The Instigator
djdipretoro
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
123456789123456789
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 692 times Debate No: 62915
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

djdipretoro

Pro

Round 1 is to accept the debate. The debate officially starts in the second round.

I wish I could put this under philosophy and religion, but that is not possible.
Anything goes, pretty much. For the record, I will be using a presuppositional apologetic approach to this topic.

Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: opening arguments
Round 3: rebuttals
Round 4: rebuttals and defense
Round 5: closing statements
123456789123456789

Con

This is a debate I have been looking for a long time. I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
djdipretoro

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate, and thank you in advance all who will read what follows.

So to begin, I will make an observation:

1. There is no neutrality. Neither Pro nor Con come to this debate totally neutral, as if we have no assumptions. Nor do we look at the evidence from a neutral position. We have presupposition as to what the evidence can prove, and we interpret the evidence on the basis of those assumptions. For, when I see the evidence, as a Christian theist I am led to believe that it points to the God of Scripture. But when an atheist looks at the evidence, he thinks differently. So, in short, we have conflicting presuppositions that must be dealt with.

My case:

To put my case simply:

The atheist worldview cannot account for logic, science (specifically the uniformity of nature), or morality.

1) Logic: On the atheist universe, man is nothing more than a bag of stardust. What goes on in his head is nothing more than a process of chemical reactions. My brain is fizzing, and so is Con's brain (in the atheistic universe). We would not be thinking, we would be "fizzing." In that case, any statement Con makes is not a logical or illogical statement, it is simply the result of a chemical process.
On the Christian theistic worldview, God is the necessary precondition for all rational thought. Where the atheist can give no account for logic, the Christian has an answer. We maintain that God has designed the world, and he has given man the ability to know God and to know the world.
In sum, we must ask the atheist "on what basis do you justify the laws of logic?" He cannot answer. He can only make statements about the attributes of logic i.e., that it is universal, invariant, and abstract. But he cannot account for logic. As Christians, we hold that we are not just bags of stardust, but we are image bearers of God, who reflect his thinking. Only if the Christian God exists, is there any reason to think that logic exists, because logic reflects the thinking of God. But on an atheistic universe, we don't think. We fizz.

2) Science: Scientists rely on the uniformity of nature. Without the uniformity of nature, science would be impossible. But how can the atheist account for nature being uniform? Surely, he can't say, "Well it has been so in the past, so it must be so in the future." For this is the problem of induction. But if the atheist makes this claim, what is his basis for doing so? How does he justify the uniformity of nature? Well, he can't. In a universe governed by randomness/chance, there is no reason to think the nature will continue on as it has. For all we know, gravity might no longer be applicable!
However, on the Christian theistic worldview, the uniformity of nature is a given. As Genesis 8:22 says, "While the earth remains, seed-time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease." Furthermore, Jesus "upholds the universe by the word of his power"(Heb 1:3). Clearly, the God of Scripture justifies the very thing that makes science possible. Atheism has no such justification.

3) Morality: Atheism tends to say that morality is herd instinct or relative. But here are refutations to that idea.
Herd Instinct: We have multiple instincts within us. I have instinct A that says "kill" and instinct B that says "protect." What is it that says I should not kill but should rather protect/not kill? Surely Con will say that killing or murder is wrong. But if we are to hold to the instinct theory, we is it that tells us that one instinct is favorable over the other?
Relativity: Do you lock your doors at night? If so, why? If morality is relative/subjective, is a thief or rapist in the night simply acting on his relative idea of morality? So th:en, if morality is relative, how can we make any moral indictments against those that might do something bad? You may say, "We should not do anything that causes harm." Ok, but that's not much of a rallying cry. And harm itself is moral in some sense, so people could define relatively.

Now that the two most commonly used theories of ethics by atheists are out of the way, we can move on to the objective necessity of morality. For the atheist will indeed make moral claims, but on what grounds is something moral? How does he justify morality?
If, as noted in section #1, we are just bags of stardust, then what is wrong with two bag of stardust bumping into each other? We may be shocked at the horror of crimes and murders, but if man is nothing more than a product of evolution, then who cares? The atheist cannot justify any moral claim. He can surely make the claims, but they will be without foundation.
The Christian worldview however, provides a foundation for ethics. God says "Be holy, for I am holy" (Lev. 11:44). The Scripture repeatedly calls people to good conduct not for some arbitrary reason, but for the pleasure of knowing God and reflecting his character. David said to God in Psalm 119:68, "You are good and do good; teach me your statutes." God is good. More than that, he is the standard of goodness. He has given a law, morality. Christians have a justification for morality, namely that God has set for his law, as he did at Sinai, and that His law is absolute and objective for all times and all people.

I end my opening statement with John 1:1; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." As you may know, "Word" in the original Greek is "logos." Jesus himself is the incarnation of God. As the Logos, Jesus is the reason for everything, the foundation for all things. "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Col. 1:17). In the Greek, "all things" means, "all things." He holds together logic, morality, and the uniformity of nature. We have a foundation for these things, the God revealed in Scripture. Atheists do not.
123456789123456789

Con

123456789123456789 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
djdipretoro

Pro

I will give Con the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, I will let him set forth his case in this round and we will resume the debate.
123456789123456789

Con

123456789123456789 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
djdipretoro

Pro

My opponent has not rebutted any of my arguments. He has therefore conceded to the debate so far. However, I would not mind if he still decided to join the debate.
123456789123456789

Con

123456789123456789 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
djdipretoro

Pro

Con, if you want to say anything, now is your chance.
123456789123456789

Con

123456789123456789 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by djdipretoro 2 years ago
djdipretoro
And, if you want to debate me, I am totally up to it.
Posted by djdipretoro 2 years ago
djdipretoro
Well, Bubbagump282, I wanted and expected a good debate.
Posted by Bubbagump282 2 years ago
Bubbagump282
Something that could've been a great debate was thrown away by numbers over here. A competent creationist should face a competent opponent. While I don't agree with your belief, I'd like to see more from you.
Posted by djdipretoro 2 years ago
djdipretoro
I agree. Thank you, though.
Posted by 123456789123456789 2 years ago
123456789123456789
No outside help. That is cheating
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
feel free to resource me Pro, if you would like some assistance or verification int he quality of your arguments.
often what feels like wisdom and clear obviously interpretable comments are regarded as complete nothingness by people who lack the ability to perceive God.
Love to help. Because it gets crazy out there. They really don't listen to anything.
Posted by GHOSTASSASSIN 2 years ago
GHOSTASSASSIN
man of science here.
Posted by PhilK 2 years ago
PhilK
So you are taking the position that God does exist?
No votes have been placed for this debate.