Does God Exist?
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||6 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||840 times||Debate No:||94173|
-Pro argues for God's existence using various arguments.
-Con argues that God does not exist. And yes, Con actually has to provide arguments for the non-existence of God. For some reason people never understand this.
-Pro gives definitions and sets up debate
-Con accepts the debate (acceptance only).
-Pro gives opening argument
-Con gives opening argument...no rebuttals.
-Pro responds to what Con argued
-Con responds to what Pro argued (does not defend arguments)
-Both debaters conclude their arguments and finish responding to what each other wrote.
God-the greatest conceivable being.
Exist-have objective reality or being.
The Axiological Argument:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Since this premise is generally not disputed, I will only give a quick defense of it. Objective morals have to come from an objective source and that source can only be God. Nothing/nobody else could produce an objective moral code.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
a. Since we know what is absolutely wrong, there must be an absolute standard of rightness.
Murder is an action that all people (insane people are the exception) recognize as absolutely wrong. Taking the life of a human being unjustly is undeniably wrong and everybody knows it. That said, if we know what is wrong, we must have some idea of what is right. For example, if someone were to say that 2+2 were equal to five, we would know that they were wrong. But in order to know that, we would have to have some idea of what the right answer was.
b. If there wasn't a Moral Law, then we wouldn't make excuses for violating it.
We have all done something wrong at some point in our lives. It is interesting to note that we always try to make excuses for violating the moral law. But if there was no objective moral law, then we would not feel the need to apologize to people when we hurt them. For example, if I were to say some harsh words to a family member of mine, I might try to offer them excuses like "I was hungry."
However, if morality was subjective, and there was no right/wrong, we wouldn't feel the need to to say sorry whenever we did something "wrong". In fact, lets say that I owed a person money. I wouldn't have any moral reason to pay them back. The person I owed money to merely would have a different opinion of what morality was than me. And since there would be no objective moral standard, I would be perfectly justified in not paying him back.
But this is all ridiculous since we all are aware of the same objective moral law. And that is why we make excuses for violating it and that is the reason why we just know when someone wrongs us.
c. All people really do know that a standard of right/wrong exist.
Most people have an idea of what is right and wrong. Now some people might argue that there is no such thing as objective morality or a real right and wrong. But the people that argue this always go back on their claim a moment later (Lewis 6). The same people that say that morality is opinion based (or subjective) would still be irritated at people for treating them poorly. I can imagine that my opponent would be irritated if the voters gave me all the votes merely because they liked my username better than his. He would certainly feel wronged. But the thing is, if morality was subjective, no one should ever feel wronged. Why would someone feel wronged if morality was based on opinions?
Sometimes people try to argue that morality is created by societies. But we also understand that there are societies that have condoned evil practices when in fact people know that the society was wrong. For example, W. H. Auden, a famous 20th century poet, said that "there had to be a reason Hitler was utterly wrong." Auden said this famous quote after going to a theater that showed pictures of the Holocaust. These pictures sickened him and made him rethink his worldview. Before watching these pictures, Auden believed that it was up to the society to decide what was right and wrong. But during his time at the theater he realized that if societies decided what was right and wrong, and if morality is subjective, this would mean that Hitler was justified in everything he did. Well, at least according to that society. And who are we to tell them they are wrong if morality is purely subjective?
d. If there is no objective morality, there is no reason to be moral. If there was no objective standard of right/wrong, then all we would have is peoples opinions. Our opinion on morality would be like our opinion on what the best flavor of ice cream is. It just would not matter If we did something that people thought was wrong since there would be no objectively wrong things in the first place.
Some may argue that they are moral to benefit society. The problem with this response is that benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral. The question "why be moral" and "Why benefit society" are almost the same question. Benefiting society is a moral thing to do...but we want to know why someone should be moral if there is no objective morality.
