Debate Rounds (4)
The topic is: God exists
You are pro and I am con.
R1 is acceptance, so ... I accept!
When you look at the perceivable world around you, all life forms show signs of intelligent design. While it is speculated the origins of intelligent design, the name itself implies that something created all things. The creator is God. God exists because something had to create something out of nothing. Modern "Big Bang Theory" states (paraphrased) "that all the universe started from a singular point of mass in an area of space." [http://www.space.com...] What was the catalyst? According to the "Book of Genesis Chapter 1 verse 1" [Holy Bible(NIV)] "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Specifically stating the origin of "The Big Bang." The Prophet Nehemiah states in his book: Nehemiah Chapter 9, verse 6 ""You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You." The Prophet Isaiah whom spoke to God, wrote in Chapter 41 verse 13: "For I am the LORD your God who takes hold of your right hand and says to you, Do not fear; I will help you."
These are just a few of numerous examples where profound research teams, scientists and scholarly organizations all admit through scientific conjecture, that Intelligent design is present. The Bible, is the direct message of God to all creation. When everything around us shows scientifically, that Intelligent Design is apparent, then that argues proof that a creator must have orchestrated the design. God, is the creator of this intelligent design and the Bible describes the nature of God and his existence relevant to man.
The Burden of Proof lies on the theist to prove that God exists. Therefore, I will use this round to refute my opponent's claims and prevent them from meeting their burden.
== REBUTTALS ==
My opponent's first paragraph predominately refers to the likelihood of our planet being the right distance from the sun for life to 'flourish'. So I will respond to this The argument from fine-tuning goes roughly like this: The Universe is perfectly fine-tuned to allow life to come into being. The distance of the Earth from the Sun, the substance and depth of the atmosphere, the orbit of the Moon, the nature of matter and energy, the very laws of physics themselves... all are perfectly tuned to let life happen. If any of them had been different by even a small amount, there could not have been life on Earth. And the odds against this fine-tuning are astronomical. Therefore, the Universe, and all these details about it, must have been created this way on purpose. And the only imaginable being that could have created the universe and fine-tuned it for life is God.
Okay. We have some serious misunderstandings here.
The Perfectly Fine-Tuned Puddle Hole
Let's assume, for the moment, that the Universe really is perfectly set up for life, and human life at that. I don't think that for a second -- I'll get to that in a bit -- but for the sake of argument, let's assume that it's true.
Does that imply the Universe was created that way on purpose?
No. It absolutely does not.
Here's an analogy. I just rolled a die 10 times (that's a six-sided die, all you D&D freaks), and got the sequence 3241154645. The odds against that particular sequence coming up are astronomical. Over 60 million to one.
Does that mean that this sequence was designed to come up?
Or think of it this way. The odds against me, personally being born? They're beyond astronomical. The chances that, of my mom's hundreds of eggs and my dad's hundreds of millions of sperm, this particular sperm and egg happened to combine to make me? Ridiculously unlikely. Especially when you factor in the odds against my parents being born...and against their parents being born...and their parents, and theirs, and so on and so on and so on. The chances against me, personally, having been born are so vast, it's almost unimaginable.
But does that mean I was destined to be born?
Does that mean we need to concoct an entire philosophy and theology to explain The Improbability of Greta-ness?
Or does it simply mean that I won the cosmic lottery? Does it simply mean that my existence is one of many wildly improbable outcomes of the universe... and if it hadn't happened, something else would have? Does it simply mean that some other kid would have been born to my parents instead... a kid whose existence would have been every bit as unlikely as mine?
Yes, life on Earth is wildly improbable. And if it hadn't happened, some other weird chemical stew would have arisen on Earth, one that didn't turn into life. Or life would have developed, but it would have evolved into some form other than humanity. Or the Earth would never have formed around the Sun, but some other unlikely planet would have formed around some other star. (Maybe one with cool rings around it like Saturn, only Day-Glo orange with green stripes.) If life on Earth hadn't happened, something else equally improbable would have happened instead. We just wouldn't be here to wonder about it.
