The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Matthew_Mullen
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Christianity provides a logical explanation for reality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 7/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 518 times Debate No: 35848
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Mikal

Pro

My job is not to prove God exists but show that there is a logical reason why some people believe he does.

Round 1: acceptance

Round 2: establish your points, no rebuttals

Round 3: rebuttals and crystallizing your points so you may offer your closing statements.
Matthew_Mullen

Con

The bible is very forbidden itself, filled with metaphors and majorly paraphrased. The masses will never unlock the secrets contained in the bible. They always take the verses literal, now saying this. The normal person will not be spiritually illuminated to understand how the world works. Now not understanding the metaphysics from the bible, will lead to more bad then good. God is embedded into how we think, but 99% of us look at him as a personal god, rather then a universal creator. The human can never fully understand how the world works, and this is why the bible was created. To fill in our insecurities about life & death.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

I would like to thank my adversary for taking this debate. I would also like to point out that round 1 was for acceptance as stated in my opening R1 statement. Now I will issue my opening statements followed by my points. 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 existence together at the same exact 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 held the universe as eternal has now been proven inaccurate, and we now know that there was a beginning to the universe. This is held as truth by 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 stated 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 110,000 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 are born to look for patterns. 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 scentific chance happened to write 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 he recently converted 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......



Report
Matthew_Mullen

Con

Matthew_Mullen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

Extend argument.

I will not be able to offer rebuttals due to this being my closing round. I would like to thank Con for taking this debate.

Con however has failed to show why it is illogical to believe in Christ. I have shown why some people see it as a logical explanation and use this to explain reality.

To dispute this Con will have to counter every point I offered and build a Case of his own. Until then we can conclude that it is in fact a logical reason for some people to believe in God.
Matthew_Mullen

Con

Matthew_Mullen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
you missed it i guess lol XD
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
you missed it i guess lol XD
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
Torvald
Before I accept this as a rematch, what is the argument time, and what is the character constraint?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
MikalMatthew_MullenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited. Con also did not counter many arguments. Pro used sources.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
MikalMatthew_MullenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: FF= bad conduct; S&G Pru uses sentences and paragraphs and was easy to understand. CA= clearly PRO. Sources - both sides were light on sources.