The Instigator
TheLapsang
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Mkenny
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Does God Exist? The proposition is that NO Christian God exists.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,220 times Debate No: 4614
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (11)

 

TheLapsang

Pro

Firstly, I do not wish to prove that there is definitely no God, just that it is highly irrational to believe in one.

I'll start with the definitions:

Christian God: A supreme, metaphysical being who created the world and still exists now - a theistic God. A triune, the trinity being God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. His properties include omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omniscience.

Exists: Is an actuality; exists in reality, all be it a supernatural reality. So, anyone imagining this God does not make it exist in actuality, just in their minds.

Clearly the onus is on the person arguing the affirmative - God's existence - to present the evidence. However, I will present two arguments against God's existence, then rebut several typical arguments for the existence of God.

Argument against God:
Atheism has the best explanation for God's hidden nature. The evidence for God is slim, the evidence for Christianity is slimmer still. Even if you claim, as I'm sure you do, that there is strong evidence for God then my question is this: Why is it not stronger? The fact that the majority of the world is not a Christian is evidence against Christianity. God could have made it more evident that he exists (He is omnipotent) and that Christianity is also correct. For example, he could have included some fantastic scientific discovery - evolution, cure for plague, cure for cancer etc. What about if Jesus, instead of only sticking around for 40 days after resurrecting had stuck around for longer, or still hear now. If He had made the evidence for His existence as strong as the evidence for, say, gravity, then there would be little doubt as to His existence. This probably strikes you as a stupid argument, if everybody knew God existed then there would be no room for faith. Yet, faith used in this context - believing in something without knowing it to be true and against reason - is, by definition unreasonable, so to use it is a reason is wrong.
So, God's hidden nature is compatible with atheism and not theism.

To summarise:
Premise 1: God would not want people to suffer.
Premise 2: Atheists (or anyone who does not share your beliefs about God ie people of a different religion) will suffer through hell, or lack of reaching some higher state of happiness.
Premise 3: God could have made everybody believe in Him by presenting proof of His own existence, on a par with the evidence for, say, gravity.
Premise 4: Not everybody does believe in a God
Premise 5: So, God chose to make people suffer, conflicting with His omnibenevolence

My second argument against God's existence is this:
Atheism has the best explanation for the existence of mass evidence for evolution. For this argument I will make the assumption that you believe in evolution as only 1/1000 people in relevant fields reject evolution for creationism. Many Christians think that God knew that over time it was certain that a developed consciousness would evolve. But if you agree with that, or any close relative of it, then I ask the question: Why did a omnipotent and omnibenevolent God use such a selfish, blind, inaccurate and bumbling process to achieve this? Leading to unfairness on a mass scale (for example the world's resources are unevenly spread out) and far more importantly leading to an inherently selfish race - the human one. God could have set us off so that instead of evolving towards our own personal survival as we do, we evolve towards the survival of the entire race, or the world at large. In fact, why don't we evolve towards a greater moral good - survival of the morally superior. What's more evolution has left us suffering gratuitous pain - in latter stages of breast cancer you feel immense amounts of pain, free will has not given you this cancer. It is as a direct result of evolution that we feel the pain (it is a warning), so why do we feel it, as it helps no-one. I find it incomprehensible that a perfect God would have used evolution to create us instead of design. All the suffering that has gone on (under 1% of all species that have ever lived are still alive today according to reliable fossil evidence) and still goes on (humans want to survive so bad they will kill others to do just that) contradicts God's perfection if he is exist.
Thus, evolution provides evidence for atheism over theism.

Now onto the second stage of my opening statement. I will rebut the cosmological, or first cause argument.
The argument is this: Everything has a cause, what is the cause of the universe, it must be God.
First of all, this is a classic 'God of the Gaps' argument - we don't know what caused the universe, or even if it has a cause. After all, the tautology of causation could not apply to the universe as a whole, it could be infinite.
Secondly, the classic response to the argument is 'What caused God', a theist replies by either saying, 'This is an unanswerable question', in which case why not just cut out the unnecessary link, and use the philosophical tool 'Occamm's Razor' to get rid of the unnecessary assumptions. Or, they will respond, 'God does not require a cause; He is infinite', again, why not just leave it as the universe does not require a cause, one must not add any unnecessary complications and assumptions to a problem.

