be"

    That, Pieter, is what people call blind faith.

     
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    Pieter said:
    A theory is a supposition to explain a certain something. But, from any given something, unlimited possible theories can arise, and with every one being proven wrong, a new set of unlimited possible theories could arise to prove that the original one is right, within a certain set of circumstances. Therefore, no theory can ever be proven right, or wrong.

    My example: You have a theory that the moon is made of rocks and sand. I don't agree. The moon is made from cheese. OK so what can you do? You can send a spaceship to take a picture and then send it to me, but I simply have to argue that the cheese is covered by a thin layer of sand. You can send someone to bring me a rock from the moon, but I'll just say that this is a special kind of cheese that turns into rock as soon as someone touches it. Similarly, I can never prove that you are wrong. 

    A theory then, is just another faith, because it can never be proven, and hence require faith to be believed. 



    That has got to be the worst example I've seen in the history of examples, ever.

    If NASA or whomever sent a spaceship to the moon, they wouldn't take a picture, they'd land on the surface, take a small rock from the moon, put it on a plate, and tell you:

    "If you think this is cheese, eat it. If you can finish it, we'll give you 100,000,000 dollars, and if you fail, we'll take the whole world you still believe the moon's made out of cheese"
  • PieterPieter 40 Pts   -  
    @Polaris95

    But faith based on evidence and logical conclusions is different from blind faith. In science a theory is presumed false until proven otherwise. If the existence of a god was a scientific theory, then it would be presumed false, because there is no evidence. On another thread you said the bible counted as evidence, yet using your reasoning, Judaism, Islam and the like are also true. You also say that the bible has no contradictions, yet the biggest one lies in god himself. In the bible he is represented as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If he is all-knowing, how can free will exist? If he is all-powerful, can he create a rock too heavy for him to lift it? If he can, he is not omnipotent, and if he can't he is still not omnipotent. If he is omnibenevolent, how is their evil in this world? If he simply can't stop it, then he is not omnipotent. If he chooses not to stop evil, then he is not omnibenevolent.

    Good argument and valid points. Let's leave spelling aside for the time being. I'm not going to try to explain to you why my faith should be any more reliable or likely than yours. I simply want you to read through my previous post, and check those arguments. Science is being altered on a yearly basis. Consider this as the facts of a theory and I don't call that theory based on logical conclusions.

    As for the bible being counted as evidence, sure. Let's not go into any debate on why I believe the bible instead of Islam, but their books of faith could also be considered as 'evidence'. 

    And, I don't understand why you simply can't read my previous posts. If a being were to create something, he who created would not be subject to the laws or reality of the creation. You're trying to box God into a box you've created. You're like the pot of clay, trying to argue that the artist that created him does not exist because if the artist existed, how can he be subject to the reality of the pot?

    I don't see why believing in Christianity is in any way more blind than believing in evolution. Can you please explain why Christianity should be branded as blind faith and evolution as based on evidence and logical conclusions?
    Evidence
  • PieterPieter 40 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987

    Oh please do go on then and explain to me how the earth came to be.



    Do check that out. 
  • PieterPieter 40 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    @Zombieguy1987

    That has got to be the worst example I've seen in the history of examples, ever.
    If NASA or whomever sent a spaceship to the moon, they wouldn't take a picture, they'd land on the surface, take a small rock from the moon, put it on a plate, and tell you:
    "If you think this is cheese, eat it. If you can finish it, we'll give you 100,000,000 dollars, and if you fail, we'll take the whole world you still believe the moon's made out of cheese"

    Simple minds require simple examples.

    Why don't you challenge the subject instead of blaming it on the example? Or do you actually agree that evolution is a faith?
    Evidence
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    @Pieter
    Evolution isn't a faith, it's a fact.
    Religion is bull crap created by people who didn't how the world worked, and made up stuff to explain things like weather. 
    However, technology progressed, we now know how weather works, or space. Making religion outdated, and is telling backwards lies
    Evidence
  • PieterPieter 40 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987 :joy:

    I find it very funny, that atheists can never agree on whether evolution is a faith or not.

    The basic principle of a theory, is that it can never be a fact. Any set of circumstances can produce an infinite amount of theories to explain them. That is what my previous example that you so generously ignored was trying to explain to you. I guess for some minds even simple examples doesn't work.