Another objection would be that morality is merely an instinct. The problem with this claim is that people have different instincts which would make morality subjective. And again, if morality is subjective, we could never tell people that they are doing something wrong. Another problem with this argument is that morality is usually that thing that decides between which instincts to follow. For example, if a person were to hear a gun shot and a cry for help, people would most likely have two instincts. One would be to run away from danger; another instinct would be to run to help the person. Morality might push a person to choose the weaker instinct, which is to choose to help the person instead of saving themselves.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The Teleological Argument:
1. The universe is fine-tuned for life.
The world is so complex that there must be a creator. According to Roger Penrose of Oxford University, he has calculated that the odds of that low-entropy state's (state in which the universe began) existing by chance alone is on the order of one chance out of 10^10(123). That number is inconceivable. The odds are so against a life permitting universe that it is like a criminal (representing the universe) is about to be executed by a firing squad (representing odds against life permitting universe) and then the members of the firing squad all miss. People claim that it happened by chance. Christians say that it is ludicrous to think it happened by chance. Why? Because something feels rigged. It is completely logical to believe that there is an intelligent designer especially since everything is so complex. On the other hand, it is crazy to call all of this simple chance.
What about the fact that "the amount of matter (or more precisely energy density) in our universe at the Big Bang turns out to be finely-tuned to about 1 part in 1055. In other words, to get a life-permitting universe the amount of mass would have to be set to a precision of 55 decimal places" (http://crossexamined.org...).
What about the galaxy mass distribution? If "too much in the central bulge: life-supportable planet will be exposed to too much radiation. [And] If too much in the spiral arms: life-supportable planet will be destabilized by the gravity and
radiation from adjacent spiral arms." See link below...
And what about these other 400 factors that have to come into play?
How can you possibly say that the universe is not fine tuned for life?
How about these facts? The 23 degree axis tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth. Then there is the fact that if the gravitational forces in our universe were altered by .00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, the sun would not exist and then we would not either.
2. Fine-tuning can potentially be explained by chance, necessity or design.
3. Not by chance or necessity.
First of all, the odds are so against a life permitting universe that no one can even argue for necessity. As for chance, the chances of our universe existing are so great that they outnumber the number of individual atoms that currently exist. But not only that, chance is not even an explanation. If a coin is tossed, it may have a 50% chance of showing heads but the cause of that happening is that a human flipped the coin. So the question is, what caused the universe to exist? I want to know why the odds were beat. Since chance and necessity are not good explanations...
4. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is the result of design.
The Cosmological Argument:
a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
b. The universe began to exist.
Modern science supports that the universe had a beginning. For example, the second law of thermodynamics helps us figure out that the universe is running out of energy (hence heading towards a heat death). In an eternal universe, it would have run out of energy by now. So since this hasn't happened, we know that the Universe had a beginning. Also, there is the discovery of red-shift in 1929. Basically, this discovery showed us that the universe is expanding which means if you were to go back in time, the universe would shrink and shrink until you get this infinite point. William Lane Craig says it better, he states that "as one traces the expansion back in time, the universe becomes denser and denser until one reaches a point of infinite density from which the universe began to expand."
c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
d. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).
God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.
Thank you instigator for your beginning arguments:
Debate outline (running out of characters):
1. Compelling evidence for evolution
2. Geology vs. Great Flood
3. Morality vs. Instinct
Factor #1: Fossil and DNA records favor Evolution:
- Fossil records are the key of illustrating the diversity of life, an organism’s history, the history of the environmental standards from the past, etc. In 1998, researchers uncovered a fossil that showed an organism’s changeover from water to land. Even though, fossils cannot tell the story of every single organism and natural aspect, there is, without a doubt, a significant portion of fossil records that substantiate the theory of evolution, as compared to creationism. Fossils from 1 billion years ago show only single-celled organisms; however, as we proceed further in history, rocks from 550 million years ago show fossils of multicellular organisms. Even further, we see fossilized, jawless fish that are 500 million years old. Unsurprisingly enough, the pattern continues, when we find fish from 400 million years ago that now have jawbones. The sequence is perpetual (1).
- Tetrapods / or the first animals to walk on land are seen in fossils that are over 370 million years old. And in 1998, scientists have found this sample. As you can see in the image (on the site), it depicts a fin with five fingers. The surprising aspect about this fossil is it has a fin of a fish, and 5 fingers just like hominids had on their hands (1).
