The Instigator
AWSM0055
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
J_Gasper
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Does God exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 610 times Debate No: 81556
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

AWSM0055

Con

This round is purely an acceptance round and definition round. Whomever accepts this debate must accept all rules and definitions below, or suggest reasonable amendments in the comments if not satisfied with said rules and definitions:

[Definition]

"God": Intelligent deity and creator of the universe. "God" is also an individual, and not some form of unknown energy or force: He is an actual being.

[Rules]

Rule 1:

This round (round 1) is purely acceptance and rule negotiations.
Round 2 consists of presenting arguments; no refutals.
Round 3 is refutals.
Round 4 is small conclusion and recap.

Rule 2:
Furthermore, you must give definitions for key words in your arguments/premises. If no definition is given, I will ignore the argument and it will be considered as refuted.

Rule 3:
You must not forfeit rounds.

Rule 4:
You must not give troll or silly arguments.

Rule 5:
This debate is not religious based. This debate is purely an argument of the existence of God, regardless of what religion or denomination.

Rule: 6
You must not refer to any religious site or book (such as the bible/Karan) for answers regarding God, as Holy Book has different translations and is subject to interpretation.

You may use secular books/sites that are written/created by religious organisations for arguments and such, but they must not have religious references (E.g. must not use the bible/Karan or doctrines for help).

That's about it. Post "I accept" below if you accept everything above or post a comment if you want certain amendments to be made.
J_Gasper

Pro

I am accepting your argument and am taking the stance in support of a God or "intelligent deity and creator of the universe."

In hindsight, I can be vague in my descriptions and words and may expect the readers to make a leap regarding the definition of a word, so unless it's truly incoherent, I don't think it would be the best if you just ignored it as being refuted. I would be more than willing to define it in the refutal round.

Background: I am currently a college student at the university of North Dakota, so if takes me awhile to respond, its because I'm swamped with classes and homework.

I am taking the defense of an all powerful God because I truly believe that he exists, so I'm not some devil's advocate or someone like that.

The three following rounds seem reasonable, but I feel that it will be tough to get a complete argument formulated in defense of our positions with simply one presentation and refutal, so if its possible to extend it a few more rounds, that would be good.

ps. this is my first time using debate.org.....
Debate Round No. 1
AWSM0055

Con

Yes, you are clearly new here. Unfortunately, I can't extend the debate rounds after acceptance, so this will have to do. Sorry about that.

Anyway, let's get started:

Argument 1:
Most, if not all phenomena can be explained by natural occurrences. Even the times scientists haven't understood something, "God" has never been a sufficient answer.

Argument 2:
If God indeed exists, why does he never directly let humanity know? If he indeed saw humanity trying to find answers to life's questions, why does he not simply relieve our anxiety and actually show himself?

Argument 3:
Right when humanity starts developing better scientific research than relying on religion, the "God did it" explanation is dying out. This shows that actual logical reasoning is better than blaming magic man.

Argument 4:
Quantum physics has explained many things in our natural world and even could explain how the universe cam to be. This almost completely rules out the need for a God to create the universe.

Argument 4:
God was a man made creation rather than based on sufficient observation and evidence. Therefore, God's existence is about as likely as the famous Flying Spaghetti Monster or Easter Bunny, which were also both man made beings.

Argument 5:
The very definition and characteristics of God were also man made and not based on evidence.

Argument 6:
If God existed, why is there suffering? Furthermore, why is there evil or certain negative emotions in humankind?

Now that I have made some interesting questions, I want to make further arguments about God:

P1: God is all powerful and intelligent, and therefore would not make mistakes
P2: There are certain mistakes, errors or downright flaws in some organisms structure and the universe
C: therefore, God did not make the universe or living things.

If you want examples of flaws, here are some:
1. Our spine is curved in an inefficient way.
2. Our pelvis is too small for child birth
3. Retina is on backwards (not kidding)
Etc etc etc
http://nautil.us...

I think that's about it. Also, I'm going to null rule 2 which states that "you need to define key words in your arguments or they will be ignored."

You may use definitions for words, but it is no longer mandatory UNLESS, like you said, the argument is completely incoherent or subject to interpretation (meaning there is more than one obvious definition of the same word; for instance, if I used the word "net", I would have to explain whether you mean the Internet or fishing net.)
J_Gasper

Pro

Sorry it took me so long to respond, I got absolutely slaughtered by school this week.

Anyways, here's my brief response to your arguments and some of my own.

Argument 1:
"Most if not all phenomena can be explained by natural occurrences"
That is true, there is a lot of truth to be found in the world and throughout nature, but that does not mean you can rule out a God.
The assumption being made is that science and "God" can't go hand in hand or work together. But who's to say that God created an orderly world that can be understood through science? People make the assumption that since it has to do with God, it can't be understood.
Science also can't disprove that a "God" exists, because he can essentially mean anything, which is why there are so many religions in the world today.

Argument 2:
Again the assumption is that since God exists, then he must let people know he exists.
All religions rely on some variance of faith for salvation, but if God makes himself known, than how would that be considered "faith".
faith- strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
That being said, it is also assumed that he would solve our problems when he is made known, by answering all of life's questions and relieving anxiety.

