The Instigator
KILLUMINATI
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Microsuck
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
Microsuck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,813 times Debate No: 22707
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (64)
Votes (1)

 

KILLUMINATI

Pro

Does God Exist?

I will argue that God does exist.
(1) There are good reasons to think that God exists.
(2) There are not comparably good reasons to think that atheism is true.

Three lines of evidence in favor of God’s existence are.

(1) The origin of the universe.

Have you ever asked yourself where the universe came from? Did it have a beginning? Or does it just go back and back forever? Typically, atheists have said that the universe is just eternal and uncaused. But there are good reasons both philosophical and scientific which call into question that assumption.Philosophically, the idea of an infinite past is very problematic. If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But the real existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to metaphysical absurdities.

To give just one example, suppose you had an infinite number of coins, numbered 1, 2, 3, and so on, to infinity, and I took away all the odd numbered coins. How many coins would you have left? Well, you’d still have all the even numbered coins, or an infinity of coins. So infinity minus infinity is infinity. But now suppose instead that I took away all the coins numbered greater than three. Now how many coins would you have left? Well, three! So infinity minus infinity is three.

In each case, I took away an identical number of coins from an identical number of coins and came up with self-contradictory results. In fact, you can subtract infinity from infinity and get any answer from zero to infinity! For this reason inverse operations like subtraction and division are simply prohibited in transfinite math. But in the real world has no sway obviously you can give away whatever coins you want.

These and many other examples suggest that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. But that entails that since past events are not just ideas but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can’t go back and back forever. Rather, the universe must have begun to exist.
This purely philosophical conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. We now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago.

(2) Objective moral values and duties in the world.

Our first argument gives us a transcendent Personal Creator of the universe. But it doesn’t tell us anything about his moral character. How can we know that he is good? My second argument addresses that question.


Premise (1)
If God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.By objective moral values, I mean values which are valid and binding whether people believe in them or not. Many theists and atheists agree that if God does not exist, then moral values and duties are not objective in this sense.

Premise(2) Objective moral values and duties do exist. In moral experience we apprehend a realm of moral values and duties that impose themselves upon us. As philosopher Louise Antony put it, any argument for moral skepticism is going to depend upon premises which are less obvious than the reality of objective moral values themselves.

Premise(3) Therefore God exists.
Some people think that evil in the world provides evidence against the existence of God. I think the exact opposite is true. Real evil in the world actually serves to prove the existence of God, since without God to ground objective moral values, good and evil as such would not exist.

3. The historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth.

Our case so far gives us a generic monotheism affirmed by Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. But do we know anything more about who this God is? Well to answer that question we have to look at the person of Jesus.

The historical person Jesus was by all accounts a remarkable individual. 6 historians have reached something of a consensus that Jesus came on the scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority, the authority to stand and speak in God’s place. He claimed that in himself the Kingdom of God had come, and as visible demonstrations of this fact he carried out a ministry of miracle working and exorcisms.

But the supreme confirmation of his claim was his resurrection from the dead. Now most people would think that the resurrection of Jesus is something you just believe in by faith or not. But there are actually three facts recognized by the majority of New Testament historians today which I believe are best explained by the resurrection of Jesus:

Fact (1) On the Sunday after his crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

Fact (2) On separate occasions different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

Fact (3) The original disciples suddenly came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus despite having every predisposition to the contrary.

N.T. Wright, an eminent New Testament scholar concludes, “That is why as a historian I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again leaving an empty tomb behind him.”
Attempts to explain away these three great facts—like “The disciples stole the body” or “Jesus wasn’t really dead”—have been universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. The simple fact is that there just is no plausible, naturalistic explanation of these three facts and therefore, it seems to me, the Christian is amply justified in believing that the best explanation of the evidence is that Jesus rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be. But that entails that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists. And thus we have a good inductive argument for the existence of God based on the resurrection of Jesus.

I’ve presented my case based on the origin of the universe, the existence of objective moral values and duties, and the resurrection of Jesus, for thinking that the God of Israel, the God revealed by Jesus , exists. If anyone wants us to believe otherwise, that atheism is true, he must first tear down all three of the arguments that I presented and then in their place build a case of his/her own to prove that God does not exist. Unless and until anyone does that, I think that theism is the more plausible world view.
Microsuck

Con

Thank you for providing this challenge.

----

C1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

1. If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false.
2. The claim that a god exists is an extraordinary claim.
3. Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false.
4. There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that a god exists.
5. Therefore, the claim that a god exists may be considered false.

In order to understand this argument, we need to define an extraordinary claim. I will define an extraordinary claim as:

A claim that contradicts accepted physical laws or our common sense, everyday experiences of the world.[2]

So, the question is, ‘Is God an extraordinary claim?” I contend to you that indeed, it is. Let’s take a look at this chart that I have drawn up.

God

Man

Holy

Unholy

All-knowing

Limited knowledge

Perfect

Imperfect

Immortal

Mortal

All-loving

Evil

Invisible

Visible

Just

Unjust

As one can see from this chart, God has attributes much different than man; indeed, God is incomprehensible compared to man.[3]

Premise 3 states, “Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false.” We now need to ask ourselves two questions:

1) Why is one justified in rejecting extraordinary claims in the absence of extraordinary evidence?