- The sequence is also seen with mammals and reptiles. Mammals are seen in fossils that are over 230 million years old. However, reptiles are older. One form of reptiles known as the cynodonts (260 million years) exhibited strong mammal-like looks. As scientists were observing this group of reptilians, they noticed a change in their ears in their younger fossil samples, where the bone makeup was pertaining more to a mammal’s one. Figure 3 depicts the difference in the bone structure, where there are two jaw hinges (instead of one). Interestingly, after the extinction of the cynodonts, mammals emerged. The extinction of the one and emergence of the other helps substantiate the transition (1).
- To this day, the same evolutionary pattern continues and will continue. Evolution happens over a very long period of time, just like the movement of continental plates (analogy). We see some evolutionary patterns happening humans (obviously). For example, the human brain is shrinking, and it has been for the past 30,000 years. According to the measurements, the brain has shrunk from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cubic centimeters. Another factor is tolerance for milk. Humans always had a difficulty metabolizing lactose after the newborn stage; nevertheless, after ancient civilizations started taming cattle, drinking milk today has become beneficial for our health. “A 2006 study suggests this tolerance for lactose was still developing as early as 3,000 years ago in East Africa” (2).Surely, there are numerous pieces of evidence that support human evolution, this is just a few. The same applies to animals.
- As for the correlation of DNA and Evolution: many Christians like to argue that humans didn’t descend from monkeys/chimps etc.; it’s completely bogus. Well, to top that off, humans descended from organisms that all took different evolutionary routes/paths. However, the human DNA is strongly similar to that of the great African apes’ DNA. Besides the DNA similarities, fossils uncovered from 4 million years ago prove that the first steps to human evolution started in Africa. In fact, to easily top things off, humans’ DNA has similarities with all organisms; regardless of their type. However, we’re considered primates for a reason. Aside from DNA, there is also strong association with our body structure and behavioral patterns to that of primates. But, DNA remains the strongest indicator. The human and ape DNA departed 6-8 million years ago from our common ancestor (of both primates and humans) that lived 25 million years ago (3).
(If you wish to view the images, press on the link: Figure 1 and 3).
Factor #2 there is are no geological evidence of the Great Flood
- The Great Flood (aka Noah’s Flood) is a simple, bogus claim; it’s nothing more than a myth / fairytale. In fact, the story doesn’t only break the law of physics (let alone there’s not geological evidence); it’s historically inaccurate. Professor Robert R. Cargill from the UCLA department of Near Eastern Languages and Culture asserts that the story of the worldwide flood from Genesis 6-9 is “not historical”, but an amalgamation of “two flood stories” that came from the Mesopotamian “narratives” (4). In fact, there’ve been dozens and dozens flood stories. All the way from Mesopotamians to Assyrians, and then early Israelites (680BCE-720BCE). Some scholars firmly believe that the Bible tells two flood stories that are concocted into one. To prove so, Genesis 6:19-20 states:
- “And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive (4).” Meaning that there must be one pair of each animal on the ark and a woman and a man. However, Genesis 7:2-3 says differently: “Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth(4).”
- Plus, Professor Cargill points out that it is unknown for how long the flood lasted. Genesis 7:24 says 150 days, while Genesis 7:17 says 40. Oh wait, Genesis 8:6 says 4. Yes, this is all very mind-boggling. It doesn’t only prove that the bible is historically inaccurate; it’s also very contradictory.
- As for scientific evidence, a flood could’ve never occurred because there isn’t enough water in the atmosphere to sustain such an enormous flood. Professor Cargill uses the U.S. Geological Survey to prove his point: “One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi^3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km^3). That may sound like a lot, but it is only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth's water volume of about 332,500,000 mi^3 (1,385,000,000 km^3). If all of the water in the atmosphere rained down at once, it would only cover the ground to a depth of 2.5 centimeters, about 1 inch (4).”
- My take on this: aside from this historical inaccuracy, the Bible carries more than just a dozen. For instance, the Garden of Eden where they once lived was never found, let alone their remains were never uncovered either (just like Jesus’ remains, leaving him a fictional mystery as well). But nevertheless, the story also might’ve been plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh, a story that is much older than the Genesis; it too features a talking snake, and other similar characteristics.
