The Instigator
DrAnomaly
Con (against)
The Contender
buildingapologetics
Pro (for)

Does God Exist? -QUICK DEBATE-

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
DrAnomaly has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 329 times Debate No: 106235
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

DrAnomaly

Con

This is an open invitation to any theists to debate. I'm holding the null hypothesis of the absence of evidence for God. Lets have a fun and hopefully productive debate.
buildingapologetics

Pro

Basically, there are two ways that we can know that God exists. The first way is by examining our world. If it has certain attributes that give it the appearance of design. The second way is that we can know God exists if He has chosen to reveal Himself to us. If God has spoken to us, this provides us with a convincing reason to believe in Him. Therefore, I will defend the existence of God using these two methods. My intent is to show that it is more plausible to believe that God exists than to believe that He does not.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause of its beginning.

I am willing to defend each of the two premises if you object to either one. It is clear that if the first two statements are true, the third statement follows logically and necessarily. This, in and of itself, does not mean that God exists, but it is part of the puzzle. One might say the multiverse is the cause of the universe in which case I would show the following argument:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2) The multiverse began to exist.
3) The multiverse has a cause of its beginning.
Also bear in mind that there is zero evidence of such a multiverse existing, but even if it did, that would not change the argument. The argument that this must be an intelligent cause is somwhat philosophical.

The cause of water freezing is the temperature being below 0 C. If the temperature was always 0 C, it would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze a finite time ago. This is because if the cause exists, the effect must also exist. Therefore, if the cause is eternal, the effect must also be eternal. Since the effect (the universe) is not eternal, either its effect is also not eternal or it is personal. This is because a personal agent, with free will, who has existed for all of eternity, could freely choose to do something a finite time ago.

The Fine Tuning Argument:
There are a number of constants in the universe that must be exquizitely fine-tuned, or the universe would not be here now. This is not like the earth's distance from the son. These constants affect the whole universe, not just a part of it. If the strength of gravity were off by a tiny ammount, the universe would have either collapsed back in on itself, or it would have stretched out so fast that no galaxies, stars, or planets could have been formed. If even one of these constants were off by a tiny fraction, life would not exist. Some of those constants with the level of fine-tuning are listed:
Ratio of electrons: protons- 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force: Gravity- 1:10^40
Expansion Rate of the Universe- 1:10^55
Mass Density of Universe- 1:10^59
Cosmological Constant- 1:10^120
The probability of all of the variables lining up in a way to make life possible is less than the probablility of 1 in the number of subatomic particles in the universe. This makes chance out of the question. The most reasonable explanation for this is the universe was created with us in mind. The creator knew we were coming.
http://www.godandscience.org...

In order to get around the God hypothesis, atheists have come up with the idea of the multiverse. The idea is that, if there are an infinite number of universes, one is bound to have all of the variables line up exactly. In my view, this is a very risky bet, but the hypothesis has a few problems. The first one is that there is zero evidence for a multiverse. The second problem is that small patches of order are much much more likely than large patches. Since it would be much more probable for the universe to create a single brain with the illusion of complexity rather than the complexity we actually see in the world. In other words, if the multiverse theory is correct, chances are, everything we see is simply an illusion.

Language:
Every form of writing that we know has an author. If you walked in the kitchen and saw a note saying "take out the trash - mom," you wouldn't automatically assume the wind made that. You would assume that a person made that since it contains information. In fact, you might think your friend was insane if he did not believe a person wrote it. The presence of information in the form of language is, in and of itself, enough evidence of intelligence that it would be silly to deny it. If your friend believed that the wind wrote that, I'm sure you would demand some pretty good evidence. There are several levels of information, and most of them are impossible without intelligence. DNA contains the highest level of information in the form of language, so by the same principle, it must have been created by intelligence. This is yet another reason to believe in God.

Revelation:
The last piece of evidence is the fact that God chose to reveal Himself to us in the form of a man names Jesus. Jesus preached and taught for 3 years and gained a following of many disciples. Jesus has 12 close disciples who were also called apostles. The ministry of Jesus is recorded in the four gospels; two of which are eyewitness accounts, and the other two are records of eyewitnesses. Because of this, we can analyze these texts just as we would do with any other eyewitness account. The first question we must ask is are the manuscripts reliable? Do the copies we have accurately represent the original documents? Even the most skeptical scholars will answer yes. We have over 24 thousand manuscripts in the original language, and we have earlier manuscripts for the New Testament than any other ancient historical document. Using all of these manuscripts, we find that only 20% of words actually have a textual variant in which at least two manuscripts dissagree out of the 24 thousand. Of these 95% of these 20% are easily identifiable as scribal erros. The remaining 1% of the New Testament of which we are not sure contains no important doctrinal truths.

