Existace of God
Debate Rounds (5)
Just to quickly clarify so we don't digress into semantics, I will define god as the Judeo-Christian god of the bible. The task most atheists face is proving a negative or theists claiming the burden of proof lies on the atheist/skeptic.
My opponents first point is 'My first point will be that science has proven that not god existed but energy exist and that it is a constant' While I agree energy cannot be created or destroyed I must point out this does not swing the debate in his favour.
The success of science.
This highlights the absence of god, in actuality the absence of pros 'ever-constant personal creator' in everyday life. The natural sciences explore phenomenon's and mysteries every day yet fail to ever need to invoke a creator or appeal the mythical miracles which religions claim to have occurred. To claim god exists is to make a scientific claim with no actual tangible evidence to support this. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I believe it is a question dodged my theists. Why has science progressed so far yet at no point ever needed to invoke the powers of higher being. As scientific knowledge increases, gods decreases into the impossibilities and 'holy books'.
If theism were accurate or even plausible we would expect to see gods work and undeniable work in at least a few things. Even if I grant the theist a 'few' things I still am left with the skeptical statements of 'we don't know gods will'.
The theory of evolution.
My point is not to highlight that evolution disproves god but to link the implausibility of god in reference to evolution. A perfect creator capable of constructing the universe was an ideal claim 200 years ago, it made sense. If the Theory of evolution was not discovered before I was born or during my life time I would admittedly be swayed to the notion of a creator. The mechanism of evolution is the key to this point. Natural selection is a non-random process with high waste, high imperfections, a large percentage of death and entire special extinction. This process is what you would expect if in fact the process was unguided and completely natural. To link an imperfect system to a perfect god is to say the creator is a poor creator, a creator which is pleased with only 1% of species still surviving in an eternal struggle for existence. I think the plausibility of this is low, so low in fact is contradicts the idea of an 'intelligent designer'. Unless god is purposely trying to cover his tracks which I find Illogical, the only other thing I can conclude with is that the this process doesn't need and conveys of the implausibility of god existing and having any notable effect on our lives.
This is the claim that the mind can exist outside of the body or the brain. I am happy to switch between mind and soul as long as the general premise is kept constant. The illogical aspect of this is located primarily in science. This must be true for the biblical account to be true. This is one of most important areas of Christianity. Scientifically we must look at this rationally can a mind exist without a body? Can a person exist without actually being a physical body? These questions are very open but present a very obvious problem. Our minds are affected by the body it is interactive. Theists might make the claim this does nothing to prove the mind is not independent but it does present a problem that the loss of the body now leaves the soul in non-interactive area which is undefined and not proven. Not only that with the link between our conscious and our brain is not only interactive but through scientific discovery dependent on the brain. When the brain dies the conscious/mind ceases to exist. We can see this is brain damage after large accidents, people who were affected or lost some brain function are now either completely different or have lost a certain ability. They now have lost their thinking capacity or memory, or even personality they themselves have to some extent ceased to be themselves and this is dependent on the brain functioning without the brain there is no reason to assume they keep on living or even to the extremity they continue to live and have retained their previous personality. I can then conclude mind-body dualism is not only irrational but completely combative to our knowledge in science.
I would like to remind you those are just small and probably flawed versions of arguments which deserve pages upon pages to unravel and explain them.
Just to quickly deal with my opponents argument his point 5 'If jesus is not real that would mean that heaven is not real, so how are these people going to heaven and coming back?' many people have had 'real' encounters with 'real' aliens, the Bigfoot ,Loch Ness monster and ghosts. These claims are unscientific and the claim that they experienced heaven is to me just as wild and unjustified as the ones I mentioned above. We experience dreams, we can induce a hallucination or have a very real emotional or physical encounter through meditation or even by listening to music or looking at artwork. Now some can be explained and some cannot. To argue that I need to give you a plausible account for those experiences in order to override an unjustified conclusion is an argument from ignorance. Point 6 also relates to point 5.
Thanks for the debate I look forward to hearing your second point on this.