Factor #3 morality is a behavioral instinct
- I believe that morality is an instinctive occurrence from the natural perspective. Natural morality can be demonstrated by animals’ behavior in the animal kingdom. The predators will have to kill to feed their pack and the prey will have to find better shelter to ensure safety for their own pack (survival instincts). Animals, which are incapable of understanding human concepts, do it as a natural calling. Survival of the Fittest / aka Natural Selection is a preprogrammed string of code in everyone’s brain. According to evolutionary standards, morality is one of the key factors to survival. The reason people believe there’s a supernatural force driving morality is because it’s culturally disseminated. Every culture has its rights and wrongs. Evolutionary speaking, every animal (including humans since we’re part of the animal kingdom) has a need to reproduce, to continue our “species” to spread our seed. In the evolutionary sense, morality is the key for sexual selection, making humans choose the right (most of the time) sexual partner to reproduce with. Humans seem to be no different than animals in this case. By evolutionary standards, we too feel the need to care for our children (5).
Factor #4 objective morality in religion is logically impossible
- The argument about objective standards and morality is an argument that recurs constantly in the theistic and atheistic community.
- Objective morality is a myth: To be honest, it is hard to show whether objective morality is the deed of God, let alone to even show it is logically possible. For instance, the video poses an interesting example and mindboggling question: If person A says X is wrong, while person B says X is no big deal, in order for it to be objective, one of the claims must be right. However, you can’t prove if either is correct or wrong at all (they’re all subjective in the end)! Also, when God commands us to do something or tells us something, such as “God says not” or “God says so”, it is not objective. It’s a subjective opinion. A real world example that the video poses is Gay marriage. Religious folks say it’s wrong because it’s against God’s doctrines and teachings; however, they don’t realize that that’s just a subjective opinion. You cannot say whether something is objective. Even murder is subjective by some standards.
1. Fossil and DNA records favor Evolution
a. 1998 Transitional Form
My opponent brings up the fact that a possible transitional fossil was found in 1998. It apparently showed an organisms' changeover from water to land.
Their source states that "in 1998, scientists found a fossilized fin, 370 million years old, with eight digits similar to the five fingers humans have on their hands" (http://biologos.org...). But I find this strange since in 2010, a tetrapod fossil (from 395 million years ago) was found that showed individual digits. And what do scientists have to say about this?
Well, Per Ahlberg, a professor of evolutionary organismal biology at Uppsala University in Sweden, said that "The trackway shows pairs of prints -- the sort of tracks a salamander would leave if it walked. In order to make tracks like the ones found you need to have front legs and back legs that are about the same size." In other words, the older fossil shows no evidence of the creature being able to swim.
Then there is Philippe Janvier from the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris. This person said that "It is a really stunning discovery because it's the earliest evidence we have of tetrapods. These footprints are clear enough to attest that tetrapods were there 395 millions years ago...It changes what we thought about the evolutionary tree concerning the part dealing with transition from fish to land vertebrae. The divergence between the tetrapods and their closest fish relatives is much younger than previously thought and it obliges us to find actual evidence -- skeletons or complete fossils -- in much earlier strata that could enlighten us between this divergence" (http://www.cnn.com...).
Surely the fossil from 370 million years ago could not be a transitional form since a tetrapod with individual digits was found much earlier.
Another problem here is the diagram my opponent's source uses. It claims that the "fin" had digits and then has a redrawn figure of the one originally shown in a Nature paper. But the figure misrepresents the original drawing. If you look at the original drawing (http://www.nature.com...), you will see that it labels the bones as radials. And this is important since tetrapod digits are way different from radial bones in fish fins. In other words, the fish fin doesn't have anything like the digits in a true tetrapod limb.
Now lets address one last problem with my opponent's source. It claims that "At 500 million years ago, ancient fish without jawbones surface." But this is just not correct. A paper from Nature said that "These finds imply that the first agnathans may have evolved in the earliest Cambrian" (http://www.nature.com...). I find it very interesting that my opponent's source doesn't mention the fact that complex animals such as vertebrate fish appear at the beginning of the Cambrian explosion without any clear evolutionary precursors.
b. Only single celled organisms are found 1 billion years ago
My opponent asserts that the fossil record supports evolution more so than creationism yet this is completely false. To support their claim, they state that "Fossils from 1 billion years ago show only single-celled organisms; however, as we proceed further in history, rocks from 550 million years ago show fossils of multicellular organisms." They seem to think this automatically proves evolution but it doesn't. It actually is evidence for intelligent design.