Argument 3:
First off, the founders of modern science that began in the 1600s were essentially all men whom believed in some form of a higher deity, whether it be most commonly Christianity or various forms of deism. Only a handful were atheists or agnostics. Belief in a God is to thank for the scientific revolution, but as you said, the focus no longer relies on the "God did it" explanation due to the entire field becoming very secularized in the 1900s.
Deism- "s a theological/philosophical position that combines the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge with the conclusion that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe."
You're also assuming that logical reasoning cannot come from God as well, and also people can be too quick to use the "God did it" phrase without fully understanding what they are studying.

Argument 4:
Quantum physics is far from becoming fully understood, but one this is for sure and that is that it is filled with atheists and those who don't believe in the supernatural, so all assumptions they make in their hypothesis automatically rule out anything related to religion. So their theories are already biased in that way, which is why there are so many different theories out there, because while the scientists may not agree on some of the smaller details, they do agree that their theories have to have happened purely by natural means, with no supernatural influence.

You're assumption here is that if a God or deity created the universe, we therefore cannot understand it, or cannot use science to describe the origins of the universe.

I don't see how this could rule out the need for a god to create the universe.

I'll dive deeper into quantum physics in the next round**

Argument 4 2.0?:
"God is a man made creation rather than based on sufficient observation and evidence" is also an assumption.
many people have believed that and many philosophers have attributed that to the creation of religion, there are vast differences between God and the FSM and easter bunny.

You can disprove the easter bunny and the FSM in basically one or two questions. Disproving the existence of a God has been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years, and yet the majority of the world still believes in him. No one in their right mind would believe in the other two because their is no logical sense to their existence, God, on the other hand, has logical reason to exist.

this is the very fact we're having this debate in the first place....

Argument 5:
You have no evidence, so there is not much I can do with that.

Argument 6:
Why would suffering show that God doesn't exist? furthermore if God doesn't exist, would evil even exist, or good in that manner? How do we determine the basis of right and wrong if their is no moral lawgiver to give it to us, or is it an anything goes basis?
Define suffering as well, as it can be open to interpretation. I need to get more information on the argument to go into further detail without making assumptions of my own.

P1: I would agree with that, but you're also assuming that he would not allow corruption to take place from its original form. Looking in the world around me, there is definitely a lot of corruption.

P2: I would disagree with the errors and mistakes, because your examples you used are not mistakes nor errors.
the website is purely opinion and the examples it gives don't offer any scientific data to determine if their example would truly fix the problem, "if it even is a problem in the first place."

Here are some questions that I would like for you to define in the next section.

Does science rely on faith?
Where does authority come from without their being a supernatural authority?
Has science disproved the existence of God?
Does everyone have a personal bias regardless of where they get their information from?
What is evil and suffering?
What flaws exist in the universe?
Would you consider the unbelief in God a religion?

those should be enough for now, and here are some arguments I will lay out.

*I'm not gonna use the teleological, cosmological and other arguments like that, because everyone uses them and they usually go nowhere.

Philosophy!
My main argument is this:
The belief in a God is the most reasonable option, because when breaking down all religions to their very core with philosophy, all worldviews have a few pivotal questions. I'm throwing in atheism as a "religion" here.

If you could, it would be nice if you could insert atheism into the worldview pyramid to break down its beliefs.

the worldview pyramid
What is Ethics, or right and wrong.
What is Humanity
What is Knowledge, or how can we know we know?
What is God?
What is Real?

All these questions rely on each other, with "what is real" being the foundation, and all other things being influenced through it.
In the end, everything needs a source of authority and meaning, yet all religions have some form of circular reasoning.
Christians rely on the Bible, Muslims the Koran, and Atheist their Reasoning and mind.
But as everything gets questioned, the foundations become unstable simply because we truly cannot know or don't know the answers.
Philosophy can be used to break down any argument as much as the person is able to manage.
Due to the limitations of the human mind, we cannot know everything, and science cannot provide all the answers due to its limitations, hence all the unknown and obscurity that is growing in its fields.
Which leaves us with, the other option being a God who designed it that way, because he possesses an infinite or omniscient mind that is capable of knowing all things.
And as we try to understand, we realize we can't, so instead have to rely on faith in God.
Faith that we can trust our logical reasoning and mind to understand what we can of the world around us, but also realize that we can't know everything because everything becomes more and more complex the deeper we go.
So in the end, faith in a God is the most logical option, because it allows us to trust human reason and science as well as gives explanations for the unknown where science fails.

I can explain my arguments about science more thoroughly if this argument does not make enough sense, or ask me questions to define in the next round.

Id have to start using an actual religion to go into further detail and give more reasons why the belief in God is the best option.

But I think that about as much as I should say for right now.
Debate Round No. 2
AWSM0055

Con

Thank "God" you wrote your argument, amirite? No? Never mind...