Another popular argument for God's existence is the anthropic argument.
It goes, the whole universe seems benign, we, on earth, are incredibly lucky to be here, the improbability of there being a planet with the correct conditions to foster life, especially life with consciousness', God must, therefore, have created it. However, the logic is once again spurious, it commits the 'lottery fallacy', (putting the cosmological argument aside), the universe had to turn out one way or another, so the mere fact that it happened to turn out this way, producing such extraordinary life, is no more surprising than winning a massive lottery - someone had to. Let alone evidence for a God, how much more improbable must God be to create this universe than the improbability of the universe creating life. Also, as the great philosopher David Hume showed in his wonderful work 'Enquiry into public understanding', we must always believe the extraordinary over the miraculous.

If you don't accept evolution, then instead of getting onto a pointless argument over that, let's stick to the topic and you can disregard that argument. However, presuming you do accept it then please respond to both arguments. Thanks.
Mkenny

Con

"Firstly, I do not wish to prove that there is definitely no God, just that it is highly irrational to believe in one."

Is it irational to believe in God?
Hope you don't mind me getting this argument started with a verse from the bible and it's from the book of Romans chapter 1 verse 20 which say's, "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes-his eternal power and divine nature-have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse."

The late Isaac Asimov, an ardent anti-creationist, declared, "In man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe." It is much more complex than the most complicated computer ever built. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if man's highly intelligent brain designed the computer, then the human brain was also the product of design?

"Premise 1: God would not want people to suffer."
"Premise 2: Atheists (or anyone who does not share your beliefs about God ie people of a different religion) will suffer through hell, or lack of reaching some higher state of happiness."

Assuming that the context of these two inserts is the same. Does God desire suffering for us? e.g. punishment in hell.
Well lets hear what it say's in the the bible first.
1Ti 2:3 "For this is good and acceptable before God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to a full knowledge of truth."
It is God's desire to remove our pain and suffering and wipe every tear from our eye. Rev 21:4 "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes. And death shall be no longer, nor mourning, nor outcry, nor will there be pain any more; for the first things passed away."
This shall be the result for those who are saved (remember God desires all men to be saved). So why are some lost forever in hell?
Rom 2:8 "but to the ones truly disobeying the truth out of self-interest, and obeying unrighteousness, will be anger and wrath."
God is good! That's a fairly common statemnt to make. And if God is good He must punish evil. For Example, a man stands before a judge and is convicted of a serious crime. Would the Judge leave the man off on the basis that he may be sorry. Or will he carry out the judgement nessessary by law? He'll carry out the judgement. It's his nature to do so as a judge, right? Well in the same way God is Holy (meaning set apart from sin) and must stand in judgement against sin. Now before you say not everyone sins. The truth is we all sin. it's our nature to do so.Rom 3:23 "for all sinned and fall short of the glory of God." We all have done wrong at some point in our lives. And if we're honest enough, we might admit we haven't been the perfect person even today. But isn't God supposed to be a God of Love? You might say!
Yes He is. Going back to the anology of the judge, let's sy the judgement passed on the accused in the court room is a 10,000 euro fine. A man walks into the court room and pays upfront for the accused's dept. So he walks free because payment was made in full for the accused.
In the same way Jesus Christ 2 thousand years ago paid our dept before God. By dying a criminals death onthe cross.1Ti 2:6 "He gave himself as a ransom for all, a fact that was acknowledged at the right time."
And the reason for the ransom. God's love reaching out to a sick and dying world through His Son Jesus Christ.Joh 3:16 "For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life."
God's love conquered judgement in the person of Jesus. The offer is open to all. Not all though will recieve.
This I think should be sufficient for your first argument. I don't agree with evolutionism so over to you. Hope this helps!
Debate Round No. 1
TheLapsang

Pro

Thanks for accepting this debate.
I will summarise both mine and your points so far relating to my first argument.
My argument was, in brief:
God does not want people to suffer, yet by not providing evidence for His existence on a par with the evidence for gravity, many people do suffer. This situation conflicts with His supposedly all-loving nature.
Your response was, in brief:
Yes, God does not want people to suffer. Everybody sins. Those that put complete trust and faith get to go to heaven because Jesus removed the burden of original sin.

