Does the bible contain anything that is truthful when referring to miracles and God?
Debate Rounds (5)
The matter of fact is that Christianity was a primitive form of science and the only way people could explain these amazing things that happen naturally is through their creative minds as science could not be there to correct it.
to be clear, i am not religious but i don't think con's argument is sufficient. all he's saying is that god cannot be the cause of things because science is.. as in, there's a scientific reason for things.. but just because there's a scientific reason for things doesn't prove that god isn't behind it. con has this burden of proof.
further, while the bible certainly is not inerrant, life and existence itself is considered a miracle in the bible which i agree with. all the science in the world describing the universe cannot explain a reason or cause. believing in a deity at least explains why some things occur, as opposed to the atheistic alternative which just cites "there is no reason" though i find this to be a cop out answer. just because you don't know the reason doesn't mean there isn't one. anyway i can write more but i'll wait to see what con has to say about this so good luck!
Firstly, it has been proved how certain processes work and how these link together to make each one happen. For example, a chemical reaction happens because each stage in said reaction leads to the next cause and the next cause and so on. You can think of this as a long chain of events with a 'dead - end' outcome. Now, if this is happening in many much more complicated forms ( lightening storms, disease etc) and it is doing it itself, there is no need for an 'overseer' to control these things because it is simply not needed.
Secondly, as for life and existence considered being a miracle this can be misinterpreted. Firstly life itself is just an accident. Everything was just rightly placed in our solar system, in our galaxy and our moon etc. This was pure accident. But to say that it was too perfect to be an accident is inaccurate when considered more deeply. When you think about it, there are estimated 10^24 - 10^30 number of stars in the universe. There are 200-400 billion stars in our galaxy. any number of these stars could have a solar system just like ours. We were not a miracle in us existing but rather just another good solar system to house intelligent life ( which I'm sure there a millions of other galaxies out there that house the same conditions).
Lastly, probably the most interesting point is the 'first cause' and what happened to make literally everything.
Well we should start with the famous 'big bang theory'. As I said before, everything has a natural cycle and when looking at other theories similar to the big bang theory ( I assume you know the general idea of the theory) that causes there to be multi-dimensional universes. This explains how a universe can come out of nothing. Because it is not the only universe, it is due to multi - dimensional universes which there are an infinite number where they are being born and dying systematically. Now when you think about it that way, in the bigger scheme of things, it makes sense that our universe may have died and was 'reborn' in a sense again. With this infinite amount of universes with infinite amounts of stars in them with even more infinite amounts of planets. We are very small and not special at all.
I would like to know your opinions on this and what evidence does religion put forward ( any religion, it does not matter) that the first cause of our particular universe was God?
(ps thankyou for the exhilarating debate)
con's first point proves that chemical reactions are the result of a previous actions. however that argument is precisely what's used to prove god in the first place. for instance, the cosmological argument illustrates the need for a "first cause." the universe is basically a series of events which can be traced back in time. if we do this, either we eventually reach a point that the universe had a beginning (which is attributed to god), or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity. however first cause argument tells us that the second of these is not possible, and that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. the argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. this being outside the universe, the creator, the first cause argument tells us is God.
now while con mentions the big bang and says that multi-dimensional universes can come out of "nothing," again this still doesn't prove that god is not the creator of these multi-dimensional universes or the "space" in which these universes occur. while con asks my opinion on why think the "first cause" of our universe is god, i should first point out that i'm agnostic (not necessarily a theist), but i believe that some kind of creator has to always be the first cause. if you consider everything that exists, you acknowledge that it must exist for a reason. even con accepts this. but when comes to the universe or multiuniverses or the space between, atheists expect you to accept that there is simply no reason for it and that it just "is." i especially detest the argument "it just has to be, because there could be no other way" which really isn't an argument at all except to avoid the question.
if you consider how some philosophers have defined god, such as the epitome of all things, then accepting god under those parameters does indeed give a viable explanation for life, the existence of the universe, etc. even if you do not believe in the rules established by christianity, islam, etc. does not mean that you do not believe in a deity of some kind who is responsible for life and all things. some have even defined god as the universe itself. if you believe that god=the universe which i sort of do, then saying the universe's existence is responsible for itself and creates itself even fits within con's own parameters. still, "god" is the cause for such scientific miracles.
next con says that life itself is just an accident, but offers no proof for this contention. he says that life in our solar system is just a happy accident. however, the chances of intelligent life emerging on other planets is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years. also, even if there were life on other planets, that still does not prove that god is not responsible. all con has done is explain that other planets are likely to have life (in his view) but has not even begun to prove that god is not the cause.
Secondly, normal physical laws are broken under extreme circumstances. Take black holes for instance. The temperature and gravitational forces are so extreme that it bends the very space fabric. normal laws arent abided by and this is reflected in black holes. The 'big bang' was basically the reverse, but on a much bigger scale. Firstly, 'white holes' are naturally the reverse of black holes. When thinking of this it is understandable how the unvierse could of started, because it was such extreme temperatures it did not follow natural law. this is why the universe without a first cause is possible.
Thirdly, there could be a estimated 1000+ planets which house intelligent life compared on your statistics so thats that.
Fourthly, you have not given me any evidence about how God made this universe, except the bible says it was made in 6 days and he rested the last which is physically impossible and does not explain how it was truly made if 'God' did create it. Just to add a note, if God is omnipotent... why did he have to rest? and it is contradictory how he made light and dark and then later on made the suns and stars at which all light comes from. The only evidence you have is contradicting yourself. you call that evidence?
numa forfeited this round.
bennourse forfeited this round.
numa forfeited this round.
bennourse forfeited this round.
numa forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by numa 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||5|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.