Okay, for your first refute, you admit that "Most if not all phenomena can be explained naturally"

The point of my question was to demonstrate that there are no seemingly uncanny occurrences that indicate God. The question wasn't really meant to "disprove" God. And no, God and science cannot possibly go hand in hand until the day someone gives enough evidence for his existence.

Science literally means: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

God is apparently neither physical or natural, which disproves your point. Nonetheless, if you claim that a deity exists, I and other critics need evidence before accepting such claims.

Your refutation for argument 2 is laughable. "Faith" is the ENTIRE basis of belief in a God. There is nearly no evidence for God's existence at all, which is why faith is required. Faith is wilful ignorance. I do not accept it.

Your refutation for argument 3 is true, and I'll give you that. My arguments were a little sloppy because I was busy. Anyway, moving on...

Your refutation for my first Argument 4 is slightly wrong. The reason that the supernatural is ruled out is two facts. One: science deals with the natural world, not the unnatural. Two: the supernatural has no evidence behind it to use iin a hypothesis, and is therefore dismissed.

As an example, say you were in a court and there is a Judge who doesn't believe a guy (let's call him Tom) is guilty of murder, yet one person keeps repetitively saying that he did, with no evidence, no proof, not even an eye witness. If the judge let's Tom go, does that mean he's biased?

No.

Similarly with physicists. They see no reason to blame God for creating the universe, so they dig deeper and BAM, they discover electrons that do many different possible things at the same time until observation. I'm not going to go much deeper into it, but it COULD explain how the universe came to be.

Also, you still don't see how this rules out God for the creation of the universe? Well so far, there isn't much evidence for God, and hardly any of humanity's progress has come from him or the theory that he created everything. On the other hand, scientists are making new discoveries every so often, and unlock more and more mysteries of the universe! Which one should go? "God did it" maybe?

Your refutation for argument 4.2 (lol, sorry about that repeated argument number) is again very flawed and self contradictory. You say that the FSM for example can be proven to be false in, say, two questions, yet "God" has been going on for yonks, and is harder to disprove. I agree, and this is due to the fact that when "God" is brainwashed into a child until they believe it. A God seems more probable then FSM because God is molded into people's lives. So is the Easter bunny until children get to a certain age when their parents tell them "No, the Easter bunny doesn't exist". If the Easter bunny was given a slightly less ridiculous name, made more majestic, and people visited the church of his fluffiness every Sunday, BOOM, you got yourself a religion! Same with Scientology, Hinduism, or even the conveniently named Easter Island god head things.

(And with the amount of arms Vishnu has, the FSM already seems to exist)

"Tell anyone anything with enough authority and they will believe you" - Albeit Einstein

As for argument 5, I will bring it back to you then: How many characteristics of God have verifiable evidence? How do we know he is above the laws of nature? How do we know he has the ability to create the universe?

None? Then WHO made these definitions and characteristics? Man? Probably.

As for your refutation for Argument 6, you say that suffering does not disprove God's existence, and I agree. Again, my argument was sloppy and rushed, so I apologise once again.

I'm going to ignore that argument and you can too.

Finally, your refutation for my premises is understandable, and again, it was rushed and obscure so I'll repeat it with slightly better formed argument:

P1: God is all powerful and intelligent, and therefore would not make mistakes (you say you kind of agree but point out I'm assuming that God wouldn't allow corruption. You are doing the same thing as I pointed out in argument 5 above, by assuming certain other characteristics of God)
P2: There are certain flaws in human biology and the universe.
C: therefore, God did not make the universe or living things.

You say that premise two is wrong because the website is purely opinion.

How is a tiny pelvis for childbirth is not an error? Why can't it be done quick and clean without "OH MY GOD THIS BLOODY HURTS"?
And the overcrowded teeth in our jaw. Why didn't God make our jaw bigger? Or give us less teeth?
Or the exposed male genitalia, while the appendix is protected by the torso...WHY???

These are clearly engineering flaws that simply are there to make life more difficult. Just think, every time you get hit in the bollocks, GOD DID THAT...or evolution which could easily explain the above but let's forget that...

Anyway, let's go onto your questions.

"Does science rely on faith?"
Depends what you mean. If you mean faith as in "trust", then I guess so.
If you mean faith as in your previous definition, absolutely not.

"Where does authority come from without their being a supernatural authority?"
Superiority, whether in knowledge, power, honour etc.

"Has science disproved the existence of God?"
No, but there is no proof for his existence and no logical reason either.

"Does everyone have a personal bias regardless of where they get their information from?"
Sure, and if you didn't, you'd have no opinion about anything. But this doesn't necessarily affect scientists theories as I mentioned above.

"What is evil and suffering?"
I'll use google dictionary definitions for these:
Evil: "profoundly immoral and wicked."
Suffering: "the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship."

"What flaws exist in the universe?"
Several:
Sun's (nuclear) radiation
Asteroids
Rogue black holes
Rogue white dwarfs
Galaxy heading our way (not as much of an issue, but anyway)
etc etc etc
I'm assuming you mean space related things when you say "universe".

"Would you consider the unbelief in God a religion?"

Unbelief? Unbelief literally means "lack of religious belief; an absence of faith"

So saying "unbelief" in a God is a religion would be nonsensical.