    Oh and by the way, if Religion is bull crap, then why can't you prove it?
    Zombieguy1987Evidence
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    @Pieter ;
    Because, you take look at my argument and then turn blind eye, because you don't want your feeling hurt
    Evidence
  • PieterPieter 40 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987

    No my friend. So far you have not brought up much of an argument. Arguing is not an exchange of one-liners. Arguing is bringing forth evidence-based facts, and other logic to support certain ideas. What is your argument?
    Zombieguy1987Evidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Pieter said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    You see, the difference between Christians and atheists is that Christians acknowledge the fact that we cannot explain the logic of our version of how everything came to be. We don't have to. If you believe in a Being Who created our reality, then that Being will have He's own reality, something completely not liable to any of the scientific or logic rules from our reality. He created our reality, he will not be subject to it. That makes sense right? I mean, if I created a computer program then logically I wouldn't be subject to the rules I used for my program. I am above it.

    Let's take the evolutionist's view for a moment. Something came out of nothing. Follow me here, despite claiming that even nothing is something, something had to come from somewhere. How did it start? And unfortunately, you don't want to admit that we cannot explain it, so you invent a lot of ways that supposedly, something can come from nothing. Just think about it for a second. Nothing exploded... I am literally laughing right now. Do you know the definition of nothing? Not anything; no single thing. 

    You claim that evolution is rooted in science. How many times through history has science changed? Newton invented gravity, the earth was pulling us to it. Then came Einstein and proved that this was all wrong. The earth wasn't pulling us to it, space was pushing us away. Is the earth really orbiting the sun, because strictly speaking after Einstein's work, the sun could actually be orbiting the earth. 

    Scientific schoolbooks and other scientific formulas has to adjusted every year because we realize every year that we have been making mistakes in our assumptions. Science is not that clear after all.

    If we want to read from the past, we need to remember a few things. We can only look at page 2018. We may think that the discovery of a new fossil is actually looking back thousands of years, but we are just looking at the remains of what may have happened thousands of years ago. We can only look at the world through pictures. There is no written down history of the earth.

    If the earth is really that old, undeniably, then why can't evolutionists agree on an age? They seem to differ more than east differs from west!

    You're saying God doesn't exist because from what we know, it is impossible. Yet, from what we knew in the early 1400's, a lot of fruits, vegetables, and other stuff didn't exist. Did the fact that we didn't have evidence of the existence of say potatoes change their existence? Of course not. Potatoes does not exist because we know they exist, their existence is founded within themselves. They will exist whether we know of it or not. New species of animals are founded every year. You can't say something doesn't exist just because you don't have prove of it's existence. You need to have definite prove of it's non-existence for it not to exist. And no theory can prove that something does not exist. Why? Because a theory is a conclusion drawn from interpretation of certain facts. These facts (science) has been altered throughout history, and are therefore untrustworthy to say the least. Therefore, evolution only exists as long as it cannot be proven to be wrong. Doesn't that sound quite exactly like the definition of faith? God only exists as long as it cannot be proven to be wrong. Hey now who would have thought it! Evolution was a religion after all! The most pathetic of all religions if I may say so. Wasting your time trying to prove why you believe what you believe, and yet, it makes not much difference from your own worldview whether the earth was created or happened by chance, I mean, from your worldview we only have 80 years to live, so why not spend your 80 years more pleasant than arguing over something that you cannot prove? (Theory definition: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.)
    God bless you @Pieter ;
    What atheists fail to see is the ridiculousness of the O.P. "The Universe Does Not Have a Creator" which is the same claim we have of "God, who also does not have a Creator". How can they try to justify one (Big Banged universe) by science, but not the other (God our Creator)!?

    If the "Universe does Not Have a Creator", then it either created itself in a state of non-existence, which they could never claim as science  because they would have to define a medium called "non-existence" that scientists were observing this sudden existence (Big-Bang) to appear in, whatever form they claim it first appeared in (like this quantum, non material speck that can evolve into the universe we know today) which has never been found!
    Even if they were to find a quantum speck that can create 'something', they would have to show it in a medium called "non-existence" to create that 'something'  in order to be able to consider it 'science'.

    God/Infinite is Eternal, who cannot be created. I mean where, and when would you start creating something that's borderless/Infinite and timeless/Eternal, .. right?

    Here is the proof that God, and NOT the Big Bang is the Creator, because the Big Bang has a beginning; 13.75 billion years ago, .. but our Infinite/Eternal Creator does not!
    Zombieguy1987Pieter
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Pieter
    Evolution isn't a faith, it's a fact.
    Religion is bull crap created by people who didn't how the world worked, and made up stuff to explain things like weather. 
    However, technology progressed, we now know how weather works, or space. Making religion outdated, and is telling backwards lies

    @Zombieguy1987 .. just because an auto mechanic can explain how an engine in a car works, does not mean it proves his claim that the car evolved itself through a Big Bang in nonexistence 6.66 billion years ago! I mean come on, why don't you BB-Evolutionists grow up?

    1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
    Zombieguy1987Pieter
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch