The Instigator
joze14rock
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Mogget
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,125 times Debate No: 4280
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (13)

 

joze14rock

Pro

First off, I would like to forwardly claim my position:
I am arguing that, yes, a God does exist.

But to make this debate most interesting, I will not clarify a specific type of God that I am defending.

Rather, I will let my opponent rant on and on (like most atheist tend to do, assuming an atheist takes up this debate)
of how the God they have come to hate and admonish, is making people stupid and ignorant and cannot possibly exist.

Or if their are actual intellectuals out there who want to rationally, rather than passionately, debate that is awesome too.

Whatever you wish, as long as it is contrary to my stance (i.e. God exists).

Thanks
Mogget

Con

Hahaha, so be it!

I will promise you that I will not rant, but in return you must promise me that you will never say the phrase,

"You just have to have faith."

Debate.org members, I would like to request everyone to judge this using logic. If you are simply going to vote because you are a Christian please simply criticize in the comment section. Voting on personal bias will not help either of us become better debaters.

Establishing a line....
I cannot prove that a God does not exist. At the same time, Joze is incapable of proving that god does exist. The best way to decide a clear winner in this debate therefor is to make a 50/50 line. If at the end of this debate it is more likely that a god does not exist I have won, if it is more likely a god does exist then Joze has won.

Establishing a definition....
God of course could quite literally be taken to mean anything. One could argue that being created by anything even slightly supernatural constitutes as a god whether it has intelligence or not. So I will make a restriction:

God: A being of intelligence, omnipotence, omniscience, capable of anything, created the universe.

I have two points on why god does not exist.

Point 1: If a god existed it would not bother creating a religion. To do so would have no point. If god truly wanted us to know it existed then it would simply tell us.

Point 2: God has no purpose. This defeats the fundamental reason for even creating a god in the first place. A mistake quite a few people seem to have overlooked.

Enjoy.
Debate Round No. 1
joze14rock

Pro

lol, I promise that I will not purport such a decree.

And I second what my opponent says to Debate.org members. I respectfully ask as well that people use logic to weigh the validity of each argument.
But of course, when I say "logic" I do not necessarily preclude other types of logic except for deductive reasoning. So I ask my opponent to have an open mind, and that somethings in reasoning are not constrained by rules of formal logic; just like how our entire world cannot be explained strictly by the Scientific Method (maybe another topic for another debate. e.g.Scientific Method can never explain what happens to our conscious experience when we die)

I shall concede the point that I cannot definitely proove the type of God that my opponent has outlined for this debate.
But before readers and voters jump to conclusions in thinking that I have given up the whole debate, please follow through the rest of the argument:

I'm sure most people are familiar with the famous Philosopher Immanuel Kant. But I bring his name up not to use him, but rather a predecessor of him: David Hume. Kant is famously known of saying about Hume- It was him who woke Kant up from his "dogmatic slumbers."

Now, Hume believed that not only is God unprovable, but all of reality. It's like Descartes Ultimate Skepticism to an extent. For while Descartes believed that when were in utter Skepticism of everything, their is no practicality in living, Hume believed otherwise. (read David Humes "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding")

And that is the criterion that I will carry throughout my arguments (and it seems my opponent will as well): Instead of taking things in life, or reality, as being definite, we must take Hume's approach of probability; we must measure things we experience as either more probable or least probable.

So this is where my readers can understand how I am not giving up the entire debate by saying that I concede to my opponent's claim.

Now how do I proove that God is more probable to exist? - That is the question that determines the entire debate.
Well, how is it more probable that our world AROUND US truly exists? I'm sure most people who are reading this have seen the Matrix. The probability of us being merely "brains in vats" with mad scientists conjuring fake images of the world that we have come to know, is just as probable as their not being a omnipotent, omniscient, etc. God.
How can I boldy say all this? Because to make a statement of most or least probability is by inference of the world around us.

Let's take Benedict Spinoza's Geometric form of argumentation(read his "Ethics: Argued in Geometric Form"). For those who do not know what Geometric argumentation is, it is simply a form of deductive reasoning based on axioms and definitions- like a cook book recipe/instruction book

Anyways, let's measure Spinoza's God under Hume's probability: Under Spinoza, God is defined as a substance or "I understand a being absolutely infinite." What is a substance? Substance is "what is in itself and conceived through itself." How probable is it that Spinoza's view of God is most likely? Very likely, for we think of an Omnipotent God as something unique in itself; something seperate from everything else that we experience. How more unique can we make God than by claiming God to be conceived through itself? Their is nothing in our reality; our world; our universe that is conceived through itself. In other words, everything that we experience is dependent on something, i.e. causal relation. God is the only thing in which is independent, for that is the definition we have given God by our human mind. The probability of this type of God existing gets higher by the following argument:

If our human mind is finite and dependent on things, while God is something absolutely infinite and independent - how on earth can our finite minds conjure up such infinity of infinities?
Yes!! I bring forth the Ontological Argument!! *dread fellow philosophers* But this ontological argument is dependent on probability:
How probable is it that our minds could conceive of God? Very improbable. Our imaginations are powerful and unique tools in themselves, but not powerful enough to conjure up the infinite of infinities, i.e. God.

Let us go on a mini sidetrack right now: The probability that simple chemicals, on their own, from the earth's very beginning, evolved into a unique, elaborate, imaginative, creature known as HUMAN - is very unlikely. If we add an instigator to the idea, the probability is reversed and is made most probable.

Briefly back to my ontological argument: First, I have proven that if we are to say that it is most improbable that God doesn't exist, we can also say that it is most probable that we are brain in vats or all hooked up to a giant Matrix etc. -> It's completly ludicrous for the reason of practicality and inference of the world.
Descartes Evil Demon: An omnipotent, infinite of infinites, God would not deceive us as to put us in vats or in a matrix. To put us in vats or a matrix would be a giant deception on the human mind. But God doesn't decieve- Not for "moral" reasons, but for practical reasons. God either makes the world how it really is, or he transmits the thoughts of our world directly into our minds (look at George Berkeley in "Principles of Human Knowledge"). Putting thoughts of a world directly into our mind is not a deception, but rather an act of omnipotence. Deception is a finite word relative to us.
You may be aware of those philosophers who argue that their is no such thing as a real ultimate morality (also known as relativist) because it is relative to the human being. So "morality" for them is not an attribute of God. In the same sense, deception is not an attribute of God either. More on this argument once I refute my opponents points.
The ontological argument is withstanded due to the fate of probability.
We as humans must live our reality as either more, most, least, very little probability. The fact that I see my brother right now is not a definite object of reality, but a most probable object of reality. Because I could always be hallucinating. But as far as I know I haven't suffered any brain damage nor do I have history of psychological trauma, thus seeing my brother is most probably true.
Now, God as most probably true is on a much larger scope of understanding which I believe I have effectively proven in this discourse. Now to refute my opponents points:

Point 1: First off, this debate has nothing to do with religion. No religion. Alrighty?
But I will refute your argument: "If god truly wanted us to know it existed then it would simply tell us."
Well i'm sorry, but that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever seen in the Philosophy of Religion and I do hope that in your next argument you redefine and elaborate.
If we can't even explain the reason for what made the Big Bang HAPPEN (if the theory is true) how can we apply deductive reasoning to God's nature? We can only abstract that infinite of infinites, but not explain what it means! It's like the ant asking the tornado why it is destroying his ant hill

Point 2: Once again, I refer to Benedict Spinoza's "Ethics" or "Theologico-Political Treatise" who argues exactly your point- that such an infinite of infinites God has no purpose:"God acts from the laws of his nature alone, and is compelled by no one... from the laws of his nature alone, absolutely infinite things follow" (Spinoza)
Of course God has no purpose!! No purpose that is comprehensible to man: "If will and intellect do pertain to the eternal essence of God, we must of course understand by each of these attributes something different from what men commonly understand. For the intellect and will which would constitute God's essence would have to differ entirely from our intellect and will, and could not agree with them in anything except the name.
Mogget

Con

Infinity, concept or reality?

The truth is, infinity is simply a concept made by man. As far as man can see it is not actually impossible for someone or something to be infinitely wise, infinitely fast, infinitely creative etc.... There is always the possibility to be more so infinite. The idea of infinity is not something real, it is not something tangible, it is simply an idea, a super-superlative with no correspondent.

Having said this I will be moving on to Spinoza's argument on why a god is actually rather probable. The argumentation is rather simple. There is nothing we experience on this earth that has created itself, therefor the idea of god is very unique, since it is so unique it must be true. This line of reasoning is rather flawed, at the point where I think in my mind of a mystical unicorn that created itself it becomes just as likely as a god that created itself. Likewise if I take a moment out of my day and imagine a being that can simply erase it's own existence (this being will appear rather fuzzy for all purposes, kind of like a cloud) I have come up with a truly unique being; therefor under Spinoza's argument it is likely to exist.

Taken to a completely separate extreme, let us examine Dr. Seuss, a literary genius. A man who thought up so many original ideas that it is simply amazing. Under Spinoza's argumentation, all of those ideas in his books, because of their simple originality would be likely to exist.

Which brings me to the big bang theory. A theory consisting of the idea that a super concentrated atom or body of mass created itself and then exploded. Once again we have a body that was powerful enough to create itself and started the universe, a unique occurrence equal to that of a god creating itself.

The conclusion my fellow debaters is rather simple. To man, nothing has ever created itself. To say that being able to think of something creating itself must make it true is flawed. The idea of a god came around because of man's inability to understand where he/she came from. The only logical conclusion was to create an idea that man could not understand in itself. God was created, a being that human beings cannot understand because of it's infinite component, a component created by man, something that is not a reality.

God is simply a justification for our existence that has stemmed from our inability to comprehend how the universe came to be. It, like every other explanation that we have come up with is rather lacking in many aspects. However it is not my job in this debate to offer an alternative that is true, because I like every other human do not know of such an alternative. All that I am saying is that the current ideas, God, the big bang, etc... all rely on mystical components that make the probability of their being true rather small.

Which brings me to the ontological argument. Paraphrased: "How could we possibly understand a god if he has an infinite component!?"

The question is completely moot and has absolutely no bearing on this debate currently. We are not arguing about whether or not a god could be understood, we are arguing about whether or not a god probably exists. But to appease my opponent I have actually already covered this argument. As I stated, infinity is a concept made by man that man cannot in itself fully understand. This concept was therefor used as a justification for our very creation. Sadly justifying something with a proof that has not been justified in itself simply leaves the first completely unexplainable.

Mini-side track. The probability that humans came to be on this earth is in itself rather minute. However what my opponent has failed to do is take into account is the fact that there are so many seperate solar systems out there. So yes, it is true that the probability is small, in fact, to our knowledge we are 1 of millions of stellar bodies out there that actually has life on it.

Point 1: If we cannot examine a situation with reasoning what use is to us? All throughout history we have denied reasoning to guess at the cause of certain events, and they have got us nowhere. There is no logical reason why a creator would not simply tell us that it has created us. Especially if it wanted to make a religion.

Point 2: Once again a being detached of a reason is of no purpose to man what-so-ever. We cannot examine such a situation at all. There is quite literally no purpose for a creator to fulfill. This would be like my blinking myself into existence and then creating an entire universe. Great, I've created a universe, but what is the point of my existence? There is none.

Basically what my opponent is stating is there is no logical conclusion to our existence so therefor we should simply pick illogical solutions. Back to you.
Debate Round No. 2
joze14rock

Pro

Awesome, a good debate. Let me first start off with the points my opponent has failed to either touch, misunderstand, and/or have completely wrong:
1) My opponent has disregarded my Humean argument of probability, either about God or complete Skepticism of the world around us
2) Their is such a "reality" as infinity (look at Pythagoras and the ancients)
3) Misunderstanding the Ontological Argument on profound levels
4) Inadequetely portraying God as a void of wisdom
5) Illogical Approach to the Big Bang by my opponent

Contention 1: As a voter can see, my opponent has disregarded the "brain in the vat/matrix" probability argument that I brought forth. At the outset of this debate, my opponent and I agreed that we can only measure things based on most probable or least probable. To quote my opponent:
"The best way to decide a clear winner in this debate therefor is to make a 50/50 line. If at the end of this debate it is more likely that a god does not exist I have won, if it is more likely a god does exist then Joze has won"
It baffles me that my opponent completely disregarded probably the most important point in this whole debate. I have faith that my opponent will elaborate in the next round, although I will not get the privilidge to reply.
To reiterate my argument: If we measure things by probability instead of certainty, we can easily say that the possibility of us being simply brains in vats or our minds confined in a matrix, is just as probable as their not being a God.

Contention 2: It seems that if I can prove that the concept of "infinity" is an actual object of reality, my opponent will concede that their is a God.
First off, infinity is a reality and not merely a concept. Scientist argue that the universe is "infinitely" expanding; Pythagoras and other mathmatecians have prooved in mathematics that infinity is a necessary object of reality in order for things to work as they do (refer to Pythagoras and his concept that all of reality is made up of numbers)
Check out: http://mathforum.org...
But when we talk about God, we don't talk about something as infinite. We talk about something with infinite of infinities. Since the concept of "infinity" in itself is proved as a reality by mathmaticians and scientist (and not only by philosophers and metaphycians) then the concept of "infinity of infinities" must be true, even though the reality of it is incapable of entering the human experience. Think of God like math but on a much grander scale; their is no way that we can experience mathematics except by its application, but we know very well that it in itself is a reality, and not simply a concept. This will probably lead to a counter argument from my opponent, and since I won't have the priviledge to reply to my opponent in another round, I will simply ask now: What is it in which we define what reality is?

Contention 3: I think it is tremendously unfair to compare Dr. Seuss to Benedict de Spinoza or David Hume, but I will say it is rather funny.
As I mentioned at the very outset of my argument we must measure probabilty of things by inference of the world. That means our minds are given objects from the world to construct ideas and concepts. That is where these ideas of "unicorns" or "Horton Hearing a Ho" come from; our mind's imagination gathering information from the world around. Let us go to Immanuel Kant: He argued that it is not the world that gives us direct ideas or concepts of the world itself (as the British Empiricist argued) but rather that our minds have these already basic intuitive tools to CONSTRUCT concepts of the world. The human mind, therefore, is made by Reason, Imagination, Memory, etc. The point of this tangent I have taken is to show that by inference of the world, we create concepts of many things, some that are most likely probable to explain the world or simply facets of the imagination- God is not a tool of the imagination. Imagining a Unicorn is due to inference of the world (which I emphasize continously for a purpose)- a horse and a horn. Dr. Seuss' "original ideas" are actually "original ideas" of "basic ideas." Remember what John Locke so boldly claimed: Our minds are a Tabula Rasa (Blank Sheet of paper). I argue that to an extent. The imagination needs things to imagine, and they only come from the world.
Their is a more pragmatic way to show how God is not simply a product of the human imagination. But to do so would force us to eliminate the biasness of religion; We must stray away from the idea that God is a bearded man in the sky. Rather, let's think of God as that "infinite of infinites." And when one attempts to do so, they eventually utterly fail! Just thinking about the concept makes my brain hurt, myself. With IMAGINING things their is a degree of rationalization to the person who imagines it (even for insane people). But when we try to think of that thing which holds "infinite of infinites," we eventually simply give up because our minds cannot produce anything; we can't rationalize such a concept. Yet, that concept is still in our minds. (this is brushing by the Ontological Argument which I will elaborate later on). We can rationalize infinity by itself, and then apply it to reality (as the mathamaticians and scientist do). But we cannot rationalize "infinity of infinities," but can infer its reality by simply proving that infinity is a true reality.