Douglas Adams (of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fame) put this extremely well in his renowned Puddle Analogy. He said:
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
Yes, the hole fits us rather neatly. But that doesn't mean the hole was designed to have us in it. We evolved to fit in the hole that happened to be here. If the hole had been shaped differently, something else would have happened instead.
I do not see how Bible extracts prove that God exists. All it shows is that the Bible coincides with the Bible. We aren't discussing whether or not the Bible is true. We are discussing the existence of God.
Okay, my opponent has provided me with no source, and no examples of research teams and scientists who have admitted through scientific conjecture, that intelligent design is present. Nevertheless, despite this being an undermining fact, I will still refute this argument.
Again, my opponent makes multiple references to the Bible but offers no evidence as to why I should trust or believe what the Bible has to offer. Again, my opponent makes jumps in his argument with no explanations. My opponent states that scientists admit that through scientific conjecture, it proves that intelligent design is present. My opponent fails to show how intelligent design is present.
Sources in comments.
My opponent also seems to be "straw-manning" my arguments concerning the Bible. You misrepresented my argument. The Bible speaks of God and therefore relevant to my argument that it is to prove his existence. We are not debating the truthfulness of the Bible, but you can't dismiss it as invalid and untrue to my argument. The Bible speaks of God, and recounts several author's encounters with God, and speaks of real places in the world where these encounter's were held. My citation of course is the Bible (NIV).
To further prove the existence of God, the very name implies it's existence because God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent. Everyday we see and hear of the miracles of God, several famous people in modern television and politics reference God as a source of inspiration. Can you possibly draw inspiration from nothing? God needs to exist because these people cannot be inspired if his existence wasn't prevalent in their lives. Several established buildings, and books, and scholars all teach that God exists and are influenced by his divine providence.
Furthermore, existence of God cannot be disproved due to the very nature of God and the reference material for which our understanding of God comes from. This isn't an argument on validity of the sources, nor the existence of which God takes place. My simple imagination of him makes him exist. Whether or not you believe is irrelevant, and has no basis in this debate.
For this reason, this topic can not be debated. any argument you make i can quickly counteract with some nonsense, though nobody will vote for me anyways because God's existence is ultimately decided on who you are asking. This is more opinion based, and because my opinions of God's existence are that he doesn't I do not feel I can adequately defend this position without better parameters. And any parameters that would make this a fair debate, the topic I most certainly don't agree with. I would like to challenge you in an honest debate, on a subject more suitable to something more engaging. If I were to engage in a topic religion based, i'd rather talk about the Theology of it, or the implications "Has religion helped or hindered humanity" that is a topic I would be more willing to engage in with a better set of parameters. I can't seriously conjure an adequate scientific, rational, logical argument to refute the fact that God doesn't exist because unlike theists; i base my views and understandings in reality for the most part. I get that in debating you have to take the opposition side to your personal beliefs from time to time, but the opposite side within these parameters will make me sound childish as they are the only arguments I can rely on.
So, perhaps maybe a different debate and this time we can set parameters that will make more a more meaningful and enlightening debate over the uselessness of this one?
The books of the Bible were written at different times by different authors over a period of approximately 1,500 years. The New Testament was orally passed down for approximately this long! How can you justify the credibility of it? Unless you can prove to me why the Bible is a reliable source then this is not a valid argument. Yes, the Bible speaks of people doing things, seeing God in real places, but how does this make the argument any more trustworthy? Lets look at each of these aspects separately.
a) People - Naming people who have met God is not valid on its own.
b) Places - If I said that there is a vampire in France would you believe me because I said that it was in France.
Omnipotence and Omniscience
Whilst stating that God is omnipotent and omniscient isn't really proof for his existence I would like to note a few points regarding this.
God cannot be omnipotent because what would happen if God created a rock that cannot be moved by God. Could he move it?
What if you told God to create a square circle? As in a physical object without him changing definitions.
Regarding omniscience, the Bible clearly states that they are firm believes in free will and do not believe in determinism. If the Bible does not believe in determinism then God cannot be omniscient.
