Belief in God is reasonable
Debate Rounds (3)
By "God" I mean any supreme being that was the creator of the universe.
In the first round you may present your arguments. This is a debate claiming that belief in God is reasonable. The main opposing argument against creationism is evolution. By pointing out some of the inconsistencies of evolution, belief in God becomes more reasonable. I will use some of these inconsistencies as part of my evidence.
Reasonable evidence #1:
The first law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. There is matter that exists. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that it was created by a supreme being.
Reasonable evidence #2:
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, processes can only increase in disorder. The competing theory against a creator or God is evolution so I will point this out: How could billions of years of mutations resulted in the highly organized energy like human cells (that can self-replicate and repair themselves) if energy is constantly following a down-hill energy gradient?
Reasonable evidence #3:
"Natural laws" are laws such as gravity, thermodynamics, physics, and so forth that are universal and unchanging in nature. If the world erupted from a chaotic mash, there would be no reason for any order or universal laws of order to exist whatsoever.
Reasonable evidence #4:
The existence of good and evil. There is no evolutionary purpose for the existence of good and evil. Knowing good and evil is not needed for the survival or propagation of our species.
Reasonable evidence #5:
The earth has the ideal conditions for human life. The earth contains plenty of water and food, contains a multitude of natural resources that have yet to be depleted, the earth is the perfect distance from the sun, gravitational pull from the moon keeps the ocean from stagnating, the atmosphere is the right mixture of oxygen and nitrogen for us to live, and many more instances that are tailored for human existence.
Reasonable evidence #6:
Human emotion is another reason to believe that there is a God. The greatest emotion, love, is considered by many to be the meaning of life. If we originated from random processes then emotion would serve no evolutionary purpose. By evolutionary purpose I mean the goal of evolving (even though this makes no sense because evolving would be a purposeless purpose anyway).
Reasonable evidence #7:
The existence of beauty is another argument for God. What makes something more beautiful than something else? The human mind is universally coded for recognizing things that are beautiful and things of beauty in varying degrees. This means that the pinnacle of beauty must be God. The existence of creativity is another argument that favors God. Anything that does not have a use-value does not have any reason for existing if evolution is true. Any reason at all for recognizing creativity as a "good" thing that enhances our quality of life would not make sense under evolutionary theory.
1)The biggest problem I see with creationism is that it is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Because the Bible was written a long time ago and our moral standards changed substantially in the last 2000 years, many stories from the Bible seem morally wrong. For example:
-god killed children because they mocked a prophet - 2 Kings 2:23-25 
-almost any sin is punishable by death -Leviticus
-god favors incest : God decided to only save one family from the Great Flood, thus favoring incest, when he could have just allow another woman to be saved
-god kills innocent people just because he is god - Exodus 12:12
-god encourages slavery -Leviticus 25:44-46 
These immoral actions of God from the Bible determined apologists to say the Bible is not meant to be taken literally If the Bible is indeed not meant to be taken literally, then creationism is not reasonable, as it is based on a literal interpretation of a book that is not meant to be interpreted that way.Creationism can only exist if the Bible is meant to be taken literally.
2)If the Bible was indeed meant to be taken literally, then Creationism can exist.However, it can't be a reasonable theory.In order to exist, Creationism has to treat biblical stories as facts.Thanks to our progress in science we can now see that most bible stories couldn't have happened, as they would break basic science facts.Here are a few examples:
-Noah's Ark - Genesis 5-10
This is interesting because it's from the book Creationism is based on.There are plenty of things wrong with this story.First of all, one person could never gather animals from across oceans and transport them back in the Middle East.Also, how could penguins or polar bears survive in that climate?Imagine how huge the ark had to be.Fish wouldn't have survived that either.And after the flood, the gene pool would have been far too small for all the species to continue to exist.
-Lot and his daughters - Genesis 19.30-36
Again, this is from the book Creationism in based on. This "and he perceived not when she lay down" suggest he was unconscious. An unconscious man could never even sustain an erection, so how did Lot even have sex with his daughters? Also, considering his age it would have been very unlikely for him to impregnate both of them the first time.
-Jacob and genetic mutations - Genesis 30:37-39
So, in order to exist, Creationism must consider the stories above true, thus denying basic science facts.