I hope you, and all readers of this debate, can see that you have not actually answered or responded to my argument. To demonstrate I will respond to each of your points and then re-write my argument clearly so you can see how little bearing your argument had to mine.
I'm glad that we agree that the Christian perception of God is one where He does not want people to suffer. I agree that everybody does wrong (or sins, as you put it). I also know that Christianity teaches that the only way to heaven is through putting complete trust in Jesus. But how does all this rebut my argument? It does not. You use evasive tactics, probably without even noticing it. You have failed to either point out any faulty logic in my argument; you have failed to explain why the evidence for God is not on a par with gravity; you have failed to see any factual inaccuracies in my argument.
I hesitate before accusing you of committing the straw man fallacy, because to do that you have to misrepresent my argument, you have simply failed to represent my argument at all.
Perhaps in your next post you would be so good as to either respond to my initial argument properly, or agree with my argument and denounce your faith, or to show how I have misunderstood your post, and clarify your rebuttal.

Now to your argument for the existence of God.
"The late Isaac Asimov, an ardent anti-creationist, declared, "In man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe." It is much more complex than the most complicated computer ever built. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if man's highly intelligent brain designed the computer, then the human brain was also the product of design?"
This is essentially the teleological argument. This is disappointing, because, quite frankly, I would prefer to have been given the opportunity to discuss a more interesting argument, such as the anthropic argument for God. But I will address this.
"Wouldn't it be logical" Short answer. No. Longer answer, still no, but because you use what Daniel Dennett wonderfully labelled a 'sky-hook' argument. We have one problem - how did something so complex as a human brain, with all its capacity for understanding etc. come to be. And your response is to say something even more complex must have designed it. The 'sky-hook' analogy here shows us the irrational nature of this response, if we don't yet how some building got to be so tall on earth, is it reasonable to assume that a sky-hook, or to slightly change the analogy, a massive hand came down from the skies and moved it. No. We just don't know the answer yet. However, in this particular case we do know the answer, we do know how the human brain came to be. And accept it or not, evolution is absolutely accepted within the scientific community. Among evolutionary biologists it has been estimated that only 1/1000 reject evolution for anything else. Daniel Dennet calls this solution the 'crane'. Instead of a massive hand or sky-hook coming out of the sky, a crane, from earth has, step by step, moved the object to its high place. Evolution has such a wealth of evidence behind it. My grandfather is an archaeologist, and while in Oregon only a couple of months ago, he and his team found fossils of homosapiens from 14,000 years ago. My mother works in a Natural History Museum, in England, where I live, and every day she sees irrefutable proof of evolution. Personally, I think it takes a bit of arrogance on a creationists side to dismiss evolution. And in America, I know that half the population do, in England it is more like 0.5%. You think you know more about a scientific field - evolution, and how humans came to be - than the scientists who have actually dedicated their lives into research. But anyway, now I've strayed from the initial subject, and for that, I'm sorry.
Another way in which your logic is faulty is that you think that in order to create something x complicated, you need something >x complicated. However, that is simply wrong.
To conclude my rebuttal, your argument is unnecessary (evolution has made it so), is a 'God of the Gaps' argument anyway (we don't know x so y must have made it, when logic dictates that the correct response is: we don't know x...yet), and it creates more problems than it solves. Even if your first logic was sound, and to create the human brain required something more complicated, then why could the same not be said of God, He's so much more complicated than a human brain, so something far more complicated than even Him must have been used to create Him, according to your logic.

Please don't drop out of this debate, and I'm sorry if you feel I have offended you, I don't mean to, I am just someone who gets heated fairly easily during debate. I look forward to your next response with great anticipation. Many Thanks.
Mkenny

Con

First of all, no I'm not offended. Clearly this is a passionate subject for you and I admire your passion.
Okay! So you know the gospel, that's good! I'm sorry you think I used evasive tactics. I certainly didn't set out to do so. I admit there was certain aspects of your argument that weren't quite clear at first, but thanks for clearing that up. Well lets see if this round you feel if I've met the challenge?