Contention 4: My opponent has failed to understand the ontological argument. The Ontological Argument does indeed DEPEND on whether God can or cannot be understood. Because if God could be understood, he is not God and my opponent would automatically win. If God isn't understandable, but still have a basic concept of it (i.e. infinity of infinities)- that is the ontological argument. Think of it like this: If I were a caveman with no knowledge of Cars, and a car magically appears in front of me; I hear its engine, I see it drive, I feel its hardness- yet I still don't know what it is. I must collect all these characteristics that I have observed and construct a collective idea of what it is (i.e. Religion). I may call it a mumbatamana, containing magical powers of moving which, I would theorize, is done by the earth itself. I would also theorize that the source of the noise must be the source of its power. This is all synonomous of religion and God but on a very miniscule scope. While religion may or may not say things that are right, can be debated and refuted endlessly, what seems to escape peoples minds is the fact that their is still something there; that their is still a "car" there, whatever it is. God, though, is much tougher to crack, for unlike the "holy car" that continously reveals itself corporealy and physically, God seems to only continously reveal himself through the human mind. But the human mind is corrupted on a scale much grander than that of our body. As the famous Socrates and Plato believed: You can physicaly torture a person to death, but you can never take their wisdom away. What power of good and bad our minds must have if we can't even take it away?

Contention 5: The Universe did not create itself. For as we know by inference of the universe, for every act their is a cause. The Universe is constructed by causal reaction. To say the Big Bang created itself would deny all the natural laws that it itself abides by, which is utterly illogical. Here is my opponent arguing for logic, when he himself fails to apply it.

Point 1: You can use all the reason and wisdom you want in describing the acts of God (just like I did with the "holy car") but one cannot use human wisdom to describe God in itself; his own nature (As a caveman, I could never understand what an "engine" is by simple observance of the mumbatamana, i.e. car). And as I said before, Religion needs God. God doesn't need religion

P2: "Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form" - Karl Marx
Mogget

Con

Alright, I will counter respond to your list.

1. It's true, I didn't respond to the argument on infinite skepticism or god because it literally has no impact on this debate.

2. There isn't a reality as infinity. Yeah, mathematicians deal with infinity, that doesn't make it a real number. Infinity is a concept, it does not actually exist in anything on this earth.

3. I didn't misunderstand the ontological argument.

4. I very adequately portrayed god. God lacks logical substantiation.

5. The big bang theory is illogical, I wasn't trying to offer a logical solution. I was simply offering another example in the countless sea of illogical solutions out there; a sea that includes god.

**************************************

Contention 1: So at the beginning of this debate I set the 50/50 brightline. This was agreed to by both parties in this debate. At which point my nemesis in this debate stated,

"The probability of us being merely "brains in vats" with mad scientists conjuring fake images of the world that we have come to know, is just as probable as their not being a omnipotent, omniscient, etc. God."

He is right of course, they are equally probable, because they are the SAME thing. A world where scientists are conjuring our reality is a world without god (probably). Not to say that this is the only world that could not definitely have a god. The matrix portrays a fine example of where our reality is not quite as it seems. In fact, most of the spin offs on our reality not being quite as we see it are based on some variation or another of Plato's cave.

In other words, what Joze says is true. The probability is equal. There is, however, no way to determine which situation is more or less likely. This of course makes the probability of each separate situation equal through our inability to differentiate. Thereby, for each possible situation the probability of every other situation decreases. Here's what my opponent's proposal looks like:

We are brains in Vats: 50%
God exists: 50%

This of course doesn't quite help our debate because we are left stuck at 50% so I'll spend a few seconds brain storming other equally likely possibilities.

We are brains in Vats: 10%
God exists: 10%
The big bang occurred: 10%
We live in the matrix (or similar): 10%
Everything happened by chance: 10%
I created myself and am hiding the truth from myself: 10%
Someone else created us as an experiment and is hiding the truth from us: 10%
We are simply complex computers created with a flag that disallows us from comprehending our existence: 10%
God existed to create the universe then stopped existing: 10%
Other scientific explanations: 10%

As the list continues, the chances decrease. There is no way to determine that god is more or less likely than any of these.

Contention 2: Once again infinity is by no means a real number. It does not actually exist as something that we can see, touch, or even comprehend. Scientists argue that the universe is expanding infinitely, they argue that the universe is ALWAYS expanding. In other words the universe will keep expanding infinitely, a world in this case that is synonymous with forever. It is not a reality, it is simply a place holder.

I can't have an infinite amount of something.
I can't see an infinite occurrence.
I can't create an infinity.

Infinity is the easy way of saying, "it goes on forever" or in some cases, "never ending". It's a placeholder that lets us know that the true number is always 1 above what we can imagine. It is a concept. It is not a real number, it is not TANGIBLE!