Now onto your arguments:

THANK YOU FOR NOT USING COSMOLOGICAL (and such) ARGUMENTS!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR SENSE!

Anyway, you said that beautifully, and I completely agree with you...until the point you added God in.

You see, "I think therefore I am", which is also a philosophical quote by a French guy called Ren" Descartes.

What this means is that the only thing we are sure about is that WE exist. Anything beyond that is questionable.

I think I'm in my bedroom sitting on my chair debating someone across an internet connected PC, but there is a fair chance I'm in a mental hospital saying "I hate God, I hate God! Lalala la la! Huehuehue"

Again, simply because we don't know doesn't mean that God did it. Ancients people believed fire was by God, until we discovered that it was just a chemical reaction.

Or the moon or the sun.

Things unknown are often attributed to a God or gods, a and are later disproven.

Again, you may be right, humans may never know how the universe came to be, but for the time being, let us advance as a race and stop crediting a unproven invisible man in the sky.
J_Gasper

Pro

Again, sorry it took me so long,

On the point 1:
It appears that you misunderstood my first point about how science and God can go hand in hand. By saying it, I mean that God could have created science to help us discover the world around us and use our reasoning capabilities to develop successful societies, not to prove he exists, because as we can both tell, we haven't been able to yet. How can you use science to prove something that isn't natural that it exists? You can't, so that's why we have philosophy. As you said and I agree, Science tips the scale in favor of no God, but philosophy tips the scale in favor of a God. Putting the two together gives the best option.

point 2:
The reason you think this way is because due to your worldview, (only the natural world existing) you've already built a plausibility structure that rules out all forms of faith. you rely on Facts and hard evidence to trust something, rather than taking a leap of faith. That's why it may not make sense to you but it does to me, because faith is required for religion.
Also you hold the belief that science can account for everything, which is where I disagree as of 2015, (who knows where science will take us in the next 100 years though??) I still don't think we are capable of it.

point 4:
My previous point sort of deals with argument 4 because, you can only use science to describe how something works, simply saying God does it doesn't magically make you understand how something works. Physics is the only things that can explain how the universe works, and as I said before, the deeper and deeper we dive into these fields, the more complex things are becoming.

Quick example. My Grandma's brother was actually a nuclear physicist in the 80's and 90's, so he was an expert on this field, because he worked with these things every day. He also had numerous meetings with the soviets during this time so he couldn't tell us what he specifically worked on because it was top secret, If he did, he'd have to kill us....
but my point is that he saw the complexity and the accuracy with which the atomic particles behaved as well as how subatomic particles baffled scientists of his time, which is why he ultimately believed in a God who designed the universe structure rather than one of chance and probability.
He believed that science could be used to explain what we were able to at the moment, but at the same time, science simply had no end, and he pointed out how the subatomic particles operated outside of Newtonian physics.

You brought up that point earlier, and it is fascinating how some of those particles behave, but currently we have no clue why. Hopefully this makes sense.

Point 4.2. lol
Agree and disagree. I agree with your point about how it can be brainwashed into peoples minds, that can happen, you can't force someone to believe in a God, that's not belief, the person has to make that choice themselves, which is what most people do. Some of the most anti religious people are those who were raised religiously but became fed up with how people didn't hold true to their word and actions.

Also, civilizations were inspired and modeled after ethical systems that believed in a higher power, such as Christianity, that can't be said of the other two. Since you can't straight up prove how these are different on a "supernatural" level, you look at its effects on the material world around it and judge for yourself.

Point 5:
All religions as well as atheism have circular reasoning when it comes to where authority comes from. And authority has to be trusted. Christians rely on the word of God, Muslims the Koran, and as I said before Atheists, science and reasoning. But my point was, how can you be sure 100% that science is correct when you have no outside source telling you it is the correct way, All you can do is reason that reason is reasonable. badum tsss.

That is the "faith" atheists have, they trust it to be accurate, when they have no way of telling if there are better ways and what not, and whether or not their mind can be trusted. I assume you don't like it when people say "God says so", but in reality, that is the same thing as what scientists do with science, when they say they know something, its because of something that is based off of science. That's why it may be more logical putting faith in a God rather than science, because in the end they both rely on some form of circular reasoning, and so its the better option to put faith in a God.

Example. Christians get their authority from the word of God, which is the New testament when it involves law and order and ways to live your life as well as salvation, and christians also believe that God gave us our intellect and reasoning capabilities to understand the world around as well, which explains the discovery of science. Truth comes through special revelation and general revelation.

special is as they put it in the OT, God speaking in dreams and things like that, general is science and nature and the teachings of the Bible. If you haven't experienced special revelation, that does not mean it does not exist.

Argument 6 falls under what I described in argument 5.

Back to the so called "flaws" I'm not so sure if they can be given the term flaws, because they all still have their uses and don't straight up hinder humanities success. such as the appendix, it was at first thought to be useless, but scientists have now discovered uses for it, so it wasn't a flaw of human design. The only thing that doesn't make sense is the human pelvis. Why?