2) What is the basis of extraordinary evidence?

Allow me to give you the following propositions and ask yourself “which one do you immediately reject, and why?”

1) I am a member of Facebook,

2) I won the multi-million dollar lottery, and

3) I own a transportation mechanism that transports you from point A to point B in under 1 second.

Which one do you immediately reject without further ado, and why? If you guessed point 3, you would be correct—and totally justified in rejecting proposition 3. Allow me to explain why.

According to Facebook stats, Facbeook currently have 350,000,000 members [4] hence, to claim that I am a member of Facebook is not unheard of, nor is it an extraordinary claim. Claim 2 is certainly more extraordinary than the first; however, people have won the lottery before so it is not unheard of—in order for one to accept this claim, one may need to look at just my lottery ticket, or the numbers on TV. However, claim 3 is quite different. In order to accept claim 3 with just my word, you will have to:

1) Change your current views on the technology of today,

2) Change your views on how people transport from point A to point B, and

3) Change your perspective on the person making such a ridiculous claim (and ridiculous is quite appropriate).

So, you see, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. So, what type of evidence is there for God? I contend that there is no evidence; it will be my partner's burden to prove so. In the words of Keith Augustine: "God, as conceived by the major religions, does not exist. I hold this neither dogmatically, nor as an article of faith. Rather, I think the existence of the Judeo-Christian/Islamic God is as improbable as the existence of Zeus and the plethora of Olympian gods. I am simply more consistent in my skepticism. I have the same amount of evidence for the existence of Yahweh, Jehovah, or Allah as I have for Zeus--none." [5]

How does this cast doubt on God's existence? Consider: God wants us to "love him maximally"; and if that were to be the case, one would need to know for a fact that God exists (or at least have extraordinary evidence to prove that He exists). One cannot "love a being maximally" that does not exist or is hidden.

C2) Incoherent attributes argument

1. Anything that has contradictory attributes cannot exist.
2. God has contradictory attributes.
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.

We are debating a Judeo-Christian type God, so before we go any further, one must need to know what the Judeo-Christian type God is:

almighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true. [6]

A contradiction is by definition two or more propositions that are incompatible with each other; [7] therefore, if God is self-contradictory, how can He exist? We know that the Invisible Pink unicorn cannot exist because it is impossible to be both invisible and pink; and invisble and cognative (namely, the shape and feel of a unicorn; whatever that might mean).

Now, you may notice something: Those attributes are contradictory. If God is ineffable, and incomprehensible, then this seems to contradict the other attributes; for how can the attributes of God be known if He is ineffable and incomprehensible? Consider:

1. If God cannot be known or understood, then his attributes cannot be known.
2. God cannot be known and understood.
3. Therefore, his attribues cannot be known.

There are more contradictions than just that,; for if God is all knowing, then it is impossible for him to change the future; if He is all-just, then he cannot be merciful. We get the picture.

Paul Tobin points out:

Thus the characteristics of God as supplied by Christian theologians are nothing more than meaningless and contradictory concepts wrapped in theological garb. [8]

Because God is contradictory, it is impossible for him to exist!

C3) Atheism accurately portrays the universe in which we live

A. The origin of life

My final defense for atheism is this: Atheism accurately portrays the universe in which we live. In order to understand this contention, let's first make some observations

1. Over 700 extra-solar planets and solar systems have been found. [9]
2. Our known Universe is at least 13 billion light years across. [10]
3. In our known universe, there are at least 125 billion galaxies. [11]
4. In our solar system, we have 8 planets and hundreds of different rocky layers.
5. All-in-all, earth is the only known planet with life--let alone, intellegent life.

In his essay, Why I am not a Christian, Richard Carrier notes:

Suppose there is no God. If that is the case, then the origin of life must be a random accident. Christians rightly point out that the appearance of the first living organism is an extremely improbable accident. Of course, so is winning a lottery, and yet lotteries are routinely won. Why? Because the laws of probability entail the odds of winning a lottery depend not just on how unlikely a win is--let's say, a one in a billion chance--but on how often the game is played. [12]

The same is true about our universe.

B. Divine hiddeness

There many more Muslims than Christians than Saudi Arabia, many more Catholics in Ireland than Vietnam, and a very small ratio of Theists to pagans two and a half thousand years ago.

  1. If one were to be in Saudi Arabia, one has a greater chance of becomming Muslim than in America.[13]
  2. If one were to be in India, there would be a greater chance of being Hindu than in any other part of the world.[14]
  3. There are more Catholics in Ireland than in Vietnam. etc.
  4. In the ancient world, every nation had its own mythology.[15]


It rather seems strange that God will let an important matter such as faith hinge strongly on the circumstance of one's birth. For example, in Christian theology, unless you accept Jesus you die and go to hell.[16] This begs the question, why would a loving God as defined in the terms allow this to happen?


B. The argument formulated

  1. The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism.
  2. If the demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism, then the demographics of Theism makes Atheism more plausible than Theism.
  3. Therefore, Atheism is more plausible than Theism.


See comments for sources

Debate Round No. 1
KILLUMINATI

Pro

For the record my opponent has cut and paste most his argument
http://challenging-religion.blogspot.com...

(1)What do you qualify as extraordinary evidence?

(2)What criteria do you use to determine what is extraordinary evidence?

(3)Will your presuppositions allow unbiased examination of the evidence?

Now it would help if my opponent who proclaims this argument specify what he would accept as extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, arbitrarily stating this argument gives one an out no matter what evidence is shown. While it is reasonable to expect a higher standard of evidence for more extraordinary claims, there are nevertheless 7 problems with it to keep in mind.
By not defining the standards for “extraordinary”,he is free to change up his standards have been met on
pure semantics.

Definitions of what are “extraordinary claims” vary based on prior beliefs and experiences. Not everyone agrees on
whether a claim is extraordinary or ordinary. Suppose we were fish for example, and lived underwater our whole lives without ever seeing or hearing about land. The claim of land existing above water would be an extraordinary claim to us, though not to the creatures living on the land above. Now obviously just because the claim of land is extraordinary to us as fish does not mean that the land doesn’t exist. The point is that extraordinary claims are not extraordinary to everyone. What is extraordinary to some is ordinary and natural to others depending on their experience and level of consciousness. For example, the internal body energy of chi gong (or quigong) is a mystical force to westerners but has been a natural everyday part of life for thousands of years in China. There, chi is used, felt, and observed by its practitioners much the same as the effects of gravity are felt and
observed by us. Likewise, having Astral Projections and Out of Body Experiences are extraordinary to those who have never experienced them, but for those who have them regularly, they are an ordinary part of life. In the same way, our cars,
radios and cell phones are extraordinary to tribal natives in remote parts of Africa, but ordinary to us.


If it is true Alexander the Great conquered the known world by 33 years of age, no big deal. It won't have any effect on anyone and it won't change anything in anyone's life. But, if it is true about Jesus and God then that is completely different. Jesus claimed to be divine and He had a message for people about heaven and hell and that salvation is only through Him. Such a claim requires extraordinary evidence, such as performing miracles and rising from the dead. The claims concerning Christ can have a profound effect on people and it can make them uncomfortable. Therefore, people will not want what Christ said to be true and will sometimes desperately try to hold onto their presuppositions; hence, the claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


In regards to his response(I use the term "his" lightly)my opponent has not even attempted to answer my arguments.


Which are:
(1) The origin of the universe

(2) Objective moral values and duties in the world

(3) The historical facts concerning Jesus

He(once again I use the term "he" loosely)stated "Atheism accurately portrays the universe in which we live" which was cut and paste from Why I am not a Christian by Richard Carrier does not begin to answer my argument.


So once again:

(1) There are good reasons to think that God exists.
(2) There are not comparably good reasons to think that atheism is true.


1) The origin of the universe.
Have you ever asked yourself where the universe came from? Did it have a beginning? Or does it just go back and back forever? Typically, atheists have said that the universe is just eternal and uncaused. But there are good reasons both philosophical and scientific which call into question that assumption.Philosophically, the idea of an infinite past is very problematic. If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But the real existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to metaphysical absurdities.
To give just one example, suppose you had an infinite number of coins, numbered 1, 2, 3, and so on, to infinity, and I took away all the odd numbered coins. How many coins would you have left? Well, you’d still have all the even numbered coins, or an infinity of coins. So infinity minus infinity is infinity. But now suppose instead that I took away all the coins numbered greater than three. Now how many coins would you have left? Well, three! So infinity minus infinity is three.
In each case, I took away an identical number of coins from an identical number of coins and came up with self-contradictory results. In fact, you can subtract infinity from infinity and get any answer from zero to infinity! For this reason inverse operations like subtraction and division are simply prohibited in transfinite math. But in the real world has no sway obviously you can give away whatever coins you want.

These and many other examples suggest that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. But that entails that since past events are not just ideas but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can’t go back and back forever. Rather, the universe must have begun to exist.
This purely philosophical conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. We now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago.

(2) Objective moral values and duties in the world.

Our first argument gives us a transcendent Personal Creator of the universe. But it doesn’t tell us anything about his moral character. How can we know that he is good? My second argument addresses that question.


Premise (1)
If God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.By objective moral values, I mean values which are valid and binding whether people believe in them or not. Many theists and atheists agree that if God does not exist, then moral values and duties are not objective in this sense.
Premise(2) Objective moral values and duties do exist. In moral experience we apprehend a realm of moral values and duties that impose themselves upon us. As philosopher Louise Antony put it, any argument for moral skepticism is going to depend upon premises which are less obvious than the reality of objective moral values themselves.
Premise(3) Therefore God exists.
Some people think that evil in the world provides evidence against the existence of God. I think the exact opposite is true. Real evil in the world actually serves to prove the existence of God, since without God to ground objective moral values, good and evil as such would not exist.

(3) The historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth.

But the supreme confirmation of his claim was his resurrection from the dead. Now most people would think that the resurrection of Jesus is something you just believe in by faith or not. But there are actually three facts recognized by the majority of New Testament historians today which I believe are best explained by the resurrection of Jesus:

Fact (1)
On the Sunday after his crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
Fact (2) On separate occasions different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death.
Fact (3) The original disciples suddenly came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus despite having every predisposition to the contrary.


Can you(my opponent) try to answer my arguments this time?












Microsuck

Con

For the record, I own that website. I even give my DDO username on my FAQ page of the same website. Those were just my opening arguments. Now, I would like to point out some plagarism from my partner. My partner writes: "If it is true Alexander the Great conquered the known world by 33 years of age, no big deal. It won't have any effect on anyone and it won't change anything in anyone's life. ... Therefore, people will not want what Christ said to be true and will sometimes desperately try to hold onto their presuppositions; hence, the claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This is from http://carm.org.... Also note that I did not fail to respond to your arguments, I was simply giving just my opening arguments before addressing yours.

-->Addressing my partner's arguments<--


I. The origin of the Universe

The God of the gaps

Based on my partner's logic, one must ask ourselves the question where God game from. Why is there God rather than no god? That's what his logic boils down to. So, where did the universe come from? I contend that the universe has always existed, though in different forms. My partner commits the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. I call this "the god of the gaps." "I don't know where X came from; therefore God did it." This is the God of the gaps.


The Big Bang Theory

I contend that the BBT is a valid theory. First, what is it? The BBT says "In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler." [1]

Something from nothing


What comes into being uncaused? Vaccum fluctuations. Ryan Scranton notes: "From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. " [2]

II. Objective moral facts

I wish to respond to this argument using the Euthyphor's dilemma; namely, is good and evil good and evil because God says so, or because it is already good and evil? There is a serious problem: If good and evil is good and evil simply because God says so, we beg the question under what basis does God determine the good and the evil? If it is subjective to God, then how can it be objective to us? If it is already good and evil, then there is no reason to conclude the basic premise of the DCT.

Lets further concider the premises of the DCT. How does one determine these objective moral facts? Under what basis should we choose the Bible over the Quran, Book of Mormon, or any other ancient document that claims to be of divine revelation? [3]

III. Historical facts concerning Jesus

My partner has simply made assumptions without proving them. How relaible are the gospel testimonies? I content not very reliable. The gospels are full of contradictions and absurdities on this most important issue. Please see my discussion here for the sources: http://www.debate.org...;



Mark's Chronology Luke's Chronology John's Chronology
Thursday Night
(14th/15th Nisan)
  • Taken to high priest's house
  • Night trial of the Sanhedrin
Thursday Night
(14th/15th Nisan)
  • Taken to high priest's house
  • No mention of trial at night.
Thursday Night
(13th/14th Nisan)
  • Taken to the high priest'sfather-in-law'shouse.
  • Informal interrogation by the high priest.
Friday Morning
(15th Nisan)
  • "consultation" with scribes, elders and the whole council
  • Handed Jesus to Pilate
  • Trial before Pilate
Friday Morning
(15th Nisan)
  • Trial before the Sanhedrin
  • Handed Jesus to Pilate
  • Trial before Pilate
Friday Morning
(14th Nisan)
  • Handed Jesus to Pilate
  • Trial before Pilate


What time was Jesus crucified?

after noon on the day before the Passover mealMid-morning on the day after the Passover meal
John 18:28
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

John 19:14-16
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified.
Mark 14:12
And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

Mark 15:25
And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.


Mark 15:42-47
When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid.

There are many problems with the above passage that need to be pointed out.

1) "When evening had come" shows that it was aready Sabbath had started. This is a problem because no transaction is allowed; yet Joseph purchased a linen shroud on that day. The working and arrangement of the passage does not permit the interpretation that Joseph bought the shroud earlier. Likewise, Jesus would probably have not been burried on Sabbath. Based on this difficullty, theologian Nineham concluded: "Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the story originates from a cyce of tradition which knew of no chronological tie-up between the crucifixion and the Passover."

THE CASE AGAINST JESUS OF NAZARETH

A. Jesus did not meet the qualifications to be the Messiah

The genealogies of Jesus disqualify him as Messiah. Here is a chart. [4]

Genealogy from David to Jeconiah according to Matthew

David — Solomon — Rehoboam — Abijah — Asa — Jehoshaphat — Jehoram — Ahaziah — Joash —Amaziah — Azariah (also called Uzziah) — Jotham — Ahaz — Hezekiah — Manasseh — Amon — Josiah —Jehoahaz (annointed by the people) — Jehoiakim (annointed by Pharaoh) — Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin and Coniah) — AssirShealtiel Zerubbabel

Genealogy from David to Jeconiah according to Luke

David — Nathan — Matththah — Menan — Melea — Eliakim — Jonan — Joseph — Judah — Simeon — Levi — Matthat — Jorim — Eliezer — Jose — Er — Elmodam — Cosam — Addi — Melchi — Neri —Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin and Coniah) — Assir Shealtiel Zerubbabel


Both of these genealogies disqualify Jesus as the Messiah. For Matthew, he adds in Jechoniah, a man who was cursed so that no descendant will sit upon the throne (Jeremiah 22). Luke disqualifies Jesus because he must be a descendant from Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-16; see also 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, 2 Chronicles 7:17-18).

Conclusion

1) Jesus cannot possibly be the messiah; hence the Bible is discredited;
2) My partner hasn't refuted any of my arguments;
3) The resurrection accounts are unreliable; and
4) My partner has plagarized his arguments.

Out of room.