Having said all of this, it doesn't actually matter. Joze is saying that infinity of infinites is a truth (even though we can't understand it) because infinity itself exists. This is a non sequitur.

a. An orange exists therefor an orange of oranges exists.
b. Zero exists (another concept and placeholder, so it really doesn't) therefor zero of zeros exists!
c. I exist therefor I of Is exist.

If these all make sense and I am just missing it feel free to tell me in the comment section, however I'm pretty sure they don't make sense. Conclusion: Even if Joze could prove that infinity exists (it doesn't, except as a concept) it doesn't mean that infinity of infinites does.

Contention 3:

You've contradicted yourself.

You say that every idea we have is from an inference of the world around us.

You say that we use these inferences to construct concepts of the world.

And finally you state that we should think of god as an infinity of infinities, "And when one attempts to do so, they eventually utterly fail!"

You admit that we cannot divine your interpretation of god into a concept through our inability to think of him. This of course means that your interpretation of god has not been inferred from the world around us, your idea is quite literally nonsense. (Sorry)

Instead I am going to be focusing on how we did infer a god. The average human being does not define a god as an infinity of infinities but rather as an all powerful being. This being would be inferred through two things. The first of course is a human being. The second is magic or something without explanation. God is an inference of magical properties and a human being. In other words we took the image of ourselves, made it all powerful and decided it explained our existence. Why have we done this? Because we can't come to any reasonable explanation of how we occurred.

God IS a tool of the imagination in exactly the same way a unicorn is.

"Men create the gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life." -Aristotle

Contention 4:

Once again you have conceded your case.

The car, like everything, has a logical explanation. A caveman will not understand this because he does not understand what a car is. Given time however, intelligence, and an ample opportunity to play with a car the caveman will at some point begin to understand the cars basic functions. He will realize what the key does, some of the switches etc.... As the time he spends studying the car increases his knowledge of it will increase.

The same is true of our current world. As time has gone on we have come to understand it more and more. But like the caveman who has only seen the car for a few days, we do not understand what created the car (universe). This is not to say that there isn't a logical explanation, it is only to say that we have not yet found that explanation, much like the caveman has not found the obvious logical explanation for the car.

We have of course prophesied at what that explanation could be. We have come up with countless unprovable theories on how the universe came to be, ranging from god to the big bang. Yet none of them have yet been able to fall under the logical workings of the universe that we have been able to explain everything else by.

So, like the caveman and his car. It would be illogical to assume that because we cannot find the logical solution therefor must be a mystical solution that we cannot understand. The inability to find a logical solution is not grounds to simply default to an illogical solution!

Contention 5:

If you consider that ability for god to exist outside the laws of the universe then you must also consider the ability for the universe to have existed outside of its own laws before time began.

The big bang theory is illogical. It is unprovable. That's my point. I'm not trying to find the truth in this debate, I am simply stating that every theory out there is illogical. The belief in god is one of those theories.

Point 1: One cannot apply wisdom to describing god itself because chances are god does not exist.

Point 2: "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite" - Bertrand Russell
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
7. You seem to be a little confused about the nature of inductive reasoning. In an inductive argument, no ONE piece of evidence can "prove" a claim. However, taken as a whole, the preponderance of evidence can lead you to reasonable conclusions.

That said, being conscripted by one's government and commanded to put one's life in danger is significantly different than voluntarily risking one's life to preserve, translate and distribute a book. Put yourself in their place. Would YOU be willing to die in order to see a piece of banned atheistic literature find its way into the hands of the public? That should give you an idea of how confident these people were that what they possessed was the truth. One must then assume that they had EXTREMELY good reasons to believe what they did.

8. Name some? How about virtually every European government from the seventh century to the sixteenth century. In fact, I can't think of a single European government during that time period that WASN'T involved in preventing the spread of the Bible in the common tongue prior to the reformation. You need to brush up on your medieval history, friend.

