The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Torvald
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Christianity provides a logical explanation for reality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,100 times Debate No: 35786
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

Mikal

Pro

Round 1: acceptance

Round 2: Establish your case, no rebuttals

Round 3: No new points will be made. Offer rebuttals to rebuild original points and build a closing statement

This will be operating under the assumption the bible is not true. I will grant my adversary that. I will be debating it from a logical perspective.

KEEP IN MIND I AM NOT SAYING THERE IS A GOD.
I am saying there is a rational and logical reason to think that there is one.
Torvald

Con

I accept your challenge. Since there is no mentioned limitation on the scope of inclusion for content in the Bible as proof or disproof that the premises drawn from it by Christianity are logical, I will operate under the assumption that anything goes.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

I would first like to start by thanking my opponent for taking this debate. I am an atheist by all accounts. I also do not believe that there is a God. The point of this debate is for me to demonstrate why there is a logical explanation that there is a God. I am not claiming science to be wrong, but hope to show how some people can logically conclude that science and God can coincide.

I will break this down into some key points within apologetics

(C) Cosmological Argument

(O) Order

(S) Specified Complexity

(M) Morality

(O) Objectivity

(S) Solitary life of Christ




Cosmological Argument

I am pretty sure everyone knows about this argument. It states that where there is a “beginning” there is must be a "beginner". Events cannot make themselves occur. There are countless sources that support this. One of which being the Law of Thermodynamics. Cosmic background radiation is another example of this. This was discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1964 which went on to earn them the Nobel Prize in 1978. The last point to support this is Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which in short shows that space, time, and matter all came into I existence together at the same time out of nothing. What is nothing? Nothing literally means nothing. Robert Jastrow an agnostic astronomer who sat in the same exact seat that Edward Hubble once sat in says this “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” We now know that the steady state theory which help the universe as eternal has no been proven inaccurate, and we now know that there was a beginning to the universe. This is help as truth by the scientific theory, and even believed by such great minds such as Lawrence Krauss who is one of the leading atheists at the moment. So we are left with two choices. Either nothing created nothing out of nothing, or someone created something out of nothing. Also bear in mind this is not a God of the Gaps argument. Natural law could not have created the universe, because natural law was created at the big band as I have shown using scientific facts.


Order or Diving Tuning

So lets say the argument I previously made is false, not only did the universe explode from nothing it did so with extreme precision. There had to be variables in place for this to happen, one of which Steven Hawking himself identified. He in short states the if the expansion rate of the universe changed by 1 part in one hundred thousand million million one second after the big bang, life would not be possible (you can see why I did not type the number out, it would have taken up the entire debate). Not only has this been proven and sated by Steven Hawkings himself, there are other constants that are the same way. If you change the gravitational force in the universe by 1 part in 10 to the 40, we would not exist. Again I will not type this out numerically due to it will take up the entire debate, and I could not keep track of the 0s. I will give you a mathematical comparison. If you were to take an aircraft carrier that weighs 110,100 tons and were to change the weight by less than the trillionth of the weight of an electron, we would not exist. Remember this is constant. This is not a onetime dice roll. These are physical properties within the universe now, that are constant. If at one point anything changes, the universe will cease to exist. If this does not point toward the universe be fine-tuned I do not know what else can


Specified Complexity

I could make this very long but due to me running out of space I will have to shorten the argument. We as humans are pattern seeking creatures. We just have to look for the pattern. If you are walking along the beach and you see a pattern in the sand. What is the first most rational conclusion? The most obvious conclusion is that someone wrote it. We would not think that tidal formations made that message. We would not think that the sand shifted and by chance wrote that message. We would automatically assume that an intelligent being left it there. Anthony flew who was an atheist actually one more the more famous ones up until recently found out that one single cell can carry more data than all of the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. He says this ““It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”


Morality

Where do morals stem from. Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and all leading athiest can not answer this question. They all admit that there is objecitve morality, but no one can offer an explanation as to where it comes from. If we can acknowledge one act is immoral there has to be a way to gauge it.