But before I talk about that, I want to point out that we may have actually found multi-cellular organisms that go that far back (https://www.sciencenews.org...).
But to go back on topic, I find it strange that my opponent failed to bring up the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion was the rapid appearance of fossils in which the major groups of animals first showed up. I mean, they appear rapidly with no evidence of gradual evolution. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins even admitted in his book called "The Blind Watchmaker" that "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
Furthermore the Paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson said that "Most new species, genera, and families, and nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the records suddenly, and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely transitional sequences" ( see book called The Major Features of Evolution).
So the Cambrian explosion is the period in which all of those multi-celled organisms appear. How did this happen? Well, evolution can clearly not explain it. It seems that the fossil record actually supports a designer. There are two explains for life given in this debate. I said that God is the cause of the universe (round two) and my opponent asserts that evolution caused life to evolve into what it is today. Which view better fits the fossil evidence?
Well, since evolutionists admit that animals come into existence without any trace of any transitional sequences, I think it is very fair to say that intelligent design is the better explanation.
c. Mammals and Reptiles
My opponent first points out ear similarities between reptiles and mammals. This was a huge find yet recently this was said about the discovery: "But the situation is not as clear-cut as it seems. The evolutionary relationships of the fossil suggest that either the 'modern' middle ear evolved twice, independently or that it evolved and was then lost in at least one ancient lineage" (http://www.nature.com...). And it is well known that "multiple occurrences of difficult evolutionary trajectories is something that is not easy to square with the standard neo-Darwinian narrative" (http://www.evolutionnews.org...).
I think that while it was once thought that the ears of the two groups looked very similar, it is safe to say that things are not as clear as they seem. And besides, evolutionists are using the argument of similarity here. I could easily argue for a common designer here. Why do the ears look similar? Well, because they were made similar! Common ansestry is not the only explanation.
d. Evolution in humans
My opponent asserts that the fact that humans brains are shrinking for the past 30,000 years is proof of evolution. Yet, I fail to see how our shrinking brain helps us in anyway. Why would humans loose brain size over time due to evolution? It doesn't make any sense to me. That said, this type of evolution would not really bother most creationists. The only type of evolution that bothers them are so called examples of macroevolution.
Then my opponent talks about milk. Again, this type of evolution does not bother creationists at all. This type of body change is similar to the variation in beak shape by the finches on the Galapagos Islands. No new creature is formed yet their body changes. Why would anyone take issue with that?
I agree that our tolerance for milk is evidence for microevolution. The brain size example doesn't make sense to me but if it is proof for evolution, it again would be small scale evolution. And again, creationists do not take issue with that.
e. Chimp to Human Evolution
My opponent cites the DNA similarity in apes and in humans to prove common ancestry. This again is the use of the argument from similarity. But again, the fact that our DNA is similar could equally prove a common designer and not common ancestry. It all depends on what presuppositions you have when you first look at the evidence.
2. No Evidence for the Flood Argument
a. There is actually. At the base of the Cambrian strata we find a distinct line, "called the 'Great Unconformity.' That line, curiously, stretches across the planet and marks the beginning of the Cambrian and underlies the explosion of life"exactly as creationists would predict to be the case if the Cambrian marked the beginning of the Flood" (http://www.apologeticspress.org...).
b. My opponent then states that the number of animals taken on the ark differs in the Bible. This is not true. Genesis 6:19-20 "simply instructs Noah to preserve two of every kind. Genesis 7:2-3 is additional information where seven of the clean animals were to be taken and two of every other kind. The reason for this is that the extra animals were for sacrifice" (https://carm.org...).
c. My opponent thinks the number of days the flood lasted are contradictory. This is also not true. Due to character limits I will post this link: http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com...
d. My opponent wants to know where all the water came from. While there are many theories, I am one of those people that doesn't care. If you accept that a God exists, then surely the creator of the universe and of water itself could flood the earth.
e. My opponent says that the Garden of Eden was never found. I mean, I don't see how the garden would have survived the great flood. But I really don't see what point my opponent is making here. And the whole thing about Genesis plagiarizing Gilgamesh is all speculative.