9. If it's that easy why don't you give it a try? It would make a great point in future debates. Try upwards of thirty authors, many of whom WERE contemporaneous (eg. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) who wrote on a variety of topics and many of whom had little or no access to what had previously been canonized. It's not as if the prophet Amos, a shepherd, had access to one of the priceless scrolls that contained the decalogue, and writings of previous prophets. Once again, you need to brush up on your history if you're going to make snide remarks of that magnitude.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
Responding to your points in kind:

1. I think I have already demonstrated this to be false.

2. You are claiming that the existence of God would lead to infinite regress. Unfortunately, the only way to eliminate the problem of infinite regress is to introduce a first cause: God. God is, by definition, eternal, meaning that he has always existed and never had a beginning.

3. Unfortunately, you too must believe that something came from nothing. In your case, though, that something has been scientifically proven to have a finite beginning in the past. The same cannot be said for an eternal being. That is obviously beyond our ability to comprehend, but if our ability to comprehend things is a prerequisite for their existence, we're in deep trouble. But this is all moot since you concede that life cannot spontaneously arise from non-living matter. The existence of information in even the simplest cell is conclusive proof of an intelligent origin. It does not necessarily follow (but I think it is a reasonable assumption) that this intelligence was God. The fact that neither you nor I can figure out how a being could have simply always existed becomes irrelevant.

4. A rock contains no functional information. You cannot feed a rock into a rock-drive in your computer and produce anything of utility. On the other hand, I can feed DNA into a cell and functional proteins will be produced. Information is not subjective.

5. Despite science, people still do rely emotionally on belief in God. My own biology professor told me that while she was convinced that evolution was the explanation for life, that "I still NEED to believe in God."

6. So you're saying that since there has been independent verification from other religions that some kind of all-powerful supernatural being exists this being can't possibly exist? I think you're a little confused about who's reasoning is flawed.
Posted by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
Aight, responding right down your posts.

1. I'm saying there is more evidence for unicorns existing and the evidence is just as credible.

2. The fact that the universe exists is not evidence for god at all. Why? Because then you have a new question, how did god come to be? This line of reasoning goes back forever.

3. I'm glad you can prove that life cannot arise from non-life. Yet your attempting to tell me something can exist from nothing.....

4. There is information everywhere, but it is only information if we interpret it as such. For instance a rock contains information, that's not not say the rock created its own information.

5. We didn't evolve to emotionally depend on something that doesn't exist, we began to depend on something that doesn't exist because we couldn't find a satisfactory answer. An guess what, entertainingly enough even with a god we would have no purpose. Why? Because the god would have no purpose unless something higher gave it a purpose.... -.-

6. Yeah, Christians do exist, and so have hundreds of others of religions. In fact there have been many major religions aside from Christianity, religions that all had religious texts from many sources. If you're going to deny the validity of religions such as roman mythology then you must deny Christianity for the same reasons. Your line of reasoning is completely flawed.

7. Countless people have died trying to do just about everything. A notable percentage of Germany died attempting to enforce a holocaust, did that make it right?

8. Hundreds of governments have been employed to destroy it or prevent people from reading it? Name some. The bible acts as a fine tool for government control, which governments would bother attempting to destroy it?

9. Hmmmm. Write a short story and then have 15 other guys use the character in your short story to continue their own stories. Staggering consistency. It's not like they all wrote at the same time.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
Then there's the fact that Christians exist. You try making up your own religion based entirely upon the scope of your own imagination and let me know how that works out. Furthermore, watch how long your following lasts when they're murdered in a colosseum by the millions for their faith.

Then there's the fact that the Bible exists. Countless people have died in the effort to translate, preserve, and distribute Bibles. Hundreds of governments have been employed over the centuries to destroy it or prevent people from reading it, yet it persists to this day as the best-selling book of all time.

Then, of course, there is the Bible itself, an assembly dozens of books written by dozens of authors which exhibits staggering consistency, and which corroborate the idea that God exists. That, of course, is an understatement.

I could continue, but I think I've demonstrated that there is considerably more evidence for the existence of God than "One book."
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
I have no idea how your last post pertains to the discussion at hand. Are you trying to tell me there is more evidence for flying unicorns than there is for God, that there is as much evidence for unicorns are there is for God, or that the evidence that exists for God is as credible as the evidence for the existence of unicorns? All three of these represent very naive positions.