-->References<--

1. http://www.talkorigins.org...
2. http://www.talkorigins.org...;
3. Martin, Michael. TANG: "http://www.infidels.org..."
4. http://thejewishhome.org...
Debate Round No. 2
KILLUMINATI

Pro

(1)The origin of the Universe:

Big bang theory:

My opponent stated "I contend that the universe has always existed, though in different forms" and "I contend that the BBT is a valid theory." There is a problem with this.

We are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning. It did not always exist. Galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law,"which was named after Edwin Hubble who discovered this in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and to expand it had to start somewhere or had a beginning

http://big-bang-theory.com...

Something from nothing:

Something from nothing theory fails simply because the vaccum fluctuations my opponent speaks of are caused by energy that energy is something when physicists refer to "nothing" they are referring to the nothingness of a vacuum which is actually comprised of something that is vacuum energy which will spontaneously form into matter at any equivocal moment virtual particles.

http://answers.yahoo.com...

If there ever was absolutely nothing there would still be absolutely nothing today. Since there is something you, for example, that means that absolutely nothing never existed. If it ever did, you wouldn't be reading this right now. Absolutely nothing would still be here.

The God of the gaps:

It seems extremely hypocritical for my opponent to give me the burden of proof, and then turn around and say that God is not an appropriate explanation for any phenomenon. What am I supposed to prove? It is clear that this is a win win situation for my opponent. I accept the burden of proof gladly, but to say that God cannot be used as an explanation illogical.

My opponents God of the gaps argument is an easy way out of a problem. If I create a proof for Gods existence he will reply with God of the gaps. It is plain to see that the common God of the gaps argument used by my opponent is irrational. A more thorough investigation of these issues must be taken, one cannot simply repeat a lazy one liner, claiming that such refutes all of the effort put forth by to demonstrate that Gods existence is likely or perhaps even necessary to find a solution to a given phenomenon.

(2)Objective morals:

Euthyphro's dilemma mischaracterizes the biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by him. Instead ethics are grounded in his character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in Gods nature. No outside definition is necessary because morality is known directly through moral intuition. Gods laws express his character and if our moral intuitions are intact we immediately recognize those laws as good.

My opponents mistake is that he thinks that the theist arrives at the doctrine of Gods goodness by looking at all of the worlds events. Thats simply incorrect. Theists have never argued for Gods perfect goodness by simply assuming it from the existence of some good in the world.

What I can do is present a foundation for objective moral values. And that leads final point I want to make on this. Evil proves the existence of God.I can argue in the following way.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore objective moral values exist. Some things are evil.
4. Therefore God exists.

(3)Historical facts concerning Jesus:

First it is important to speak of the burden of proof. It's a general rule in philosophy that he who proposes must explain and defend. If someone says that "X exists," the burden is on his to provide a case for the existence of X. The burden is not on the one who denies that X exists. For how can one prove a negative?

He claims that the Bible is "full of contradictions," and proposes a lengthy list. Now, as Christians, we cannot prove that something is NOT a contradiction (i.e. one cannot prove that X contradictions do not exist). Instead, all that is required of us is to come up with plausible or reasonable, even possible explanations so that what is purported to be a contradiction is not necessarily a contradiction.

This is important. What is really relevant is whether our explanations show that the point of contention is not necessarily a contradiction. If we succeed, then the critic's assertion that "X and Y are contradictory" is no longer an obvious truth, instead it becomes merely a belief that someone holds.

I could can argue there is no proof for the existence of contradictions in the bible because it is a matter of interpratations.

http://www.bringyou.to... (cut and paste)

What we see in 21st century Western standards of "contradictions" do not come out as "contradictions" to first-century Jewish standards. For example, "five hundred thousand" is adequately close to "four hundred seventy thousand" that this isn't really a contradiction; perhaps 30,000 guys moved and were miscounted. Other "contradictions" can be explained by recognizing that, though God inspired the Bible, it was still written by men with different viewpoints; for example, the gospel of Matthew was written by a former tax collector, while the gospel of Mark was written by a physician, and the two different viewpoints can be seen. This is similar to seeing two different news reports of an incident, one "contradicting" the other, but accurately reporting the same event.

My opponent is pointing what he calls "contradictions" which are merely misinterpretations of scripture.

Mark 15:42-47
My opponent points out that "When evening had come" shows that it was aready Sabbath had started.That is incorrect.

And when it was now evening it was the day of Preparation (preparation which goes before the Sabbath) it was not yet the sabbath

Mark 15:42-47
42. And when it was now evening, 43. Joseph of Arimathea, an honorable counselor, who was also himself waiting for the kingdom of God, came and boldly went in to Pilate, and asked the body of Jesus. 44. And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and having called to him the centurion, he asked him if he had been long dead. 45. And having ascertained it from the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. 46. And he, having BROUGHT a linen cloth, took him down (from the cross ) and wrapped him in the linen cloth, and laid him in the tomb which had been hewn out of the rock; and rolled a stone to the door of the tomb. 47. And Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Joses, saw where he was laid.

http://biblebrowser.com...

Did Joseph go to Wal-mart and buy a linen cloth?

My opponents "case against Jesus":

My opponent stated:"Jesus did not meet the qualifications to be the Messiah" this is false Jews do not believe Jesus was messiah as prophesied in Jewish scriptures aka The Torah.

