Belief in the god of the bible is irrational - 2nd Debate
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||5 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||363 times||Debate No:||95270|
I don't believe in any deities, I believe in the big bang and evolution.
Belief in the god of the Bible is irrational because rational belief requires substantial evidence, and as such a thing doesn't exist belief in god is not rational.
*Nothing said in the comments should affect the votes.*
If quotes from the bible are required they must be from either the NIV or the KJV bible.
Round 1: State your relevant beliefs and opening argument.
Round 2-3: A mixture of posing arguments and rebuttals.
Round 4: Rebuttals only.
Round 5: Final rebuttals and/or appeal to voters.
The arguments presented here prove the existence of a timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, free acting, personal, supernatural, non-predetermined, creator of the universe and life which rose Jesus from the dead. Which is the Christian God. Since BoP was not addressed, I will assume that it is shared.
9. 1 Thessalonians 2:15
12. Matthew 28:15
13. John 21:12-1414. C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 19
Kalam cosmological Argument
I don't disagree with the KCA, however it doesn't prove the existence of the god of the bible, it proves the existence of a cause of the universe.
Pool table argument
Salam Morcos should be ashamed at his argument, all it is if you simplify it and take out all of the variables waffle is 'there is a finite number of causes thus there must be a 1st cause', but you never proved that there is a finite number of causes so the pool table argument is useless.
I am short on time so I will only address the eye example. You are assuming that each of the components of the eye evolved one by one into their current state, you never addressed the possibility of its components evolving simultaneously, different components evolving when they didn't require others, and the evolution of some will allowing for the advancement of others. It seems to me as if you didn't actually consider evolution when you made this argument.
Jesus of Nazareth
In this argument you presented no evidence for anything that you claimed, so it is useless at proving the existence of the god of the bible.
Unless you can rebut anything that I said, you have not provided any evidence of the god of the bible.
Old earth theory
When I say 6000 years I mean the age of the earth according to the bible.
P1: The earth is older than 6000 years .
P2: God's existence requires the earth to be 6000 years old.
C1: God doesn't exist.
The god of the bible supposedly created the earth 6000 years ago, however, the earth is 4.5 billion years old , therefore the god of the bible cannot exist.
There is not a single argument that proves the existence of the God of any religion. Since the God of the Bible has multiple attributes, to argue for Him requires multiple arguments that add up to Him. And, as I argued, the cause of the universe must have certain attributes which theists ascribe the name "God" to.
==Pool Table Argument==
Since the only objection raised is that I didn't prove that there are a finite number of past causes, I will argue that now.
Hilbert's Hotel Paradox
1st, imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Next, imagine that all of the rooms are full. If someone shows up asking for a room, the manager says, "Sorry. We have no room." End of story.
Now, imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. Again, imagine all the rooms are full. Not 1 single vacancy. Imagine again that someone asks for a room. So the manager moves everyone up 1 room. So now the first room is unoccupied. Now that person has a room, and all the rooms are once again full. So before he showed up, all the rooms were full, and he was still able to check into the hotel.
Now imagine that an infinite number of people showed up and asked for a room. So, to make room, the manager moves the people from room 1 to room 2, from room 2 to room 4 and so on, moving every person into a room number twice the value of his original room number. Since any number doubled is even, all of the guests are now in even numbered rooms. This now opens space for everyone asking for rooms, and they move into the odd numbered rooms. In fact, the manager could do this an infinite amount of times and always accommodate an infinite amount of guest. Even though the all the rooms would already be full.
This demonstrates that the notion of an actual infinity is clearly absurd.
Furthermore, there is yet another problem with there being an infinite series of past events. Let's entertain the idea that there actually an infinite series of past events, meaning the universe never had a beginning. Supposing the time has lapsed from minus infinity means that history would have to count through a countable set of events. Given this property, no matter how many events ticked by, there would always be an infinite amount of time before we actually arrived in the present. In other words, if the past is infinite, history would never progress as there would always be an infinite amount of years to go before reaching the present. Yet the present exists, so there couldn't be in infinite series of events.
Your objection to this is ad hoc and can be dismissed via the Law of Parsimony. It seems that scientists would agree that the eye didn't evolve simultaneously and that it actually involved slight modifications . So it would be your burden to argue that it evolved simultaneously.