Genesis 3:16 "16 To the woman he said,

"I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

That could be one possibility

Now to the questions.

"Where does authority come from without their being a supernatural authority?"
authority comes from itself essentially, is what I would say, according to science, authority comes from God in a theistic world

"Has science disproved the existence of God?"
Hopefully what I said earlier makes logical sense, because it does to me and to those I've talked to, but then again most held similar mindsets as me, because you can't and to me, the more people try, the more it seems that there the possibility of a God

"Does everyone have a personal bias regardless of where they get their information from?"
Agreed, its impossible not to have one, all you can do is try to be as unbiased as you can in your conclusions

"What is evil and suffering?"
just like the suffering argument, because if anything it lays an argument for the existence of God.

"What flaws exist in the universe?"
The "flaws" could simply be not fully understood, which I bet most are yet, but then again we may never fully know.
But it comes back to the trust we have in science in that it gives us accurate measurements and recordings, simply because we think that way. We simply take blue paint out of the can to make sure that the paint in the can is blue paint.

Hopefully this makes sense, because it does to me, yet a lot of times my friends just sit there and say, "Bruh what are you even talking about....."
Debate Round No. 3
AWSM0055

Con

For point 1, I agree, I think I did miss the point a bit.

Nevertheless, my point is that we don't necessarily need God for life's big questions.

I.e. "How did we get here?" Big Bang
"How did life originate?" Evolution and probably abiogenesis.
"How did the Big Bang happen?" Probably quantum fluctuations and absence of chance or observers.

Do you understand what I'm getting at? We don't need the "God did it" explanation for life's bigger questions because they're slowly being answered by supported non-supernatural occurrences.

Nearly Everything that isn't understood is "God" or "God did it", rather than based upon evidence or reasonable logic.

Now philosophy is the thought and study of our existence, but still doesn't rely on wishful thinking or faith to believe in God. Philosophy is not blind, but rather depends on thought and logic, but doesn't rely on experiments as much as science.

Philosophically, it's definitely logical to think that "God" exists, but since it's based upon little evidence, where else can you go with that thought?

Now for point 2: But Pro, faith is not reliable. You can have giant leaps of faith about anything and everything. The reason I rely on hard facts is because the "God" theory is hard to accept. Relying on faith just ain't right.

If you have faith that jumping from a 30 story building will make you fly, does that mean your going to fly? No, and your flat face will remind you of that.

Faith is based upon utterly nothing except vague impressions and floppy logic.

Now for point 4: You grandma's brother was a soviet nuclear physicist? Wow, I believe you! pretty cool heh?

Anyway, again, simply because we don't know something, doesn't mean "God did it". Maybe our own biology fails humankind because we simply cannot understand the strangeness of the universe. You are right, quantum physics is very strange.

But Pro, ancient people blamed God for everything. Really. Whether it was:

Fire, weather, agriculture, sun, moon, stars, natural disasters, etc etc etc

Everything that is not understood is blamed on God. Why humans do this is baffling, but we do. We did this until science stepped up and said "No, let's base our beliefs on evidence and proof". Guess what? We are now advancing in society and taking advantage with of knowledge more and more.

We don't understand fully the universe, but let us base our beliefs on rational, sensible and reliable evidence and logic. Not God.

Anyway, enough of at spiel, onto the next argument...

Point 4.2. Beta: Fair enough, but again, brainwashing does cause people to believe something. Even the poor kids born into religions such as the Westboro Baptist church are brainwashed into believing their hideous ideologies, and will probably stick to such ideologies even to death. That is not forced, that is brainwashing and grooming.

Go to this video by Spirit 'Science', a YouTube channel of weird beliefs and new age stuff, and you'll see how much ridiculous crap people will buy if you say it with enough confidence and authority. It's an hour long, so I don't expect you to watch ALL of it, but just watch the first 15 minutes and tell me what you think:

https://m.youtube.com...

Your back? Did you see the amount of stupid things that people believe! That channel has nearly 500,000 subscribers...that depressing.

I'm also surprised and slightly amused at the fact that you missed the fake Albeit Einstein quote, which kinda proves my point that anyone will believe you if you say something with enough authority. Anyway, onto the next point:

Point 5: My head is spinning...

No but seriously, it is a good point that we don't know if reason is truly reasonable. "I think therefore I am". All we know is that we exist.

But it is truly sad that you have to question the legitimacy of EVERYTHING, including reason, to then reason that God exists.

I could turn your same argument back at you. At least scientists base their beliefs on assumed reason then just some vague, unproven and invisible deity in the sky. And even if both scientists and theists have circular reasoning, how does that make believing in God more reasonable? I don't understand you logic here.

And special revelation? You mean supernatural messages directly through God (I.e. Dreams etc)? The reason scientists and atheists and any critic thinks they don't exist is because there is no evidence for such claims besides flimsy testimony and books.
If I claim these "special revelations" don't exist, how do you counter my claim? Maybe with a controlled and replicable experiment Perhaps?