I will not address the moral arguments due to space and due to the fact that I gave arguments in round two that addressed those concerns. I thank my opponent for a good round and I wish him well.
Thank you my opponent for your rebuttals, but, I think something has to be settled. My opponent is saying that Evolution and the Great Flood is irrelevant to this topic, but I'm confused because according to my opponent "Con argues that God does not exist" and "Con actually has to provide arguments for the non-existence of God. For some reason[,] people never understand this". Okay, this is something that I've been doing throughout the debate. I'm using Evolution as one of my main points to disprove that our universe was created by an omnipotent, intelligent being. In regards to the geat flood (understanding that it is a culturally dispersed tale featured in Greek, Christian, Mesopotamian, and Assyrian mythologies), I'm trying to disprove god's omnipotence by presenting that a Great Flood could’ve never occurred, and I also tried to prove how the biblical version (pro and I decided to concentrate on Christianity) of the account is contradictory and it is a fusion of two older flood tails mixed into one. If my opponent wanted me to argue from a philosophical perspective only, without touching any religious scriptures or proposing any scientific theories; he should've specified it in the beginning instead of mentioning it now trying to convince the voters I deserve to lose.
b) First of all (even though this isn't such a big issue), the galactic redshift was first discovered in 1912 by American astronomer Vesto Silpher. However, it was first observed by Edwin Hubble much earlier (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Yes, the redshift does act as an indication that the universe is expanding; however, the redshift is also considered to be strong evidence for the Big Bang. According to this theory, the universe came from a place of "infinite pressure and density" known as the singularity (http://study.com...). From observing light wavelengths of galaxies and supernovae, researchers are able to determine the speed of the stars’ movements and how fast galaxies are moving away from us (Hubble's Law: expansion of the universe). The Big Bang Theory is founded on the principle that the universe is constantly expanding, and researchers discovered that it's speeding up. And the reason for this acceleration is because of "dark energy", an abundant form of energy from an unknown source; it is something that we know very little about (http://www.iflscience.com...). To this day, astronomers are still digging deeper to learn more about dark energy. Researchers theorize that it came from a vacuum--possibly substantiating that the vacuum carries out the process of energy creation (http://news.nationalgeographic.com...); yet, it still remains a mystery. However, the Goddidit fallacy is the best explanation for this because it requires no thought or effort, but a simple "God is the answer" to end the debate with many atheists.
2) "The universe is fine-tuned for life": This is probably the most common argument that theists like to defy atheists with. In fact, it is so common that notable particle physicist Victor J. Stenger wrote a book about it: The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us. Many researchers wrote on this topic, but Stenger is the most renowned one. Victor J. Stenger uses the Multiverse concept as his supporting point in his work, "Suppose our universe is just one of an unlimited number of individual universes that extend for an unlimited distance in all directions and for an unlimited time in the past and future. If that’s the case, we just happen to live in that universe that is suited for our kind of life" (http://www.patheos.com...). Stenger firmly believes in this hypothesis, stating that "it just must be plausible" (considering that there are more than 100 billion galaxies out there and that the universe may be infinite). Stenger says that many Christian astronomers who believe in the fine-tuning argument only emphasize on our planet and our species (basically, disregarding the Multiverse possibility). Our life is carbon-based as Stenger says, and according to Genesis 1:26, "Humans are made in the image of God", meaning that (most) Christians don't believe in other intelligent lifeforms and don't have the reason to. And to this, Stenger answers, "However, with only one example available, they simply do not have the data to allow them to conclude that all other forms of life are impossible, whether based on carbon chemistry or not" (previous link). Succinctly, Stenger points out that not only is the Multiverse hypothesis always neglected by Christian apologists, but also the possibility that the existence of different frameworks to sustain life like ours is ignored as well.