Conclusion:
(1) Jesus cannot possibly be the messiah in The Torah hence the Bible is not discredited
(2) I have refuted every unfounded claim my opponent has set forth
(3)The resurrection accounts are unreliable which is a false claim
(4) My opponent claims I plagiarized my argument I doubt he knows the definition of plagiarism seeing as how I did not claim writings to be my own.


My opponent still has not shown that God does not exist. Or any good reason that atheism is true.



Microsuck

Con

My partner failed to answer any of my questions and has utterly failed.

-->Unrefuted Arguments<--

Please extend all of my arguments as he failed to refute any. My arguments clearly show that God does not exist. Therefore, I urge a pro vote.

-->Defense of My Rebuttals.<--

(1) The origin of the universe

Big Bang Theory

My partner has not showed that the BBT is an invalid theory of the beginning of the known universe. This still stands. My partner states that we can be reasonably certain the universe had a beginning. It is indeed true that galaxies are moving away from us (this is one of the proofs for the BBT).


Something from Nothing?

Your link did not work. Furthermore, I do not think Yahoo! answers is a good resource anyway. Likewise, the BBT is not about the origin of the universe; rather, it explains the development or the evalution of the universe with time. Hence your argument "out of nothing" is strawman.

Is there even such thing as "nothing"? No. As Richard Morris points out:


In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris 1990: 25) [1]

God of the Gaps

Not refuted. Argument stil stands. He has simply made the ad hominem fallacy. I argued that even if I conceded your argument, it is nothing but an appeal to ignorance.


(2) Objective morals

My partner says that it comes from God's nature; yet he hasn't answered the dilemma at all; rather, he only postpones it and raises up another question: Why is God's nature good? In other words, who defines what God's nature is? Which God are we talking about? Allah? Zeus? Muhammad? Why is your God any better than those gods? Michael Martin notes:

"[A]ppealing to God's character only postpones the problem since the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of His character. Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character? Is there an independent standard of good or does God's character set the standard? If God's character is the way it is because it is good, then there is an independent standard of goodness by which to evaluate God's character. For example, suppose God condemns rape because of His just and merciful character. His character is just and merciful because mercy and justice are good."[2]

The dilemma still stands.

(3) "Facts" concerning Jesus


I first wish to say that I LOVE this quote: "Did Joseph go to Wal-mart and buy a linen cloth?" I am now going to have to make this my signature on the DDO forums as this was the best quote I have seen since my debate with inferno. [3]

Concerning the contradictions, my point was to prove that the NT is an unreliable source. My partner hasn't refuted any of my arguments concerning the contradictions.

My Case Against Jessu

My case still stands.

1. If Jesus isn't the Jewish Messiah, then Christianity is false.
2. Jesus isn't the Jewish Messiah.
3. Therefore, Christianity is false.

Further attacking the Resurrection

I propose a more likely scenario:

"After jesus was crucified he was taken down (after being confirmed dead, maybe he wasn't but it's not important because the romans were very good at killing people so even if he wasn't dead he was very soon after) to follow the tradition of no desecrating the body during passover and joseph of arimethea provided a temporary tomb for the time. after 3 days the arimethea simply remove the body since it is after passover and bury him in a common grave, putting a messenger to let them know the body wasn't there anymore (it was removed). women come to take care of the body, and sees an empty tomb. they mistake what the messenger tells them and becomes convinced that jesus had risen. When other disciples find the empty tomb they reach a similar conclusion and by talking amongst themselves through confirmation bias they claim they've seen jesus here and there, much like how people claim they saw elvis. Some remember eating dinner with a religiously bent figure (maybe another messiah type, they were common during those days) mistakenly later on as having dinner with jesus. Through retelling their anecdotes the story grows and exaggerates. pretty soon, convinced that jesus was alive again they begin forming a rudimentary set of oral traditions- collection of saying, the basic narrative, etc. To "set it in stone" if you will. Meanwhile the body is beyond recognition and jesus is simply another anonymous corpse in the sea of corpses"[4]

So, to account for the empty tomb, it is plausible that Joseph took Jesus out of his tomb.

"For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning him. And though they found no ground for putting him to death, they asked Pilate that he be executed. And when they had carried out all that was written concerning him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb" (Acts 13:27-29).

Gerald Siegal from Jews for Judaism notes:

This passage, attributed to Paul, includes among those guilty for the execution anyone (that is, Joseph and Nicodemus) who took part in the recovery of the body. Thus, Paul emphasizes that Jesus was buried not by his followers but by his enemies, the very group who Paul accuses of arranging for his death: "And when they had carried out all that was written concerning him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb." [5]



All of my arguments stand. VOTE CON.
____________

Source

1. Morris, Richard. 1990. The Edges of Science. New York: Prentice Hall. Quoted http://www.infidels.org...;
2. Martin, Michael. 1997. Atheism, Christianity, and Rape. The Secular Wb. http://www.infidels.org...;
3. See the kohai-inferno where inferno gladly accepted blind faith. "So your facts are irrelevent. Your logic is irrelevent. Your concepts and theories are all irrelevent and mean nothing to me. http://www.debate.org...