Okay! So, to summarise what you have just said in your latest reply. It's irrational to believe or accept a designer of the universe because evolution has made it so. Evolution has irrefutable evidence (according to your mother and grandfather). Evolution is ABSOLUTELY accepted by the scientific community. AMONG evolutionary biologists it has been estimated that only 1/1000 reject evolution for anything else.

Firstly, I thought you said evolution was ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTED by the scientific community? Than why do (according to you) 1/1000 REJECT IT? Hmmm! seems abit shaky to me. Secondly, AMONG EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS it has been estimated that 1/1000 reject evolution for SOMETHING ELSE. I think I here the walls falling down!
Forgive my humour. But clearly you can see that something doesn't add up here?
Your claim is an invalid one. By what you claim your saying evolution is fact but there is no evidence whatsoever of any trans-species. The secular science community are ripping shreds from each other over the subject as you have kindly pointed out to us. And we're expected to believe our great descendant is a piece of slime from a rock. No wonder people are destroying each other at an enormous rate. When all they have to be thankful for is some accident billions of years ago is the product of who the are. "From slime to crime." That in essence is all we're being fed by those who reject the truth of God's Word. Many Universities and colleges have sold themselves out to evolution even though in reality, it's a HYPOTHESIS.

You claim that I cannot prove that God exists and that he certainly did not create the universe in six days as the bible declares? Where's the facts? Right? So what this is is a presupposition. Correct?
Well in your case the same stands, you presuppose evolution took place over billions of years. The simple fact remains none of us were there to see it. You claim one. I claim the other. I accept the Bible as the Word of God. Authoritative and true. You accept the hypothesis of a SECTION of the science community no matter how big it is. And that's where we stand.
We have the same facts, we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in how we interpret them.

I'd like to say at this point evolution has it's place. Micro-evolution that is! It says in Genesis 1:24, "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the soul of life according to its kind: cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth, according to its kind. And it was so'."
Fact-Animals and plant life populate the earth in there OWN kind. dogs are dogs, cats are cats and roses are roses. Now changes do occur within kinds such as what I've mentioned. We have different breeds of dogs and cats but substantially they remain dogs and they remain cats. There's different varieties of roses and again there still roses.
Micro-evolution - "It suggests that limited change, within narrow limits, occurs throughout all living things." Which is known as the "Special Theory".
Macro-evolution, which you have pointed out as fact, states, all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution'..." If so Macro-evolution is a hypothesis and not fact as you say. Then why do so many except it as so? In their book, Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Bales and Clark confirmed such an observation. "Evolution," they wrote, "is taken for granted today and thus it is uncritically accepted by scientists as well as laymen. It is accepted by them today because it was already accepted by others who went before them and under whose direction they obtained their education" (1966, p. 106). People believe in evolution because they have been taught that it is true. Also, as Henry Morris well stated the issue: "The main reason most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution!" (1963, p. 26).
Consider the hypothetical example of two college students discussing their professors and courses. One of the students, Joe, asks his friend, Mark, the following question: "Hey, Mark, do you believe in evolution? My professor says all smart folks do." Honestly, what is Mark supposed to say? If he says, "No, Joe, I don't believe in evolution," by definition he has admitted to being outside the sphere of all the "smart folks." On the other hand, if he says, "Yes, Joe, I do believe in evolution," he may be admitting to a belief based not on an examination of the evidence, but on the idea that he does not wish to be viewed by his peers as anything but "smart." Undoubtedly, many people today fall into this category. They do not accept evolution because they have seen evidence that establishes it as true. Rather, they believe it because doing so places them in the same category as others whom they consider to be intelligent.
The simple fact is, however, that truth is not determined by popular opinion or majority vote. A thing may be, and often is, true even when accepted only by the minority. Believing something based on the assumption that "everyone else" also believes it often can lead to disastrous results. As the late Guy N. Woods remarked: "It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world" (1982, 124[1]:2).
The Bible also has something to say on this, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many." Matt 7:13
Without a doubt, there are many who believe in evolution because they have rejected God. For those who refuse to believe in the Creator, evolution becomes their only escape. Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable" (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73). Professor D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for over twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that "evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible" (1929, 123:233).