Religious people (and the vast majority of Americans consider themselves so) won't vote for an atheist because they think that without the fear of God, people have no reason to behave morally. I wont go into detail about why I think this is wrong because that is irrelevant to the resolution of the debate however this is proven according to scientific research and it will be sourced.
In fact recent polls show that atheists are considered to be more untrustworthy than rapists in America and Britain. This study was used to explain why politicians are predominately religious. The same applies to celebreties. Studies also show that religion and belief in God significantly boosts celebraty popularity. Atheists scientists such as Professor Richard Dawkins are referred to as incarnations of the devil because they are atheists and debate on the con side of God debates.
You have used inspiration as a subcategory. You have said: Can you possibly draw inspiration from nothing? Well, I never said God is nothing. I said that God is nonexistent. Superman is also nonexistent. That doesn't stop children being inspired to be determined and aspire to be like superman. You can have faith in something that is nonexistent so again this argument has been disproven.
I'm not sure whether to view this as a concession or not. Since this was a choose any topic debate, I find it fair that my opponent must argue the topic that I have chosen.
I do not mind doing another debate regarding a more suitable topic though I do not want to abandon this debate completely.
Regarding my opponents dismissals and over simplification of Omnipotence in relation to my argument, I quote Rene Descartes "Here I do not know what sort of thing you want existence to be, or why it cannot be said to be a property like omnipotence - provided of course, we take word property to stand for any attribute, or from whatever can be predicated on a thing" Meditations on first philosophy.
God has a necessary existence, for if you define things by their properties as to validate their existence then we must also conclude that God's very existence is allowed by his qualities. A table exist because it has definable properties that make it a table. God exists because it has definable properties that make him God.
My opponent's argument "God cannot be omnipotent because what would happen if God created a rock that cannot be moved by God. Could he move it? " This doesn't disprove anything because you are negating the very qualities of Omnipotence. All powerful. God has infinite power, and we know from mathematical theory the laws of infinite are both irrational, unreal and real. It is false to state that Infinite doesn't exist, because it's very definition requires that it exists (to be referred to later). There has to be a number that can continue after a series of numbers because logic demands it. Yet the properties of Infinite are unlimited, I refer to the argument of the "Infinite Hotel paradox." Because we know God is all powerful, as described of his nature, God's "all powerfulness" allows him to exist by his own power.
Onto God's Omniscience isn't disputable either, because it'a very definition allows for it to know all things. Man can have free will, from man's perspective. I can believe that what I do on my own accord is of my own and no force compels me to do so, because I compel myself. Yet the very definition of an Infinite knowledge account for all my actions. So, while I am assured of my free will; i cannot logically deduce that an Omniscient being could not know what I am doing, will do, or have done.
God's Omnipresence, again follows the same arguments as stated above. Though we cannot perceive God, the very definition that he encompasses all things proves itself.
God has been presented to we(humans) through personal accounts as recorded in the Bible. The very cultures in our world that claim the faith of God give proof that he has name and has a definable place in our world; the accounts and testimonies of all things related further solidify this claim..As stated in my argument, faith validates the notion of God because real people have had real experiences they have told concerning their relationship with God.
My opponent will contend with the first paragraph of my summary, by pointing out that what is conceived doesn't have to be real. Therefore to prove God exists I must rationale the God has a "necessary existence" because of the qualities we understand him to have. I recall to my arguments using the definitive nature of God's qualities. God's power allows himself to be, God's knowledge accounts for all things known and unknown, and God's presence allows for all things to be. Since these characteristics of God have been defined, by necessity God must exist. We must have an account for something that encompasses all things which include that which we perceive around us, which by the definable properties of God; make him exist. Infinite must exist, because there has to be an account of a number so vast that it is endless.
My opponent will no doubt, refute my argument by stating it is a circular rhetoric, using concepts of Infinite to define what is unreal and irrational, as a real existence. He will argue that God is just a definition, and based off my argument God can be substituted by x and x can be defined with similar properties. Furthermore he will say conception doesn't prove existence only that, it can be conceived.
This is where my argument rests, God can logically exist because the properties of Infinite allow and account for things greater than itself, as still being of itself (Infinite Hotel Paradox). God exists as a definition because of his place in this world from a cultural standpoint and relevancy. God exists because he has allowed himself to exist through his word in the Bible. I can prove God exists, because existence wasn't defined in the parameters, as what kind of existence.