3) Further on the objective morality myth:Even though I have touched on this argument in the first round, I would like to readdress it in my rebuttals. First of all, I believe that it must be understood that anything that is objective is empirically testable / based on fact and evidence. For example, 1+1=2 or gravity is the force pulling objects to the ground. Basically, anything that is a proven fact and not based on bias, emotions, or prejudice is objective (https://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy). However, murder, racism, adultery, promiscuity, etc. anything that cannot be scientifically proven is subjective. Be it murder or ethnic cleansing. All of it is subjective no matter what because people have different opinions on them.
b) My opponent states, "Murder is an action that all people (insane people are the exception) recognize as absolutely wrong. Taking the life of a human being unjustly is undeniably wrong and everybody knows it". This is not objective because people have different reasons to commit murder... And not necessarily "insane people" either. For instance, soldiers commit murder because they don't want to be killed. Or, some people seek to take revenge on somebody for murdering an individual(s) who they loved. In simplicity, what I'm trying to convey is that is based on human emotions and prejudice; therefore, it cannot be subjective.
c) My opponent then states, "...if morality was subjective, and there was no right/wrong, we wouldn't feel the need to to say sorry whenever we did something 'wrong'". The reason people feel guilt after doing something bad / or horribly wrong is because we understand that people don't want to be hurt because we would experience the same physical or emotional pain if somebody were to cause the damage to us. Knowing that my opponent would try to combat this argument by using the Goddidit fallacy. Some people don't feel the need to apologize or feel no remorse. Well, I think it is fair to refer to these types of people as "insane". According to Genisis 1:26 "humans are made in the image of God". However, since our brains / ways of thinking have all been designed differently, this disproves the claim that humans are the same in terms of moral beliefs.
4) Standard of right and wrong: Since I'm running out of characters, I'll try to make this brief. Firstly, to prove this point we must understand god's standards from the beginning, but since all religious scriptures are proven to contain some forms of contradiction and hypocrisy; we don't know what is right and wrong by god's definition and teachings. For instance, when Moses comes down from the mountain with the ten commandments that contain rules such as, "Thou shalt not kill" engraved on them. God commands Moses to tell the Israelites to kill each other (for the purpose of cleaning sin) for worshipping the golden calf. In other religions, such as Islam, Quran contains verses like the following:
"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...)
Then, it contradicts itself by saying this:
"If all the beings on the earth and in the skies come together to kill a believing person, Allah puts every one of them to Hell in order to protect that one innocent believers right" (http://www.questionsonislam.com...).
We cannot determine the definition of right or wrong in god's teachings.
1. The Cosmological Argument
a. My opponent accuses me of using the Goddidit fallacy. Well, I in return could accuse my opponent of using the "nothing did it" fallacy but that would get us no where. My opponent seems to affirm the Big Bang Theory. I am perfectly fine with the Big Bang Theory as well. It does after-all show that the universe had a beginning which supports the third premise of my cosmological argument.
b. My opponent then says that "my opponent neglects to acknowledge the physics aspect that hides behind the curtain. Let alone, the only way he correlates the stated scientific evidence to religion is by quoting a theologian who has no scientific education whatsoever."
Well, William Lane Craig is no ordinary theologian. My opponent fails to show that the man is unscientific. Scientists such as Alexander Vilenkin have noted that Craig has has represented his views on the multiverse correctly. Aside from that, I am aware of what people say about quantum theory, yet it is not my job to present arguments for my opponent and then to refute them. If my opponent wants to argue that something can come from nothing, then please do. That said, I will quickly address Quantum Theory.
Some people state that "In physics, 'nothing' is defined as a quantum vacuum, i.e., a state with the lowest possible energy." This is not really true. Only Lawrence Krauss and his followers redefine the word nothing to mean something with physical properties. But nothing actually means "not anything" and that is what it will always mean. Since a quantum vacuum is something (it does have physical properties), it cannot be classified as nothing.
Also, there are about ten different interpretations of quantum mechanics (https://www.sciencenews.org...) and atheists merely asserts that theirs is the correct one.
But I find it most interesting when people claim that an electron can come out of nowhere.
What actually happens is that the particles borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. William Lane Craig (Christian Philosopher) puts it this way, he says that "the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum."
Furthermore Professor David Albert (non-Christian from Columbia university) said that "And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings, if you look at them aright amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing."
c. As for the Big Bang, since it show that the universe had a beginning, the cause of the universe must be...