In conclusion, from a biblical point of view, creationism is an unreasonable theory as it doesn't accept verifiable facts.
Just to be clear, I know you didn't say anything about the christian god, but you did talk about Creationism, a theory that is strictly based on the christian god and teachings. I assume round 2 will be for rebuttals. Good luck !
"Just to be clear, I know you didn't say anything about the christian god, but you did talk about Creationism, a theory that is strictly based on the christian god and teachings."
Sorry if I was unclear by mentioning creationism in one of my extended arguments (I actually wasn't aware that the term "creationism" was specific only to the God of the Bible and didn't intend it to be used that way), but in my first opening sentence I said:
"By 'God' I mean any supreme being that was the creator of the universe." Not limited to the God of the Bible.
I am not really interested in debating the legitimacy of the Bible because there are discrepencies in it that I have trouble believing myself. Since I am not limiting "God" to mean the God of the Bible, none of my arguments presented have been proved invalid.
I await your rebuttals to my arguments I have posted in round 1.
2) The 2nd law of thermodynamics can only be applied in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system because it receives energy from the sun, so there is no reason why evolution couldn't have happened.
3) What chaotic mash? The Ancient Greeks were the only ones who claimed the universe started from Chaos. The Big Bang Theory says matter was compressed in a point. There is no way to explain why these laws exist, but I don't see how they could make the existence of god reasonable. The best answer theists can give to the question "Why does god exist?" is "He just does", so if you are willing to accept that as reasonable, why not accept that natural laws "just are"
4) What exactly is the existence of good and evil? Good and evil are simply concepts and nothing more. Good and evil only exist in our mind, they are not some sort of entities. Also, we don't KNOW good and evil, we are TAUGHT what is good and what is evil. Do you think suicide bombers know they are doing an evil thing and just do it anyway? They grow up learning it is good to blow yourself up. This is way they aren't scared, because for them blowing yourself up and killing hundreds of people is a great thing to do. Good and evil are not and have never been objective. They are subjective concepts that changed throughout history and differ from culture to culture. There are plenty of examples:
- during the middle ages, european christians believed it was good to burn homosexuals at the stake; any christian living in the 21st century will say that doing something like that is evil;
- once people believed cats were evil
- the Aztec and Maya civilizations believed human sacrifice was good
So who is right? If good and evil exist as objective concepts, then someone is wrong. So are we evil now or have we been evil for thousands of years?
5) There are so many things wrong with this argument. First of all, your perspective is wrong : the Earth is not perfectly suited to sustain human life, human life is perfectly adapted to the Earth's conditions. Your argument could only stand if humans simply popped into existence. The distance from the sun and the mixture of gases are the first conditions for the simplest life to appear. Just think about the size of the universe. The universe contains billions of planets that can sustain life. Earth is not special at all, there can be an infinite number of habitable planets out there. We've only been searching for habitable planets for a little while and we already found 40 planets that could sustain life and this only near our solar system.
The point is Earth's distance from the sun and the atmosphere are the very reasons why life exists on Earth and not on Mars or another planet. And natural resources don't mean anything. They were in the ground long before humans appeared. We just figured out how to exploit themand simply managed to live with the resources we had. There are diamonds on Saturn and Jupiter, but that doesn't mean life can exist there.
6) I don't think you understand evolution very well, because you are talking about the goal of evolving. There is no goal here. Simpler life forms didn't decide to evolve. Evolution is not a process species are aware of. Apes didn't decide they want to evolve into humans. It would be illogical to think animals can simply decide they want to have longer necks, or they want to be smarter and then just go ahead and give birth to smarter offsprings, but unfortunately this is how a lot of people understand evolution. Evolution doesn't have a purpose at all. Evolution is the change of species over time. Organisms don't evolve in a certain pattern or with a certain purposes. Emotion is indeed not needed for our survival. But evolution is not just about survival, it's about change in general. Some changes are good, some are bad, some are needed, some are not needed. Emotion is part of our brain. Our brains got bigger and evolved in weird ways. There is a biological explanation for emotion, but there is no point in talking about that, as your argument is the reason why they exist. The answer is simple : there is no reason; Evolution doesn't have a reason, it only has an explanation. There is no real reason for humans to exist. We are nothing more than a mutation that adapted very well to Earth's conditions and continued to exist. There is no reason for our existence, just an explanation.