Now for your refutation of designed flaw argument:

So you deny that overcrowded jaws, exposed genitalia and inefficient back bones are a problem and don't hinder our species? Ok, well how about:

Dual function of Pharynx, causing us to choke

Can't biosynthesise Vitamin C, which causes scurvy

Multi function genitals (yes, them again) that cause some UTIs

Human foot is overly complicated and bound to break

Etc

http://io9.com...

The body has tons of flaws, some of which seriously hinder the body itself.

Premise one of my argument is therefore, true.
Premise two, I admit, is debatable upon what you believe. If you believe God created humans directly, then it would definitely be true. On the other hand, you believe God made man through evolution, then premise two may not be entirely true.

Anyhow. I assume you answered those question for your own benefit, so I won't try to disprove what you think.

Anyhow, for the last round, do a conclusion and summery, along with your strongest arguments and I'll do likewise for the voters to decide.

You may do some refutation of this argument along with your conclusion next round, but I won't refute your conclusion or strong arguments. We wrap it up in round 4.
J_Gasper

Pro

Quick wrap up and my points on the remaining arguments.

Argument 1

My main point has to do with how science may not have a limit, in context of how much we can understand it. Science may be "infinite" in its complexity, because each time we think we've discovered the answer, it breaks down even further. Science could simply be a path into the horizon in which it has no end.

The reason for this is because it could be that a God created science for the main reason of sustaining life, and also as means for humans, when they see the complexity of its design, to look at it and see something that represents the omnipotence of and all powerful creator. (while we may not understand how all of it works, we do know that the universe is finely tuned to sustain human life, all the dials are at their correct setting.) There is no doubting that, but that does not necessarily mean it was designed...but it is very reasonable and is a very good option.

We are given consciousness and reasoning which enables us to understand science and make decisions on our own, which could be considered free will, but we may never be able to fully understand the universe due to the limitations of our mind.

Argument 2

By faith I mean trust. Just as you have trust in reason and science, I have trust that instead, a God created science and gave us reason to understand science. I have faith "trust" that God is a good God who gave us sound reasoning capabilities to understand the world around us. While faith in something that isn't physical cant be considered hard facts, it does not mean it is the result of some floppy logic or vague impressions. We don't know how quantum physics works, but scientists have faith that it operates by purely natural means. But then how did those means come into existence?

My point earlier is that those who rely on science also have faith "trust" in science, because their is no source of authority confirming that logical reasoning is sound, instead the by product of science confirms that it is sound. You trust that science is sound because it can be observed and recorded accurately, but due to its circular reasoning, that is all you can do.

Argument 4

My main point is that could be that there is no end to the discoveries we make in science, and it could be because it was made that way. It was designed that way to show that humans do not possess an omniscient mind that an all powerful God would have. We are only capable of so much, due to the limitations of our minds, or so we think...

But if humans end up discovering everything there is to science, than technically that would make us "gods". The reason that we believe in a God is because he gives us answers to the unexplainable, but if humanity discovers everything there is to explain, wouldn't we simply take the place of God?

So theoretically speaking, the only true way to rule out the belief in God is to have an explanation to everything, but than again are we capable of understanding everything? Atheists believe that science is the explanation for everything, yet many things have yet to be fully understood. That may only be part of the puzzle.

We were given science to understand the world around us as best we could and increase our knowledge through rational, sensible and reliable evidence and logic.......which comes from God. We are not supposed to disprove his existence because we can't.

Argument 4.2

That was a funny video, and yes, it is sad that over half a million people subscribe to that channel, but looking at the comments, most were poking fun at it, so......maybe they're not as irrational as we thought.

And I see your point about the Albert Einstein quote. I should've fact checked it because as Abraham Lincoln says, "Not everything you read on the internet is true."

And yes, brainwashing can deeply effect someone till they believe in it, which can be said a lot about the belief in God, but......you can logically conclude that there could be an all powerful God that exists without having to be brain washed. Me, for example.......or so I think???

Argument 5

My main point is not to question everything, but rather to show as in my earlier arguments, that the reliance scientists have on reason really has no basis other than using itself. You can use philosophy to questions everything, it is the infinite regression of philosophy. Philosophy is our finite attempt to understand the infinite.

My point about how it may be more reasonable to believe in God is because, the circular reasoning theists use is the result of our finite minds. We aren't capable of knowing everything, and therefore have to rely on a God, who we trust made science understandable to then, in turn, help us discover as much as we can and understand reality around us. Atheists have nothing but the realization that our minds our finite and they can only trust what is a creation of their "finite" minds. Theists trust what is the creation of an infinite mind, which essentially means that it must be correct or knowable if it is in fact infinite, and that's where we differ. We have trust in its authority. How do we know its infinite? because it says it is, which is just like the circular reasoning materialists have on reason.

Design Flaw

I realized I forgot a major point I was going to bring up in the last round.

As you say, there are a lot of design flaws in the human, and your examples could show that they are in fact design flaws. But say that there is no God, and humans are just the byproduct of evolution, than what are those flaws? They are simply byproducts of evolution as well.

All these examples had to have evolved in the past, but why would they evolve into something less efficient when it could've evolved into something else?