==Jesus of Nazareth==
My opponent claims that this argument went unsupported, but I fail to see how. 4 of my 14 sources were dedicated to this argument. If you recall, I made 4 claims:
1. After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.
2. After his crucifixion, his tomb was found empty by some of his women followers.
3. People experienced appearances of Jesus after his crucifixion
4. The Disciples believed that Jesus was alive despite evidence that he wasn't.
I then provided at least 1 good reason why we should accept each as fact. I then concluded that the best explanation was the Jesus actually rose from the dead. This argument was clearly supported.
==Old Earth Theory==
Pro formulates his argument as follows:
P1: The earth is older than 6000 years.
P2: God's existence requires the earth to be 6000 years old.
C1: God doesn't exist.
Pro doesn't actually argue that the earth is old, he just cited a source that says so. That aside, the source's justification for the earth being 4.5 billion years old is that of Radiometric Dating, specifically, Uranium-Lead decay. There are, however, problems with Radiometric Dating.
Scientists make assumptions about the conditions at Time Zero. No scientist knows whether a sample contained daughter isotopes alongside parent isotopes. One example is the Mt. St. Helens eruption of 1986. Scientists assumes that there would be very low amounts of Argon-40, since it had just recently erupted. A sample from that eruption was analyzed in 1996, and dated at 350,000 years old because there was much more Argon-40 than expected . A similar occurrence happened with Mt. Ngauruhoe, in New Zealand .
Scientists also assume that there is zero contamination. The radioactive "clock" is susceptible to contamination by way of water or lava flow. This contamination yielded a 3.908 billion year uranium-lead age on lava flows known to be less than 50 years old at Mt. Ngauruhoe .
The last assumption made is that the decay rate has constant been constant for billions of years. However, new evidence has come to light that suggests that the decay rate uranium is not constant. One example is the uranium decay in crystals from New Mexico. The uranium-lead age was 1.5 billion years. This same decay produced a lot of helium, but only 6000 years worth was found to have leaked out . This means that the uranium-lead decay rate must have increased drastically over that 6000 year period.
That being dealt with, I will present evidence that the universe is younger than 4.5 billion years.
The Moon cannot come any closer than about 10,000 miles from the earth without it breaking up into rings like that of Saturn. It is known the Moon is receding from the earth at a rate of about 1.5 Inches per year due to tidal interaction. It has been calculated that if time was reversed 1.4 billion years, the moon would have been touching the earth . Not within the Roche Limit, but actually touching the earth. This is approximately 1/4 of the time within the Evolutionary Timescale. It is for this reason that the Earth and the Moon can be at maximum, 1.4 billion years old if the Roche Limit could be violated.
The stars in our galaxy rotate around the galactic center at different speeds, with stars closer to the center revolving faster than those farther from the center . If the universe was even a few hundred million years old, only a tiny fraction of the Big Bang timescale, then the universe would be a formless cluster of stars rather than a spiral . This shows that our Galaxy is younger that the Big Bang model would posit, which is about 13.6 billion years .
On average, the Milky Way experiences 3 supernovae per century . However, there is only evidence of about 200 supernovae ever occurring in our galaxy . When you do the math, it comes out to be about 6700 years, which is consistent with the Biblical account.
2. S. A. Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10.3 (1996): 335"343.
3. A. A. Snelling, "The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon "Ages" for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon "Dating,"" in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. E. Walsh (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1998), pp. 503"525.
4. A. A. Snelling, "The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotopic Dating," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 285"303; Ref. 4, 2005.
5. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research; Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005); D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005).
9. Scheffler, H. and Elsasser, H., Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352-353, 401-413.
12. Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), pp. 175-184
Kalam cosmological argument
The KCA doesn't even attempt to prove gods attributes, all it does is prove the universe has a cause.
R4: Pro may present arguments if he wants. I will stick to Rebuttals and defending my arguments.
R5: Both sides rebut and crystallize their cases.
==Kalam Cosmological Argument==
Pro clearly misunderstands the argument. Yes, it proves that there is a cause of the universe. But it then analyzes what some attributes of this cause must be. These attributes are the very description of a general theistic God. Note that Pro has not actually raised any objections to my justification for any of the attributes listed. So the argument still stands.
==old earth theory==
it doesn't matter that I didn't argue that the earth is old, I didn't argue that the earth was old just as you didn't argue that time and space arose with the universe after the KCA.
I won't bother with the points against radiometric dating however I will point of Redshift and background radiation.
==My final statement==
I have chosen to forfeit this debate, not because I see rationality in Christianity (I don't) but because I have a very little chance of winning. You are clearly better than me at debating and due to my current lack of free time I haven't been able to debate very well.
Pro forfeit. Vot Con.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.