So it is clear that Macro-evolution is NOT FACT. It is a worldview. The Atheist and Agnostic reject the Creator. Therefore macro-evolution is how they and you view the world.

So does Evolution make my argument pointless? I don't think so!

"Even if your first logic was sound, and to create the human brain required something more complicated, then why could the same not be said of God, He's so much more complicated than a human brain, so something far more complicated than even Him must have been used to create Him, according to your logic."
My view of this is that, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."-Gen1.1. Isa 44:6 "So says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: I am the First, and I am the Last; and there is no God except Me."
God IS and He EXISTS from HIMSELF. In this light my logic is perfectly sound.

Sources derrived from. Answersingenesis.com,
Apologetics Press :: Sensible ScienceIs Evolution a "Fact" of Science?
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Debate Round No. 2
TheLapsang

Pro

TheLapsang forfeited this round.
Mkenny

Con

Sorry to see you didn't get to reply to my second argument in time. I will not add any further to my debate this round and I will give you a second chance to answer my argument in this third round. Hope you can continue?

If you feel my argument thus far has changed your mind on God's existence it would be great to hear that also.
Debate Round No. 3
TheLapsang

Pro

Sorry about that. I had no free time in which to reply to your argument.
But now that I've read the whole script so far, I do not see how your last argument responded in any way to my previous argument; to me, they bared little correlation.

I'll start with summarising every point made so far, and then I'll respond to any outstanding points, and clarify my position, and state what I feel you need to do to constitute an adequate response.

Lapsang Argument 1:
I showed how neither the cosmological argument, nor the anthropic arguments are valid arguments for God.
I presented two of my own arguments for God: Evolution (which we will not discuss due to you not believing in it), and through God's seemingly hidden nature. That can be summarised as: God does not want people to suffer, people suffer if they do not believe in God - if Christianity is true, yet God has chosen not to present evidence for Himself on a par with the evidence for anything we humanity accepts to be definitely true, ie gravity.

Mkenny Argument 1:
You stated the teleological argument for God.
Then, you attempted to answer my argument from God's hiddenness. You did so just by clarifying the Christian teaching on saving. You showed how in 'The Bible' it says that God does not want people to suffer, and they will if they don't believe in Him. You showed that punishing people for their sins was fair.

Lapsang Argument 2:
I point out that your response does not actually respond to my argument; you just clarified the Christian teaching, without showing why God did not present obvious proof of His existence.
I proceeded to show that evolution was a solution that stopped an otherwise infinite chain of regresses (it is a 'crane'), whereas creationism replaced one problem with another, more significant problem (it is a 'sky-hook')
I also showed how your logic was faulty, how your argument, even without evolution, is just a fallacious 'God of the Gaps' argument.

Mkenny Argument 2:
You objected to me saying that evolution was 'absolutely' accepted, when 0.1% deny it. You called evolution a 'hypothesis'. You said that while micro evolution was fact, macro was a "world-view". You said that people believe in evolution because intelligent people believe in evolution, and they in turn believe in evolution because their predecessors do. Your final point was that God is that a book called 'The Bible' said that God is eternal.

So, first I should clarify my position on the 'absolutely accepted' issue. I think that you are really scraping at the barrel when your second and third paragraphs are both dedicated to beating to death one instance of arguably dodgy wording. Anyway, I think I am right in saying "absolutely", as that can mean definitely, which does work. Because evolution (macro), is definitely accepted by the scientific community. Admittedly not by all evolutionary biologists, but by the community at large.

Secondly you call evolution a 'hypothesis', here I must object most strongly. The scientific method is this: Hypothesis, then falsify it, then make conclusion, which is always open to adjustments. And unlike creationism, evolution (macro) can be and has been falsified. Even when Darwin published 'Origin of Species', it was beyond a hypothesis. As you have such an unusual opinion on evolution, I am sure that you have read that book several times, so perhaps you just forgot that he had the hypothesis, then falsified it on birds, and then concluded that his hypothesis, with a few adjustments, was correct.

I am sure you know, when you say macro evolution is not a fact, that nothing is factual, everything has differing degrees of certainty.

Then you said that scientists believe in evolution because their predecessors did. But we are talking about evolutionary biologists, and this is simply not true. Adjustments are constantly being made to evolution which proves that the evolutionary biologists do not just blindly believe in it, they challenge it using all their critical faculties.