Why would the Pharynx have developed into two separate entities rather than fuse with one? According to natural selection and survival of the fittest, those less developed and adapted to the surroundings would die out, yet these are still evident.

If we've had millions of years to evolve, then these should no longer be problems, natural selection would have weeded out all the mutants and organisms with flaws by now, yet as you say, humans are still filled with flaws, and I'm assuming mammals have similar flaws as well due to the similar body structure. Those that evolve into something that makes it more difficult for survival don't survive, or live long enough to produce a successful generation. Instead, all these serve a specific purpose that help with the survival of the species.

Yes, we cant synthesize Vitamin C, but we can eat fruit. The Pharynx has a built in mechanism to prevent choking, with the epiglottis. The foot, and wrist and hand, all need the number of bones to function properly, otherwise the tendons and muscles would not be able to operate to their full potential. Again, sperm is produced in a temperature slightly less than body temperature, which is why it is outside the body. Everything has a purpose, even the most pointless things it would seem, but scientists have found out that they solve purposes.

the appendix- common thought was that it was pointless until doctors discovered it helps with immunity as a child
gall bladder- gets infected easily, yet helps with digestion
Adenoids- as an adult they trap bacteria and cause infections as an adult, but they help with immunity as a child
tonsils- they help fight infections

Search any of these up and they will give reasons. and the list goes on and on

My point is that its hard to consider something a flaw, when in reality it functions properly it does not hinder the health of the organism, only when these things become corrupted do they become a problem, but thanks to modern medicine, they no longer pose a threat as they once did. Designs can become corrupted, your assumption is that designs should always function 100%, that does not mean its a crappy design, humans are more successful now than they ever had.

Your argument for design flaw is poor, because all of these serve some sort of purpose, and that's why they are designed the way they are. The human is not a poorly designed organism, rather it is a complex organism that epitomizes a successful design. It is incredible how the body functions.

Conclusion.

My previous points wrap up much of what I'm concluding for these arguments, so I tried my best to wrap them up in their paragraphs.

But in the end.........

Belief in an all powerful God who created the universe and its law and order, and gave us our reasoning capabilities to understand the world around us is the best option, because when compared to every other religion (including atheism), nothing paints a better picture of reality. When breaking down every worldview and religion to its very core, inconsistencies and contradictions become common. The only solution to these inconsistencies is an all powerful source that supersedes everything imaginable and even reality itself to give answers to the problems. We can only do so much due to the limitations of our minds, and we have to rely on an infinite source for true knowledge. This infinite source dictates what we can and cannot know, and gives us the capabilities to understand what we can know (science and the universe and the mind). But at the same time, simply saying God did it may not be the right answer, because we can see through science and quantum physics, how it came to be. But at the same time it can be considered "God did it" because he created science in order to sustain a successful universe.

In the end, faith "trust" in an all powerful God is the most reasonable because it provides the most answers to the deeper questions in life where science fails.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by J_Gasper 1 year ago
J_Gasper
I should be able to get the last part done tomorrow
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
Firstly, when I use the word "faith", I'm using it in a religious sense, and not synonymous with "trust". Look it up on google: "What does faith mean" and look at the second definition. That's what I'm getting at.

Secondly, the cosmological argument doesn't prove God existed. All it says is that the universe had a cause. That is why I say it's nonsensical in proving God's existence, which is its usual aim.
How the cosmological argument points to "God" is beyond me. It's just an assumption from beliefs.

Besides, premise 2 isn't exactly right anyway, as quantum fluctuations and the double slit experiment will show you that particles can sometimes come into existence from nothing periodically and than disappear again without cause. If your not already familiar with it, google it, it's actually quite fascinating!
Posted by rnd 1 year ago
rnd
Con, you had thanked your opponent for not using arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, implying that using them would be nonsensical. However, I would very much appreciate knowing why you feel this way about that argument.

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: Therefore the universe has a cause.

Is this is a valid argument? Validity simply means if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows logically. It does not address the truthfulness of the premises, only that the argument is logically structured in such a way that if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows logically. We can see that this argument is valid.

Is this a sound argument? Soundness means that in addition to being valid, both premises need to be more likely true than false so that the conclusion does in fact follow. In order to disprove soundness, it must be shown that either premise is more likely false than true.

Premise 1 seems to be more likely true than false based on the overwhelming positive evidence demonstrating this as well as lack of any positive evidence demonstrating its negation. Things do not simply pop into existence uncaused. Premise 2 has been shown to be more likely true than false both scientifically as well as logically. Therefore, it would seem that this is a sound argument as well, making this quite a sensical argument.

Which of these premises do you believe to be more likely false than true and why?
Posted by rnd 1 year ago
rnd
A true faith is not believing in something without any good reason, it is believing in something because of good reasons. If I jump out of a plane, I have faith that my parachute will operate as expected -- perhaps because I have seen the parachute operate properly before, or perhaps because the company providing it has never had any defects, ... Whatever the reason, the point is there is a reason. Likewise, when you sit on a chair you have faith that it will support you and this faith is based on the fact it has supported you before.
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
It's cool bro!