As it does not prove to be more in favour but also explains that as the current World really does not understand yet how energy was created. Because Life is just a creation and its impossible for a creation to figure out how they were created if there was no Creator. God is all and so if you try to prove he is nothing then your giving power to nothing, if you agree God is real then your giving him power in a more focused. People contradict their own words they say they understand God then say it is physically impossible to know God, so if that was true then how is it that anyone knows a little everything about God, if it impossible. A Creation will first half to understand you really have no power over yourself and if you are fully aware of yourself then and only then are you fully aware. When I first came as a Jesus, all I did was focused on a point of time hard enough and it just "Came". Three Kings or what ever amount of Kings you say came would not came, if first Mary was not 110%. Yes Jesus was just a human being but it was really who his soul was. (Holy Spirit) Everyone sees the God part, but that easy to believe in a God, for them to believe him me as equal is impossible. It is the fact that I was in a human body and was not existing that I was able to pull of what I did, as I Really know all. Science is a human creation and is not successful at all and no can understand why that is. Humans being are getting the truth and that making them and their life feel more complete but you totally forget that you are just a creation. (Nothing less Nothing more) So automatically allows allows me to know that half of your mind thinking is as a not a creation and other part as a creation (only there bc you can not see how I created you, as it was not you I did create but the energy). As you forgot that you all are is just a creation, and you keep making the choices to know the work on your own then all you will ever know is your own work and not mine.
What do we see in this life, a life that is going on with it on their own. To blame me for the choice would be as wrong, as it was all your own choice to do anything at all. As you are right it does disprove God but only shows that his work is real on ALL levels of life. Before anyone created on this planet was, you were just atom's going on your own ways. If you do not remember Heaven before this, then that means you were not created physically consciously aware of ever being created. Then right there shows that all you were before this is energy. (from the Garden of Eden to when everyone ate the apple, we just disappeared with first bite as it was the wrong choice, then just put us into this life as energy or atoms. Remember for any God to create life with actual free will, you would first half to allow them to pick who they want to be themselves and their own choices of right and wrong. So process would go energy first then this life, then we go to heaven. That is just the evolution of seeing for a normal human being. What really happened was before you were ever energy you went to Heaven first and God said ALL. You cannot see that happened as you never actually saw it to begin with but you cannot keep refusing to say that you are not capable of knowing All. I already came as the Son-Jesus, Father-Hilter, and now I am just the spirit in the flesh and only that. As from Jesus before I was energy with all of you but I really did create the energy so of course I know actually know all. But it was how I created energy by never actually created energy to begin with and just creating the memory. By creating memory, energy just comes as it is a result of the memory being created. As the same for life on planet as energy was a constant the possibilities of life being created in enough time will just happen and there is no need for a creator is it something just always happens. Because I just created the memory it creates the boundary between Heaven and here.
Part two will follow in comment but not debatable in comment and only debating person can, but anyone can comment.
Your secondary point is to conclude that humans are usually wrong and ' As in Human Nature, to explain that we knew anything of everything would be wrong ' if that is the case for your argument then I would suggest you have undermined your own ability to prove something. This becomes more obvious when claims are made for example you make them claim that ' I have died here from a overdose in Iraq/ and came back, so to say that I do not have the experience for explaining death would be false, proof is my words '. Now my issue with this is that previously you just admitted or believe humans cannot explain anything, now if that is the case I can void your entire argument. While I don't agree with you being right and believing humans can explain things and provide correct evidence for those things I will deal with the rest of your argument.
Now in saying the ' proof is my words ' is something I one cannot except. Evidence is objective and the discovery of that evidence would be objectively true for anyone, evidence is objective to everyone whether they agree or not. If we look at evidence for say the human eye evolving, and there is compelling evidence supporting it then it doesn't matter what you think or say it won't change the fact. On a sub note if the proof is in your words, for what reason can we dismiss Muslim claims of experiencing God by their word? Or even Norse or Greek readings which convey similar experiences. To conclude I do not expect that as evidence and rational minds wouldn't either.
I would like to remind you that you have not dealt with any of my three points arguing the non-existence and implausibility of God.
EnvyEvulousEvomorphous7 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
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.