7) Beauty, just like good and evil is a subjective concept. Every parent thinks his children are beautiful. In the past, fat women were considered beautiful, now almost every man will say skinny women are more beautiful. Many cultures in West Asia believe beauty means symmetry. Every person sees beauty in a different way.
"Anything that does not have a use-value does not have any reason for existing if evolution is true" - First, there is no "if" when it comes to evolution. Evolution is a proved theory. I can't understand how people keep denying the theory of evolution when there is more than enough evidence. We don't even need to go into complex anatomy issues, just look at the flu virus. The reason there is a new vaccine every year is because the virus evolves every year.
Again, evolution doesn't have a reason or a purpose.
I wish we had that additional round but I must provide my rebuttals and arrive at my conclusion this round. I'll summarize your arguments in a series of simplified statements that stay true to your logic while saving char limits.
Reasonable evidence #1:
con: If god created matter, he would be defying laws of thermodynamics which are laws that are impossible to defy. The Big Bang appeared and wasn't created. Therefore it's unreasonable to believe that god created matter.
Rebuttal to reasonable evidence #1:
"the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." 
By accepting the definition of "God", it would be unreasonable to accept that the Supreme Being and creator of the universe is constrained by his own laws of creation. Further, it is unreasonable to assume that matter was not created but "appeared" because appearing matter violates the first law of thermodynamics which states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed because "appearing" matter is merely the creation of matter from nothing. Thus, belief in God is reasonable because belief that matter appears is unreasonable according to the first law of thermodynamics.
reasonable evidence #2
con: The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only in a closed system and earth is not a closed system because it received energy from the sun. Therefore evolutionary origins of life is reasonable.
Rebuttal to reasonable evidence #2:
The earth does receive the sun's energy. Also asteroids come into the earth's atmosphere. Could this happen in a "closed" system? No. However, because of the nature of earth's balanced processes, many scientists and textbooks classify the earth as a closed system. Here are a few examples:
 "The Earth is a closed system where materials cycle between
 "The Earth is a closed system: energy from sunlight enters
 "Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system.
 "As a whole, Earth is essentially a closed system
Now, my main argument referencing the second law was this: how could upward, complex organization (like evolution into fully-functional human cells) have occurred via mutations if the second law of thermodynamics state that matter is constrained by a down-hill energy gradient and one of increasing disorder?
You are saying that the sun empowered this circumvention of the second law of thermodynamics for billions of years. If this were the case, why would plants (that have an upward-complex organization resulting from the sun's energy for a brief time) still die after having an adequate supply of water, nutrients, and light? They die because second law of thermodynamics applies to even the most sensitive living organisms that receive the sun's energy. If this is true, how could you assume that highly complex processes (requiring upward-energy), are bolstered so much by the energy of the sun that they could circumvent the second law of thermodynamics long enough to evolve into more complex processes if plants can't even do it without succumbing to this law within a severely limited life-span? Therefore it is unreasonable to assume that the sun provided the necessary means to circumvent the second law of thermodynamics for life on earth to evolve into an upward, more complex organization of life over billions of years. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume life existed not by processes defying the second law of thermodynamics but in an instance of final-form. Belief in God is reasonable.
Reasonable evidence #3
con: The universe resulted from a compressed point, not from a chaotic mash. The universal laws of order are unexplainable but do not provide evidence for God. For assuming a God "is", you could assume natural laws "are".
Rebuttal to reasonable evidence #3:
My point in phrasing it as "a chaotic mash" was that the creation of the world was spontaneous and chaotic. If the world erupted from a single point, it was spontaneous and resulted in a chaotic after-effect resulting in the creation of the world. This is not the focus of my argument. The focus of my argument is the existence of "natural laws" such as gravity, physics, thermodynamics, etc. that are universal laws of order that do not ever change. Order defies spontaneity. Evolution occurred from spontaneity. Therefore, there is no logical reason for universal laws of order to exist. If God exists, these universal laws of order were created by God to naturally maintain order in our universe. For assuming that God "is" and assuming natural laws "are" doesn't take into account that if God exists, as supreme being, then he exists outside of our constraints including time. Natural laws therefore, are reasonable evidence that God exists.