4. This scenario was proposed by warpedfx: http://www.debate.org...
5. Siegal, Gerald. 2000. Who Burried Jesus? Jews for Judaism. http://jewsforjudaism.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
KILLUMINATI

Pro

My opponent once again began his argument by doing what is known as "poisoning the well"

As you review my argument you will see that my opponents arguments do not show that God does not exist. As you read you will see his arguments contradict his own claims.


(1) The origin of the universe

Big Bang Theory:

I have not claimed the BBT was not valid. My opponent's claim was the universe has always existed in different forms which contradicts his argument for the BBT.

Something from Nothing?
His argument from round 2: What comes into being uncaused? Vaccum fluctuations. Ryan Scranton notes: "From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. "

Something from nothing was his argument as shown above he stated "Hence your argument "out of nothing" is strawman." it was not my argument he is now making outright false claims borderline lies even.

(2) Objective morals:

His argument: "I wish to respond to this argument using the Euthyphor's dilemma; namely, is good and evil good and evil because God says so, or because it is already good and evil? There is a serious problem: If good and evil is good and evil simply because God says so, we beg the question under what basis does God determine the good and the evil? If it is subjective to God, then how can it be objective to us? If it is already good and evil, then there is no reason to conclude the basic premise of the DCT."

My response: "Euthyphro's dilemma mischaracterizes the biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by him. Instead ethics are grounded in his character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in Gods nature. No outside definition is necessary because morality is known directly through moral intuition. Gods laws express his character and if our moral intuitions are intact we immediately recognize those laws as good.

My opponents mistake is that he thinks that the theist arrives at the doctrine of Gods goodness by looking at all of the worlds events. Thats simply incorrect. Theists have never argued for Gods perfect goodness by simply assuming it from the existence of some good in the world.

What I can do is present a foundation for objective moral values. And that leads final point I want to make on this. Evil proves the existence of God.I can argue in the following way.

Is it just me or does he seem delusional just a tad bit?

The dilemma never stood at all period.

(3) "Facts" concerning Jesus:

My opponent stated:"Concerning the contradictions, my point was to prove that the NT is an unreliable source. My partner hasn't refuted any of my arguments concerning the contradictions."

My response:"He claims that the Bible is "full of contradictions," and proposes a lengthy list. Now, as Christians, we cannot prove that something is NOT a contradiction (i.e. one cannot prove that X contradictions do not exist). Instead, all that is required of us is to come up with plausible or reasonable, even possible explanations so that what is purported to be a contradiction is not necessarily a contradiction.

This is important. What is really relevant is whether our explanations show that the point of contention is not necessarily a contradiction. If we succeed, then the critic's assertion that "X and Y are contradictory" is no longer an obvious truth, instead it becomes merely a belief that someone holds." I have clearly shown in my response that you cant prove something is not a contradiction or vice versa

My opponent stated:"my point was to prove that the NT is an unreliable source..."

It's easy for my opponent to state that the NT is an unreliable source and he may think raising the objection makes the argument itself compelling. Yet offering evidence on its behalf is much more difficult. This argument is raised by people who have little understanding. In cases like this an appeal to common knowledge is more often than not an appeal to common ignorance. Like many questions about Christianity this objection is voiced by people who haven't been given reliable information.

To get an idea of the significance of the NT manuscript evidence note for a moment the record for non biblical texts. These are secular texts from antiquity that have been reconstructed with a high degree of certainty based on the available textual evidence.

To put this argument in perspective:"No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals.

This issue is no longer contested by non Christian scholars, and for good reason. If we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D. So now we know that the NT is just as or more accurate than any other historical or literary text.

(4) Case Against Jesus:

Opponent stated:" If Jesus isn't the Jewish Messiah, then Christianity is false." How does Jesus not being the Jewish Messiah prove Christianity is false? Short answer it does not prove Christianity is false. It does not even make sense. The reason followers of Jesus became known as Christians as in Acts 11:26 because we believe Jesus is the messiah (Christos) this is we call him Jesus Christ meaning Jesus the Christos(messiah).


Further attacking the Resurrection:

Opponent stated: "I propose a more likely scenario" this is not even relevant is he rewriting the Bible now ? This is clearly red herring.

In closing:

The arguments I have provided clearly point to the existence of God.

We don't have to look far to realize that there is plenty of design within our universe. Consider things like the structure of the atom or the of the human eye. Consider the balance of nature here on earth. Consider the many natural laws which govern the vast universe. Did all of these effects come about by pure chance? The causal argument demands that each of these effects must have a greater cause. Order and design and structure and law demand an intelligent cause. How can any man explain the "how's" and "why's" of the origin of the effects? Watch a spider spin a web is it even conceivable that this complex creature with its "web know how"(lack of a better term)could have come about without design? The human brain how can we explain the development of such a complex computer, the capacity of which is never fully utilized by any individual?

Regardless my opponents arguments lack credibility and they do not refute any of my arguments.

VOTE PRO


















Microsuck

Con


Thanks for the debate.

-->Review of my arguments<--

My partner hasn't refuted any of my arguments. I wish to summarize them.

I. Presumption of Atheism

The purpose of this was to show that atheism is justified via the lack of evidence. It does not say that there is no God; rather, it tells us that the dismissal of Gods is warranted. As Stephen Roberts puts it, "I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understnad why I dismiss yours."