Your final point is that a book called 'The Bible' says God is eternal, and you defend yourself from my attack on your logic. Yet you said,
"Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if man's highly intelligent brain designed the computer, then the human brain was also the product of design?".

OK, done with the rebuttals. Now onto what you need to do to provide an adequate response to the sum of my arguments and rebuttals.
I do not feel you have responded to my argument for God. So you need to show either:
- why there is no evidence for God on a par with the evidence for gravity
- that there is evidence for God on a par with the evidence for gravity, and then you would need to show why, given that the evidence for God is as obvious, clear, and irrefutable as the evidence for gravity, do so many people not believe in God.

You also need to show either:
- why your positive argument for God's existence does not commit the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy
- or why the 'God of the Gaps' argument is not a fallacy.

You also need to show:
- that the 'sky-hook' solution - God, is better than the 'crane' solution - evolution.

I again apologise for not having the time to respond in the last lot of alloted time.
Mkenny

Con

Welcome back pro, glad to see your able to continue with this debate.

"But now that I've read the whole script so far, I do not see how your last argument responded in any way to my previous argument; to me, they bared little correlation."

First of all, I don't see how you could make this statement when in your previous argument you went the length and breight to try and prove the theologlcal
argument was pointless due to evolution making it so. Of course this is nonesense
because as we have seen evolution takes more faith to except as truth than anything else.
Was it not you who said it was pointless to get in to discussion over evolution? Yet it was you who used it as the pillar of your argument against the Existance of God. So just to clarify for all, my last argument responded in every way to your previous argument.
Admittingly, There are some points of your arguments as a whole that still need to be addressed. Just as well ive this and another round to go then hey!

Is there Evidence for God on a par with Gravity?
Ok! So we all know gravity is true! Or I could get really flakey and say I don't believe in gravity. Which of course would be outragous wouldn't it?
"Newton's law of gravity defines the attractive force between all objects that possess mass. "
We can't see gravity, we can't touch gravity. It's invisable. Or more correctly, it's a force. So we know it's there. When we trip, we fall! it's as simple as that! So we experience, or observe it to know it is true. Somebody who's completely blind and paralised from head to toe may have a hard time accepting it, if you know what I mean!
What if it wasn't gravity verses the Existance of God! But what if within gravity and how it operates lies strong evidence in God Existance as sole creater of this universe?
Gravity is one of the four known fundamental forces of the universe. And of those four it's still the least understood. It's known as "the mystery force"
DESIGNER GRAVITY
The force F between two masses m1 and m2, when separated by a distance r, can be written as F = (G m1 m2)/r 2
Where G is the gravitational constant, first measured by Henry Cavendish in 1798.1
This equation shows that gravity decreases as the separation distance, r, between two objects becomes large but never quite reaches zero.

The inverse-square nature of this equation is intriguing. After all, there is no essential reason why gravity should behave in this way. In a chance, evolving universe, some random exponent like r1.97 or r2.3 would seem much more likely. However, precise measurements have shown an exact exponent out to at least 5 decimal places, 2.00000. As one researcher put it, this result seems ‘just a little too neat.'2 We may conclude that the gravity force shows precise, created design. Actually, if the exponent deviated just slightly from exactly 2, planet orbits and the entire universe would become unstable.
http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Two Bible references are helpful in considering the nature of gravity and physical science in general. First, Colossians 1:17 explains that Christ is before all things, and by Him all things consist. The Greek verb for consist (sunistao) means to cohere, preserve, or hold together. Extrabiblical Greek use of this word pictures a container holding water within itself. The word is used in Colossians in the perfect tense, which normally implies a present continuing state arising from a completed past action. One physical mechanism used is obviously gravity, established by the Creator and still maintained without flaw today. Consider the alternative; if gravity ceased for one moment, instant chaos surely would result. All heavenly objects, including the earth, moon and stars, would no longer hold together. Everything would immediately disintegrate into small fragments.
A second reference, Hebrews 1:3, declares that Christ upholds all things by the word of His power. Uphold (phero) again describes the sustaining or maintaining of all things, including gravity. The word uphold in this verse means much more than simply supporting a weight. It includes control of all the ongoing motions and changes within the universe. This infinite task is managed by the Lord's almighty Word, whereby the universe itself was first called into being. Gravity, the ‘mystery force', which is poorly understood after nearly four centuries of research, is one of the manifestations of this awesome divine upholding. http://www.answersingenesis.org...