Reasonable evidence #4:
con: Good and evil do not exist. Good and evil are perceptions based on social influences that were taught to us. Good and evil are not objective. Throughout history there are many examples that perceptions of good and evil are subjective.
Rebuttal to reasonable evidence #4:
human beings have a conscience
 "the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives,
impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience."
also, I argued for the existence, of good and evil, not for an objective definition of good and evil. People intuitively have a sense of what is good and what is evil. People acting on superstition, such as burning supposed witches, are justifying their actions by labelling them as "witches." This wrongful justification is the case with many examples shown throughout history. The fact remains that justification exists in order to see themselves as "good" and this is why moral laws (such as those in the Bible) are useful for showing us what we already intuitively know but some people wrongfully try to justify.
If you believe that good and evil are merely concepts, then everyone in jail has not committed an act of evil. It's only based on your interpretation of their alleged evil. I'm not willing to accept this because I believe that our conscience universally intuitively dictates to all humans what is good and what is evil, and moral laws act as specific reasons to not provide our own justification for what we already intuitively know is good and what is evil.
Reasonable evidence #5:
con:human life is adapted to earth's conditions rather than the earth being perfectly suitable for life. A series of conditions were all true for life to exist on earth. Other planets exist that can sustain life but aren't the right distance from the sun. Other resources found on earth, like diamonds, exist on other planets too.
Rebuttal to reasonable evidence #5:
I am not arguing that alien life doesn't exist. A series of perfect conditions must be met in order for life to exist on a planet. What I'm arguing is that these perfect conditions have been met, which are circumstantial evidence in favor of a God creating earth as inhabitable for humans. No other life forms have been found yet despite "billions" of planets that are capable of inhabiting them. Therefore, this is circumstantial evidence in favor of God because the odds are drastically in favor of no life to exist if life was created through means of spontaneity.
Reasonable evidence #6:
con:Evolving is not the goal of evolution because evolution has no goal. Evolving does not require awareness. Emotion is not needed for our survival but evolution is about change whether it's good or bad change. There is no reason for emotion to exist and doesn't require a reason for existing.
Rebuttal to reasonable evidence #6:
I stand corrected if I incorrectly made the claim that the goal of evolution was to evolve. There is no goal or desired end result at all. My main argument was the existence of emotion. You claim emotion has no reason to exist. Love is an emotion and love increases people's well-being. Therefore, emotion exists to increase people's well-being. Love increases well-being because love is good and God is the ultimate source of good. Therefore love exists because of God. Because this good exists, we can assume that God exists. We exist to maximize this good via emotion. This is reasonable evidence to suggests that emotion was created by God rather than processes which have no reason.
Reasonable evidence #7:
con: Beauty is a subjective concept. Parent's think their children are always beautiful and standards of beauty change. Historically, the concept of beauty has changed.
Rebuttal to reasonable evidence #7:
Again, I'm not arguing for an objective definition of beauty. I'm arguing for the existence of beauty. Since we recognize varying degrees of beauty in something that is beautiful (such as a ruby or diamond) then the pinnacle of perceived beauty existing in the human mind must be God.
Remember that I am not debating that God exists. I am debating that there is reasonable evidence to suggest that God exists.
"I argued for the existence, of good and evil, not for an objective definition of good and evil."
" People intuitively have a sense of what is good and what is evil."
If all people have a sense of what is good or evil, then good and evil are objective concepts. Indeed, you talked about the existence of good end evil, but they only exist as concepts, concepts that are interpreted differently by every culture and are therefore subjective.
"I am not arguing that alien life doesn't exist. A series of perfect conditions must be met in order for life to exist on a planet. What I'm arguing is that these perfect conditions have been met, which are circumstantial evidence in favor of a God creating earth as inhabitable for humans."
My argument was that alien life exists, so the existence of the perfect conditions is not that rare. The universe is so huge that "fine-tuned" planets are not a rarity, so life can easily appear in the universe without God.
I just want to note that everything has a reason ONLY is God exists. If there is no God, there is no reason for anything, so it isn't reasonable to argue about the reason of love or laws of nature, when from an atheistic perspective they don't have a reason at all. They only have a reason, or a purpose to exist if they were created by God.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by subgenius 2 years 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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: It seems rather obvious that Pro presented a more "reasonable" argument than did 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.