The Bible is not evidence of God. The Bible is evidence of a bunch of people writing stories about prophets and God with multiple inconsistencies. The Bible has been proven to contain inconsistencies and even Christians and Jews admit to this. In the Bible story regarding Noah's Arc, the first thing it says is that Noah brought in two of every animal. On the next page of the story it says that Noah brought in 7 of every Kosher animal and 2 of every non-Kosher animal. Is this not an inconsistency? The Bible also has many errors that have been scientifically proven which I will source. My opponent states that the validity of the Bible is true because the existence of God is true. This argument is invalid and has no impact upon the resolution of the debate. We are debating about whether God exists not the Bible. Since God is not proven to be a fact you cannot use God as evidence for the Bible being true.
Since stating that God is not omnipotent is not evidence of God, I will make this response short. I'm not sure that my opponent understand what they have quoted. What they have quoted is that omnipotence must stand for an attribute. I agree with the common definition of omnipotence which is: all powerful. This is an insufficient rebuttal since you haven't answered what would happen in my scenarios directly.
Regarding God's properties, again, this is a poor argument for the existence of God. Since you are arguing in terms of the christian God - you do know what God looks like nor do you know what he can and can't do. God's properties are unknown to us according to Christianity and Judaism. Yes, we have stain glass windows of Jesus and various other pictures of Jesus and the trinity. However, it is highly unlikely that these pictures contain any accuracy at all. It is probable that Jesus was black and that the only reason that we portray him as white is because of societies racism. Nobody has any evidence of seeing God who is alive today to provide us with it. Therefore, it is inadequate to suggest that God exists because he has properties.
It appears that my opponent has referred back to omnipotence again. I do not want to go into to much detail because (as previously said) this isn't actually evidence for God's existence alone. I never that the laws of infinite are non-existent. I just said that it is impossible for a living thing to have infinite power, knowledge and love. I wasn't questioning God's existence with this particular argument. I was questioning God's power. My opponent has avoided my point entirely regarding the paradox and has just stated that God exists because of his own power.
Again, I will refer back to my argument regarding God's omniscience. My opponent concedes that God has infinite knowledge. If God has infinite knowledge then God knows everything. If God knows everything then God knows both past, present and future. If God knows the future then the future must be determined. If the future is determined then we have no free will. If God has infinite knowledge (as described in Christianity), then how can we also have free will (as the Bible describes). This proves that the Bible is self-contradictory and supports my argument regarding the Bibles credibility.
My opponent seems to think that definition is a form of proof. The definition that he encompasses all things does not prove that God exists and is omnipresent, all it proves is that Christians believe this.
My opponent has tried to be clever with their argument regarding the definition of existent however all they have done is two things:
a) Lost the conduct point for unfairly trying to debate regarding false definitions.
b) Since my opponent has indirectly provided a definition of existence that require God to exist as a being in the Bible, all I have to do is reject the definition since I never accepted to that definition in this debate.
I would like to thank my opponent for an enjoyable debate and to next time include definitions in their opening argument because otherwise the definition can easily be rejected.
My opponent's definition has been rejected and their arguments have been successfully refuted. My opponent has been unable to fulfill their burden of proof and therefore con has won the debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed good conduct since although they had the option to create a paradox debate, they made the debate fair by choosing a reasonable topic. Pro showed poor conduct by trying to argue off a semantic. Fortunately, Con managed to show that he was able to reject the definition since he didn't agree to it in R1, therefore conduct goes to con. This all negatively effected Pro's arguments. He began with a strong case however after Con made equally strong arguments and rebuttal he decided to debate on semantics and that is what lost him the debate. He failed to sufficiently refute Con's points and started arguing that God does exist because he is written in the Bible and therefore he does exist (not in reality) but as a concept. This was because no definitions were provided. This not only costed him the conduct point it also diminished his arguments and Con was able to easily dismiss this since Pro tried to argue based off a definition of existence that had not been agree to by Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.