"why your positive argument for God's existence does not commit the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy"
"God of the Gaps is the method of claiming God (or gods) exists by pointing to gaps in our present knowledge of how things work. For example, ancient Scandinavians who did not know what caused thunder and lightning chose to see them as evidence for their own chief deity, Thor, driving his chariot through the sky and hammering with Miolnir. Present-day creationists and IDists employ the same method by claiming that our gaps in the knowledge of abiogenesis and evolution mean that an intelligent designer must have been involved." http://wiki.cotch.net...

God of the Gaps methodoligy is certainly not what I'm doing here. I'm not saying because we don't understand fully or have all the answers to everything that we must except the Creator. I'm saying that the evidence looked at honestly with an open heart points to the Creator. Not away from Him. "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes-his eternal power and divine nature-have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse." Rom 3:20
The universe around us. The Earth we live on. The maths involved to make it all work. The precision and acurracy in it all from Galaxies right down to the genetic make-up of us all, to the very way atoms interact with each-other. It all points to DESIGN not ACCIDENT.

"that the 'sky-hook' solution - God, is better than the 'crane' solution - evolution."
"Instead of a massive hand or sky-hook coming out of the sky, a crane, from earth has, step by step, moved the object to its high place"
This is how you described evolution, as a crane from earth step by step moving an object to it's high place.
The crane that is reffered to here is none other than random chance. In light of the make up of the universe and molecular structure. The probability of this occuring is madness. "Evolution needs more time than the history of the universe, or even millions upon billions upon trillions of universes have to offer - on average. How high do the odds have to go before we suspect that all this just isn't the result of any non-deliberate process? How many times would the same person be able to win the Lottery in a row before one could reasonably suspect the possibility of deliberate cheating?"www.detectingdesign.com/galactosidaseevolution.html
Debate Round No. 4
TheLapsang

Pro

TheLapsang forfeited this round.
Mkenny

Con

Mkenny forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Myzory 8 years ago
Myzory
I feel as though I am also a slim few that denounces the existence of the holy spirit. But I would like to propose a idea of Free Thinking I am tired of people being scolded and flamed because of anything asking a "What if?" Question is considered Anti-Christian Bigotry. So many inventions and theory's have been dropped in fear of ex-communication or worse death I guarantee some where some one has found a way to prove all the religions wrong but the minute he even comes out of the wood works with the idea he is "Smited"

Dare I say it now I promote Atheism and if your god doesn't accept it he can get all smitey on me all he wants...
Posted by 2dumb2care 8 years ago
2dumb2care
it is both irresponsible to believe/no believe in a god so its a lose lose situation.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

-Isaac Asimov
Posted by TheManUpstairs 8 years ago
TheManUpstairs
Jesus Christ on a flippin' bike! Thou shalt pay for thy lack of faith, all thou non-believers. Just thou waitest until thou gets up here, thou shalt all get a sign alright, don't thou flippin' worry.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
May the angels and ministers of grace preserve us from blasphemous heathens and deceitful heretics that do the Devil's work by spreading wicked lies about our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and his dad (God).

On the other hand, TheLapsang's got a point, hasn't he? I mean, if there was an all-powerful deity, surely he would put a stop to all these debates by sending some unambiguous sign that he exists?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by B2BCHAOS 8 years ago
B2BCHAOS
TheLapsangMkennyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Peck 8 years ago
Peck
TheLapsangMkennyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Milly 8 years ago
Milly
TheLapsangMkennyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by JT 8 years ago
JT
TheLapsangMkennyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Sokrates 8 years ago
Sokrates
TheLapsangMkennyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
TheLapsangMkennyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by alvinthegreat 8 years ago
alvinthegreat
TheLapsangMkennyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Myzory 8 years ago
Myzory
TheLapsangMkennyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by 2dumb2care 8 years ago
2dumb2care
TheLapsangMkennyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
TheLapsangMkennyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30