Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

19
20
Just what we need. Oh God, no!
Debate Score:39
Arguments:46
Total Votes:39
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Just what we need. (18)
 
 Oh God, no! (19)

Debate Creator

jolie(9803) pic



Is it time to create a new religion based on a new definition for God?

 

Everything that exists in the universe right now was once compressed into a space smaller than the head of a pin. That was God. But He got bored (or something) and blew Himself up to create everything in the universe.

But He's immortal. And the pieces started clumping together and the pieces of His consciousness became us... life. Sentient life.

 

It is up to us to reconstruct Him or abide by His death wish.

Just what we need.

Side Score: 19
VS.

Oh God, no!

Side Score: 20
1 point

If we create a new religion, we would be able to reconcile science with the new religion and we will thus reduce the number of God debates.

Side: Just what we need.
Jace(5053) Disputed
2 points

Alternatively, we could not contaminate science with unnecessary theocratic philosophy and allow religion to continue on its path of gradual obsolescence.

Side: Oh God, no!
1 point

I'm not sure religion will ever become obsolete. I mean..., when scientists ask you to believe that everything in the universe was once compressed into a space no larger than the head of a pin... they are asking you to have faith.

Side: Oh God, no!
Astac(242) Disputed
1 point

You must hate life when you know that it was religious people that gave us the science we have today

And look what we have here, you really must hate this

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/ rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html

According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time. This startling idea first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest. The theory, accepted by nearly all astronomers today, was a radical departure from scientific orthodoxy in the 1930s. Many astronomers at the time were still uncomfortable with the idea that the universe is expanding. That the entire observable universe of galaxies began with a bang seemed preposterous.

Lemaître was born in 1894 in Charleroi, Belgium. As a young man he was attracted to both science and theology, but World War I interrupted his studies (he served as an artillery officer and witnessed the first poison gas attack in history). After the war, Lemaître studied theoretical physics, and in 1923 was ordained as an abbé. The following year, he pursued his scientific studies with the distinguished English astronomer Arthur Eddington, who regarded him as “a very brilliant student, wonderfully quick and clear-sighted, and of great mathematical ability.” Lemaître then went on to America, where he visited most of the major centers of astronomical research. Later, he received his Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In 1925, at age 31, Lemaître accepted a professorship at the Catholic University of Louvain, near Brussels, a position he retained through World War II (when he was injured in the accidental bombing of his home by U.S. forces). He was a devoted teacher who enjoyed the company of students, but he preferred to work alone. Lemaître’s religious interests remained as important to him as science throughout his life, and he served as President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences from 1960 until his death in 1966.

In 1927, Lemaître published in Belgium a virtually unnoticed paper that provided a compelling solution to the equations of General Relativity for the case of an expanding universe. His solution had, in fact, already been derived without his knowledge by the Russian Alexander Friedmann in 1922. But Friedmann was principally interested in the mathematics of a range of idealized solutions (including expanding and contracting universes) and did not pursue the possibility that one of them might actually describe the physical universe. In contrast, Lemaître attacked the problem of cosmology from a thoroughly physical point of view, and realized that his solution predicted the expansion of the real universe of galaxies that observations were only then beginning to suggest.

By 1930, other cosmologists, including Eddington, Willem de Sitter, and Einstein, had concluded that the static (non-evolving) models of the universe they had worked on for many years were unsatisfactory. Furthermore, Edwin Hubble, using the world’s largest telescope at Mt. Wilson in California, had shown that the distant galaxies all appeared to be receding from us at speeds proportional to their distances. It was at this point that Lemaître drew Eddington’s attention to his earlier work, in which he had derived and explained the relation between the distance and the recession velocity of galaxies. Eddington at once called the attention of other cosmologists to Lemaître’s 1927 paper and arranged for the publication of an English translation. Together with Hubble’s observations, Lemaître’s paper convinced the majority of astronomers that the universe was indeed expanding, and this revolutionized the study of cosmology.

A year later, Lemaître explored the logical consequences of an expanding universe and boldly proposed that it must have originated at a finite point in time. If the universe is expanding, he reasoned, it was smaller in the past, and extrapolation back in time should lead to an epoch when all the matter in the universe was packed together in an extremely dense state. Appealing to the new quantum theory of matter, Lemaître argued that the physical universe was initially a single particle—the “primeval atom” as he called it—which disintegrated in an explosion, giving rise to space and time and the expansion of the universe that continues to this day. This idea marked the birth of what we now know as Big Bang cosmology.