There is as much, if not more evidence for the existence of God than there is for a number of other things we accept as fact. For starters, there's the fact that the universe exists. Either the universe created itself (which, to me at least, seems completely absurd) or it was created by someone. Unfortunately, most of us take it for granted that we exist, and never stop to consider the peculiarity of this fact.

Then there's the fact that life exists. I can show you, mathematically, that it is impossible for life to arise spontaneously from non-living matter. It is even more absurd to believe that random mutations and natural selection could have produced the variety and complexity of organisms that exist on the planet earth. Furthermore, each and every living cell possesses a digital code that makes cell maintenance, growth, and division possible, a code that is more information-dense than any of the digital recording mediums produced by man to date. Information has only ever come from intelligence, and there is no reason to believe that DNA information violates this OBSERVED fact.

Then there is the fact that we, as human beings, desire a sense of purpose. Why would we evolve to emotionally depend on something that doesn't actually exist?

Then there is the vast body of personal testimony, from people like me, that God exists. In any court of law, this would hold tremendous weight. No witness during a trial is ever asked to present evidence to corroborate their testimony. Instead, a witnesses testimony is considered AS EVIDENCE. This is certainly something to consider.
Posted by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
Hmmmm.... A cartoon with a flying unicorn:

http://www.bonusstages.com...

Image results for flying unicorns:

http://images.google.com...

And oddly enough I just stumbled across a goddess called the invisible pink unicorn...... :

http://en.wikipedia.org...

A book about flying unicorns:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com...

And the list goes on. What's your source on god again? One book?
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
I see your point, Mogget, except that we're not talking about something for which there is absolutely no evidence, like flying unicorns. Visible evidence isn't the only kind of evidence.
Posted by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
SnoopyDaniels, nay I negate.

Atheism takes as much a leap of faith as anything else without credible evidence. An atheist is someone that does not believe in the existence of a god. Likewise I could disbelieve that invisible unicorns are floating around my room right now in circles. This doesn't take some great leap of faith for me to say, it simply takes a few moments of observation and critical thinking. Disbelieving in a god does not take any great leap of faith.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
Ghegeman, atheism absolutely takes a leap of faith. To say categorically that God does not exist MUST be based on faith, because in order to prove that something does not exist, one must know everything. Obviously no atheist can possily know everything.

On the other hand, theists must only provide one example of something that points to God's existence. Theists have a number of arguments and evidences. One of these is the irreducable complexity of life. I won't beat that one to death since we're about to have a debate over Evolution vs. Intelligent Design.

Furthermore, while extremely powerful and useful, the scientific method has a couple of critical weaknesses that limit the extent to which one can rely on it for truth. First, everything we know about the physical world is only valid AFTER the physical world began to exist. Science cannot tell us anything about what happened before the universe came into being. Because of this, science cannot tell use where the universe came from in the first place. Second, any scientific theory is only as strong as the validity of the predictive conclusions used to test it. By this I mean that when a scientist hypothesizes to explain a natural phenomenon and then makes predictions based on that hypothesis in order to experimentally test it, there is no way to determine whether or not such predictions ACTUALLY follow from the hypothesis. For any scientific hypothesis I present, I could attach to it any number of predictions, regarless of whether or not those predictions actually follow from my hypothesis. Furthermore, I could attach predictions which I know will be verified because my hypothesis is based on them. For example, Darwin already knew when he wrote the origin of species that layers of rock containing different fossils existed, yet he predicted this in the origin of species as a test of his hypothesis. This is circular, and it is a critical weakness of science.
Posted by joze14rock 8 years ago
joze14rock
Mogget I wish I could man, but I got to go to Air Force Field Training for month. I leave monday.
When I get back, sound good?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
joze14rockMoggetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by tholos 8 years ago
tholos
joze14rockMoggetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
joze14rockMoggetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
joze14rockMoggetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
joze14rockMoggetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dremix09 8 years ago
dremix09
joze14rockMoggetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
joze14rockMoggetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
joze14rockMoggetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by UberCryxic 8 years ago
UberCryxic
joze14rockMoggetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by joze14rock 8 years ago
joze14rock
joze14rockMoggetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30