Eternal-the cause of the universe led to the existence of time.
Omnipresent-the cause of the universe led to the existence of space.
Omnipotent-the cause of the universe led to the existence of everything.
Personal-William Lane Craig states that "the cause of the universe must be an ultramundane being which transcends space and time and is therefore either an unembodied mind or an abstract object; it cannot be the latter; hence, it must be the former, which is to say that this being is personal" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...).
Since the cause of the universe is all of these things, and since God has all of these attributes, God is the cause of the universe. So I am not merely saying that since we have no explanation, therefore God did it. So I am not using any fallacy here.
2. The Teleological Argument
a. My opponent first quotes Victor J. Stenger who says that "Suppose our universe is just one of an unlimited number of individual universes that extend for an unlimited distance in all directions and for an unlimited time in the past and future. If that"s the case, we just happen to live in that universe that is suited for our kind of life."
Well, I am surprised that my opponent hasn't heard that a multiverse could not go infinitely into the past. In 2012, Vilenkin said that "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org....
And that is coming from a man who accepts the multiverse theory. So the multiverse theory does not actually explain how the universe exists at all. I think it makes the issue much worse since you now have to explain what caused the entire multiverse.
b. My opponent also believes that it is more likely for a universe to appear to be fine-tuned if there is a multiverse. Let us first note that there is no actual evidence for a multiverse. Vilenkin also stated that "Another important question is whether or not such scalar fields really exist in nature. Unfortunately, we don"t know. There is no direct evidence for their existence" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...).
Aside from that, even if there was one, it would have to have a beginning and therefore it must have a cause. Using my cosmological argument, we can conclude that the cause would be God. And as for the theory disproving my fine-tuning argument...
Roger Penrose "calculates that the odds of our universe"s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. The probability that our solar system should suddenly form by the random collision of particles is 1:1010(60). (Penrose calls it "utter chicken feed" by comparison.) Thus, it is inconceivably more probable that our solar system should suddenly form by the random collision of particles than that a finely-tuned universe should exist. So if our universe were just a random member of a World Ensemble, it is inconceivably more probable that we should be observing an island of order no larger than our solar system. For there are far more observable universes in the World Ensemble in which our solar system comes to be instantaneously through the accidental collision of particles than universes which are finely-tuned for intelligent life. Indeed, the most probable observable universe is one in which a single brain fluctuates into existence out of the quantum vacuum and observes its otherwise empty world. Observable universes like those are just much more plenteous in the World Ensemble than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...).
c. My opponent also brings up other forms of life. I don't really care if there are other forms of life to be honest. Genesis doesn't prevent other creatures from possibly existing and I really don't see what this has to do with the topic.
3. The Moral Argument
a. My opponent states that "it must be understood that anything that is objective is empirically testable / based on fact and evidence."
In that case, the statement my opponent just made is not objective since you can't prove that with science. Aside from that self-defeating statement, my opponent thinks that 1+1=2 is objective since it is empirically testable and etc...Yet science presupposes mathematical truths. It doesn't actually prove them.
Then my opponent decides to make another self-defeating statement. They claim that "However, murder, racism, adultery, promiscuity, etc. anything that cannot be scientifically proven is subjective." Since the statement my opponent just made cannot be scientifically proven, it is therefore subjective and meaningless.
b. Having different reasons to do things does not mean that there is no objective moral law. Please extend my opening arguments. Keep in mind that killing is different from murder. People killing in war is not bad in all cases. Murder however is by definition unlawful and is therefore 100% immoral. Deciding whether someone has done something immoral is another matter.
c. I never claimed that all humans brains are the same in terms of moral beliefs. And my opponent also claims that we feel guilt for doing something wrong since we don't want to hurt people. But this is confusing since my opponent believes that morality is subjective. How can my opponent reject a real right and wrong but at the same time say that people feel guilty for doing something wrong?
d. My opponent claims that all religious scriptures have contradictions. They should support that huge claim. Aside from that, the Bible says "do not murder" in exodus 20 so there is no contradiction there. As for the Qur'an, I have no interest in defending it.
I thank my opponent again for a good debate!
This round has not been posted yet.