As for correcting the premises you listed, like I said, none of my questions were really premises, just questions regarding observations that seemed to give doubt to gods existence. However, they were kinda sloppy any ways so I don't entirely blame you for your misunderstanding.

Cheers :)
Posted by rnd 1 year ago
rnd
Con:
My apologies if you felt your words were twisted, I was simply trying to understand the premises to your arguments. I added "fictional" as I thought it captured what you were saying, but that was my misunderstanding then. Perhaps if you have time you could correct the premises I listed. I would very much like to see the premises you are using. I appreciated your final argument about mistakes as that was an easy to follow valid deductive argument.
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
@rnd I never made any of those premises, I simply made questions regarding God existence. I also never said ALL man made creations are fictional, or that God doesn't exist if he doesn't show himself. Again, I am making questions about illogical occurrences that don't seem to point to a intelligent deity. If "God" was man made rather than based on evidence, then that discredits his existence. Though, I probably should have defined "Man made" anyway.

Nonetheless, please don't twist my words and then attack premises I never made. That's a straw man fallacy.

But I do admit that many of my questions relied on assumptions without evidence. Not that I'm making excuses, but I rushed my arguments because I was a bit busy, so I apologise. I *might* recreate another debate with more rounds later but anyway.

I will take the remainder of your advice next time.
Posted by rnd 1 year ago
rnd
ARGUMENT 6:
P1: God is all powerful and intelligent, and therefore would not make mistakes
P2: There are certain mistakes, errors or downright flaws in some organisms structure and the universe
C: therefore, God did not make the universe or living things.

Please define "mistakes" in P2. I would understand a mistake as something occurring that does not align with the intended purpose, but in order for you to know a mistake, you need to know the intended purpose. In a universe with obvious space-time constraints, there are trade-offs that are necessary. For example, a laptop might be a great computer for portability needs but awful when computational power is a higher priority. Conversely, a larger server might be great for expand-ability and storage needs, but awful when traveling presentations are required. Therefore you cannot call the limitations of a laptop or the server a mistake unless you know the intended purpose. Is it possible that our limited knowledge does not take into account all factors that might result of various changes or that we don't know the full intended purpose? If this is at least possible, then the premise is thrown into question and the conclusion does not follow.
Posted by rnd 1 year ago
rnd
ARGUMENT 4:
Your argument appears to be as follows:
P1: All man-made creations are fictional and do not exist.
P2: God is a man-made creation.
C1: Therefore, God is does not exist.

In this argument, you are assuming that God is a fictional man-made creation in premise 2 in order to conclude that He does not exist. Since God's existence is what you are attempting to prove, you cannot simply assert as a premise that He is a fictional creation. Please provide an argument explaining your claim that God is a fictional man-made creation.
------------------
ARGUMENT 5:
This seems to repeat the errors in argument 4. Additionally, the assertion within this argument is quite false since there are many logical and scientific reasons why we have the definition and characteristics of God that we have. For example, if God is the creator of nature (all space, matter, and time), then it is a logical deduction to conclude He must not be bound by any of that which He created -- Therefore, He must be "supernatural" (lit. beyond nature) and is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, incredibly powerful.
------------------
ARGUMENT 6:
Your argument here appears to follow this logical argument:
P1: If God exists, then evil and suffering would not exist.
P2: Evil and suffering exists.
C1: Therefore God does not exist.

Your first premise is making an assumption. Please provide reasons why this premise is true. Is it possible that there are morally sufficient reasons that God would permit evil and suffering. Is it possible that a greater good might result from immediate evil? For example, a child might cry at the pain of a needle, not understanding the greater good that comes with that immunization shot.
Posted by rnd 1 year ago
rnd
Con,

When you formulate your arguments, keep in mind that you need to explain your premises. You cannot simply assert a premise without giving a reason explaining why it is true. Also, your premises may not in any way assert that God does not exist because this is what you are trying to prove. Keep this in mind.
------------------
ARGUMENT 1: "Even the times scientists haven't understood something, "God" has never been a sufficient answer."
Why has "God" never been a sufficient answer? Without logical reasoning, this is just an opinion and cannot be used to provide an objective conclusion.
------------------
ARGUMENT 2: Although not formally presented, your argument here appears to be as follows:
P1: If God exists, then He would physically show Himself to humanity.
P2: God has not physically shown Himself to humanity.
C1: Therefore, God does not exist.

Your premises here are questionable. You assume a lot upon a being that has knowledge and purposes beyond our simple understanding. Is it at least possible that He has reasons for how He chooses to operate that differ from yours? Is it possible that He does reveal Himself in ways that are more universal to mankind and therefore more meaningful and personal than merely visual (ex. visual evidence means nothing to a blind person)? And if the events written of 2,000 years ago are true, then that means He actually has revealed Himself to mankind.
------------------
ARGUMENT 3:
Please give evidence that supports your claim that explanations involving an intelligent creator of the universe are dying out. I do not observe this at all, in fact, recent scientific discoveries continue to give credence to the intelligent design explanation.
No votes have been placed for this debate.