II. Incoherent attributes

This argument shows that God cannot exist in the same way an invisible pink unicorn cannot exist; or a square circle cannot exist because God's attributes are incoherent. This argument has been unrefuted.

III. Atheism accurately predicts the universe

This shows that atheism is justified because it accurately predicts the demographics of theism and the demographics of the universe. This is a case for weak atheism.

-->Defense of my Rebuttals<--

I. The origin of hte universe

A. The Big Bang Theory

My partner hasn't shown how my argument that the universe always existed contradicts the BBT. The BBT is simply an explanation of the evalution of the universe. It does not explain how the universe got here. Your argument is a misrepresentation.

B. Something from nothing?

Once again, my partner misrepresents my position. I attempt to show that there is no such thing as "noting"; hence "something from nothing is wrong." However, vaccuum fluctuations are showing that uncaused objects do exist. Therefore, the universe does not need to have been caused into existence by a transcedent being we call "God."

C. God of the Gaps

Extend once more.

II. Morality

A. The Euthyphro dillema

My partner claims that it is a false dichotomy; to which I responded that it isn't necessarily so.

"[A]ppealing to God's character only postpones the problem since the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of His character. Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character? Is there an independent standard of good or does God's character set the standard? If God's character is the way it is because it is good, then there is an independent standard of goodness by which to evaluate God's character. For example, suppose God condemns rape because of His just and merciful character. His character is just and merciful because mercy and justice are good."[1]

In other words, appealing to God's character doesn't solve the dilemma.


"Is it just me or does he seem delusional just a tad bit?"

This is poor conduct here. There is no need for the ad hominem

IV. Jesus

A. The case against Jesus


1. If Jesus isn't the Jewish messiah, then Christianity is false.

My partner fails to understand how Jesus not being the Messiah proves Christianity is false. The reason is that it would make Jesus himself a liar. As 1 John 2:22 puts it, "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son." (NIV) Note that the word "Christ" means "anointed one" or "Messiah." Moreover, Jesus tells us in John 4:26, "Then Jesus told her, "I Am the Messiah!'" Such statements would be false if Jesus is not the Messiah; which my partner concedes.

B. Resurrection Scenario

I presented a resurection scenario that seemed more likey in the previous round. My partner claims that it is a red herring. However, we need to know what a red herring is.

This is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. Any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy. [2]

This is not a red herring argument because it is relavent to my discussion. My partner wanted a scenario for the resurrection, so I presented him with a possible scenario.


Conclusion

My partner has refuted NOTHING. Therefore, a vote for the negative is warranted.
__________
Sources

1. Please see the second source from round 1.
2. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...;
Debate Round No. 4
KILLUMINATI

Pro

KILLUMINATI forfeited this round.
Microsuck

Con

Vote con!
Debate Round No. 5
64 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Probably.
Posted by HonestDiscussioner 4 years ago
HonestDiscussioner
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the answer to your question is "no", Microsuck.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
DragonX, do you have any idea what evolution says?
Posted by DragonX 4 years ago
DragonX
On the documentary Dragons or Dinosaurs it shows concrete proof that we didn't evolve from the monkey. Because of the fact that humans were around at the same time as dinosaurs. Because in that documentary it shows numerous drawings from numerous countries in ancient times that there actual drawings & stone carvings of the dinosaurs. meaning that the evolution scientist were wrong. Once again you can search up www.cloudtenpictures.com/dragons or dinosaurs.
Posted by DragonX 4 years ago
DragonX
The bible does explain about dinosaurs. You can search up www.cloudtenpicture.com if you don't believe me. In Genesis 3:21 Genisis 1:29-30 Romans 5:12,14 & 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. You might not think so because the word dinosaur didn't exist until 1841. But the hebrew word was Tanniyn which's sometimes mean serpent Sea monster but mostly dragon. If you read those verses it'll tell ou the exact description of the dinosaurs. If you check th documentary Dragons or dinosaurs they'll show you in different countries that in ancient times that people have made numerous pictures of dinosaurs. www.coludtenpictures.com/Dragons or Dinosaurs.
Posted by Freeman 4 years ago
Freeman
@Andalite

"whats wrong with copy and paste? Its evidence still isnt it?"

Plagiarism has no logical connection to the soundness of any argument or to the veracity of any form of evidence. It is, however, intellectually dishonest and should be frowned upon.
Posted by HonestDiscussioner 4 years ago
HonestDiscussioner
The problem, Andalite, is that Pro criticized Con for copying stuff when he himself had done so blatantly. This was made worse by the fact that Con was actually copying himself, something he had posted on his own blog.
Posted by Andalite 4 years ago
Andalite
whats wrong with copy and paste? Its evidence still isnt it? or do you have to sum up the exact same thing but in diffrent words which would take a long time... or is it against the rules? soz im new
Posted by Andalite 4 years ago
Andalite
so when are you gonna post your next arguement?
go pro!
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Yup. Nice use of CTRL+V!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DouggyFresh 4 years ago
DouggyFresh
KILLUMINATIMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Landslide. Conduct to Con, Pro was hypocritical and resorted to finger pointing, resulting in an EPIC fail. Pro's arguments were terrible, especially considering they have BOP (and they DO have BOP). I don't think Pro cited any sources at all. Clear winner.