God's sign of aproval is that He rose from the dead. This is a falsifiable claim upon which Christianity rests. Most historians, even atheistic ones, have come to the conclusion that Jesus existed, he died on a cross, he was buried in a rich man's tomb, his body was missing three days later, and his apostles and many of His other disciples had actual experiences of Jesus alive from the dead. Now, these scholars are quick to point out that they didn't necessarily actually see Jesus; they simply believed they had seen Jesus.

The reasons for this conclusion are vast, so I will only go into some of them here. Firstly, we have every reason to believe that the writers of the New Testament were honest and reliable. Every historical event that they mention happens exactly where, when, and how the writers said. Scolars are constantly amazed by the accuracy of Luke and Acts when events are confirmed by archeology. Also, writers of the New Testament include embarassing details that they never would have added if they were making the story up. For example Jesus is recorded as sweating blood. I'm sure you have never seen anyone sweat blood, and you wouldn't be alone. People at this time mocked the gospels for saying that, and Christian theologians tried to make up a spiritual reason for sweating blood. 2000 years later, we now know that sweating blood is a rare condition that appears with people who are about to be put to death. Finally, we know they were honest because they were all willing to go through bloody deaths intead of recanting what they saw.

Many people die for a lie that they heard from others, but no one is willing to die for something they made up. The disciples died for something that they believed they saw. Either they were mistaken, or they Jesus really rose from the dead. They knew Jesus intimately for years, so recognition is no issue. Hallucinations, like dreams, are also not an option since they affect individuals, not groups.

Jesus rose
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by canis 6 months ago
canis
Is is not the US ?...Dreamers....
Posted by canis 6 months ago
canis
Yep. Religion can not "explain" nothing with knowlegde..But anything with a good story...
Posted by buildingapologetics 6 months ago
buildingapologetics
@missmedic I think by contradictions, you simply mean you don't understand official Christian theology. Let me raise another supposed contradiction before I answer what you brought up. Scripture says God is spirit. Scripture also says a spirit does not have flesh and bone. Jesus had flesh and bone. How can He be God?

The answer is found in the hypostatic union. This is one of the most basic Christian doctrines which states that when the second person of the Trinity became man, He added a second nature. Therefore, Jesus existed as a Spirit in His divinity and as a human in his humanity simultaneously. His divine nature was and is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, while His human nature was none of these. This is what we mean when we say Jesus is both God and man.

That brings us to your example. Did Jesus know He was going to die? Yes, scripture records that He did know before it happened. Jesus probably knew that He was immoral in His divinity, but His human nature could be destroyed. It was a sacrifice because Jesus actually died, but the Word continued to live as spirit, thus God never ceased to be God. It was sufficient because scripture says "the wages of sin is death." Someone had to die, and Jesus became a man so He could die as a man. Also, the payment was made right at the death. This is why Christ said "it is finished" just before He died. If you don't think that was punishment enough, just watch the Passion of the Christ movie. It is generally historically accurate, except the crucifixion scene isn't as bloody as it really was.

Interesting side note: the Jews had a belief that the soul could return to a dead body shortly after death. They believed this then became impossible after 3 days. This is why Jesus had to wait 3 days. It was to prove the power of God over what everyone thought was impossible. It was so that everyone knew He was dead.
Posted by DrAnomaly 6 months ago
DrAnomaly
Ha, sorry guys, I forgot about this debate. Ha, I got carried away doing other stuff.
Posted by canis 6 months ago
canis
"Exist" = 1.its in front of me ..ups I see a screen.. 2. Its not in front of me, but my brother has one and I have seen it. 3. No one can see it, but it must exist. ( the electrons that make my screen work). 4.5.6.
The idea of a god is like "3." But the problem is we do not know. A. What it is. B. Why this "what we do not know what is" would/could exist.
Posted by missmedic 6 months ago
missmedic
How do you get past all the contradictions, there are so many contradictions in the Christian god story, but I will choose only one. If Jesus is God then presumably he is omnipotent. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didn"t he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice? Two days off for an eternal being does not a death payment make.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.