Side: Just what we need.
flewk(1192) Clarified
1 point

You don't need to force the creation of new religions. That happens on its own. In addition, old religions aren't static, they have changed a lot. Many new religions have been created from old ones. They will continue to "adapt".

Side: Just what we need.
1 point

We can fix the whole thing by declaring science a religion.

Side: Just what we need.
1 point

One of the best ways of making money is to create a new religious denomination. Your concept is as good as any of the existing ones so why not get a soap box and start preaching. ''The Lord saith, give Jolie your dosh to build a Tabernacle where I can be praised in prayer, song and by donating your hard earned money to Jolie. Your reward will be in heaven, hallelujah brother, hallelujah.

Side: Just what we need.
1 point

Are you suggesting that god was/is the original suicide bomber, but, unlike Humpty Dumpty, is reassembling himself? If so, the Christian God's self destruction has created all life on earth and everything in the cosmos. Thanks God. Let's hope The destructive Islamic god doesn't come along and annihilate this wonderful creation.

Side: Just what we need.
1 point

you can call yourselves the Humpty Dumpty Disciples...

.

.

.

or Humpers for short.

Supporting Evidence: Humpers Unite! (cdn8.staztic.com)
Side: Just what we need.
1 point

Maybe we should just replace God with our growing understanding of the universe. The Big Bang was a crummy theory in the first place. It's already being changed to the Big Cycle anyway. So we'd have to keep redefining for every new theory.

Side: Oh God, no!
1 point

I thought that they couldn't find enough matter in the universe and they were thus predicting that the universe was going to expand for ever? Did that change?

Side: Oh God, no!
daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

I don't know, you pick one then define a God to match. That's before "Dark Energy" became the next cool idea for science to worry with.

Side: Just what we need.
1 point

keep redefining for every new theory.

(aka science... that is science)

Side: Just what we need.
flewk(1192) Clarified
1 point

The Big Bang was a crummy theory in the first place. It's already being changed to the Big Cycle anyway. So we'd have to keep redefining for every new theory.

You seem to have a weird definition for science. I am not sure why you believe it is static.

Side: Just what we need.

A new religion.. based on a new definition of God? When we are striving to create something, it must achieve some purpose. In my opinion, in the current time frame there is no need for a new religion, since it does not serve any purpose, seeing how people are know varying in their level of belief in God anyway.

Side: Oh God, no!
1 point

But... If we create a new religion, we would be able to reconcile science with the new religion and we will thus reduce the number of God debates.

Side: Oh God, no!
Numbertorics(13) Disputed
1 point

Can you provide specifics? What do you intend by reconcile science with religion? It would degenerate into a pseudo - scientific religion, since science does not acknowledge the existence of a God, but a self - sufficient system, and the existing religions are already pseudo - scientific, so in essence you will just be recreating the religion we already follow....

Side: Oh God, no!
1 point

There exist contrasting ideas between how one defines God within each persons worldview in today's society. We all have a divinity concept that we hold as non-depended or unconditioned. There are deist, theist, Christian Theism, and for some people that would be energy and matter as some sort of non-depended reality. Thus, your question must define what God we are to redefine.

Side: Oh God, no!
1 point

I am going to throw out a weird concept. How about instead of creating a new religion to avoid conflict between science and religion we just stop and realize we don't actually need religion and get rid of it. No religion = no conflict.

Side: Oh God, no!
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

I am going to throw out a weird concept. How about instead of creating a new religion to avoid conflict between science and religion we just stop and realize we don't actually need religion and get rid of it. No religion = no conflict.

Why don't we just get scientist to work on things like cancer instead of them wasting billions of dollars attempting to explain the unexplainable and leave God alone? No extreme atheists = no conflict.

Side: Just what we need.
1 point

Nothing suggests that the origins of existence are unexplainable.

I mean, you certainly seem to think there's an explanation: God. So...

Side: Oh God, no!
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Uh, they do that now. There is still a conflict because of the religious people. Not the scientists.

Side: Oh God, no!