Objectivity

This states that objectivity in the laws of logic, mathematics and science. These are not things that can be avoided or bypassed. These are immaterial realities that we all recognize are true. Anything we debate or anything we do pre supposes that there is objective standard of truth that our minds can grasp, if there is no objective standard of acceptance then what are we doing other than wasting time. How do the laws of reason and logic exist if we are just molecules? In fact how can someone explain conscious? All these are immaterial objective constants that we hold as true.


Solitary life of Christ


As much as I and some people hate Christ, there is one thing we must acknowledge. His life whether he was the son of God, a prophet, or just a man has had more impact on society than any other person to step foot on this earth. We know for a fact Jesus existed, this is evidence as well, just no one believes he was a messiah. So let us operate under the assumption he was just a man. He was nothing special. He was a carpenter, was poor, was not a king, was not a ruler and overall he would have just been average. Yet for some reason people would have had to fabricate lies about him and make it spread throughout all of history. Even today Christ himself is a major center point in our society. If we have advanced so far as well agree, then how and why could this one person still be talked about with the admiration and love that he has today.



Conclussion

The topic of this debate is that Christianity provides as logical reason for reality. I have shown how it may not be true, but how people can logically assume that it is a possibility. I have even shown how science and the origins of the universe can work together to explain reality in a logical and rational way. I have even shown former atheist who have converted to Christians at the implications of this debate. We have no way to know for sure if there is a God. There is no given test or experiment one can do to prove this true, but we can clearly see how some people can assume that there is a possibility of a God. Robert Jastrow writes it best

At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”


http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...

http://www.dummies.com...

http://morethinking.com...

http://www.hawking.org.uk...


Torvald

Con

Torvald forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

Extend argument.

In closing I have not seen nor do I think that Con can show why there is not a perfectly logical reason for some people to believe in God. Since I will not be able to refute his points as this is the last round, I would like to thank him for taking this debate.

Remember that the majority of our nation believes in the God of a bible with a vast amount of interpretations and many different ways to define Christianity. That does not make them correct, but I have shown and demonstrated using science that there is a logical reason that they do believe this. Thank you for reading this debate.
Torvald

Con

At this point making an argument would be futile, because I expect the voters to only read that I forfeited and assume it was in bad character, and votebomb for my opponent. Due to differences in time zones, my opponent and I have simply met at bad times, and as it happens, I was fast asleep when my argument time expired. I have asked for a tie and rematch in the comments, with a longer argument time. Please read my opponent's response and our conversation in the comments before making a simple votebomb for him, unless of course that's what he wants.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
Torvald
Very well, thank you.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
No problem when you are ready shoot me a message and well set it up
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
Torvald
If possible, I would like to hesitate a bit, simply so that I too can clear out my debates and preferably my schedule as well.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
that will work. Let me finish the debates im on, one person took the new one i posted. Then I will remake this or vice versa and you can challenge me
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
that will work. Let me finish the debates im on, one person took the new one i posted. Then I will remake this or vice versa and you can challenge me
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
Torvald
I don't mind starting fresh, though if you don't want it to get snatched up, it's best to set up advanced criteria.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I just wish there was a way that I could remove it entirely because I would have really enjoyed this discussion. I have no quarrel with starting fresh.
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
Torvald
You cannot remove debates unless they are ruled inappropriate by moderation, in which case they'll be removed. Otherwise, we're stuck with it. Since the debate is getting votebombed anyway, I wouldn't be concerned about a tie. A win will look better on your score, but a tie will, I think, still look good on your ELO because I'm higher-ranked.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Im very weary about saying tie. I would like people to judge what they wish because if i call for a die some douche could always come up and just vote bomb at the end which happens alot. People troll so It is very hard pressed for me to as for that just due to the fact I do not want that to happen
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Im very weary about saying tie. I would like people to judge what they wish because if i call for a die some douche could always come up and just vote bomb at the end which happens alot. People troll so It is very hard pressed for me to as for that just due to the fact I do not want that to happen
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chapule 3 years ago
Chapule
MikalTorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments and conduct to PRO due to FF. Con stated that this was cheating because of the time. I think it is called being aware. I would have liked to see the end of this though
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
MikalTorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF so conduct point. I won't consider arguments but make sure you know what your getting into