The Instigator
hayhen13
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kinryu
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

God Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/15/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 881 times Debate No: 68423
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

hayhen13

Con


This debate will be on the existence of God, of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing against the notion that a God exists. My opponent, as Pro will be arguing in favor of a God. I intend to hold a respectful and serious debate on this subject.



Rules:


Forfeiting is an automatic loss.


First round is acceptance only.



Definitions:


God: (In Christianity) the Supreme being that created life, the universe, and moral authority. A supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient being.


Faith: Strong belief in something in which there is no evidence or proof.


Theist: Someone who has belief in god(s).


Atheist: Someone who lacks belief in god(s).



Conclusion:


I would like to debate someone who would like to defend their position as a Theist. I look forward to this debate and welcome my opponent.



Kinryu

Pro

I'll take the debate even though I'm bombarded with midterms. Good luck and look forward to a serious debate.
Debate Round No. 1
hayhen13

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate Pro, and I look forward to its outcome.

Arguments:

“As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him.”

Psalm 18:30

“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Matthew 5:48

“The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; “

Psalm 19:7

From this evidence from the Bible we can conclude without a doubt that God is perfect. Something is deemed ‘perfect’ when it conforms completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better. Thus a perfect thing will have no flaws, defects, lacks, weaknesses, disadvantages; it will not possess any negative feature or lack of positive feature that pushes it away from the ideal. Since this being is perfect, it cannot create imperfect things thus it would losing its perfection.

But this God makes many mistakes, many imperfections. Such as leaving Adam and Eve alone with the Tree of Good and Evil, making humans evil so that he would have to later murder them all in a flood, letting his son be murdered, creating Satan, creating cancer, creating earthquakes, etc.

A perfect being cannot perform imperfect acts, yet God does. Therefore God does not exist.

Now to my second point.

The bible does not literally say, “The Earth is 6,000 years old.” But upon examination it does. By following the genealogy from Adam all the way to present day, it rounds out to be around 6,000 years old. But there are fossils that date from around 3.5 billion years ago. This obviously contradicts itself. If the universe is 6,000 years old, then how can any type of matter exist before that? That is literally impossible. Therefore God cannot exist.

To my final point.

“God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

John 4:24

Since God is a spirit, then this God can not possess within himself any physical form. Without possessing physical form this being does not consist of matter. If a being does not contend with physical matter then this being cannot occupy space, thus not existing.

Conclusion:

From my three main arguments I conclude that God does not exist. Pro in their next argument will be arguing their point that God exists. I ask my opponent to prove to me that God exists through evidence. Thank you and I wish Pro the best of luck.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

http://www.independent.co.uk...

The Holy Bible

Kinryu

Pro

Since you did not specify I debate format, I will start with rebuttals before setting up my arguments.

"But this God makes many mistakes, many imperfections. Such as leaving Adam and Eve alone with the Tree of Good and Evil, making humans evil so that he would have to later murder them all in a flood, letting his son be murdered, creating Satan, creating cancer, creating earthquakes, etc."

Christians believe that God gave us free will (this is key). We can choose good, or evil. God does not make us do evil acts. Adam and Eve choose to turn away from God, as did the humans who were killed in the flood (it's also worth noting that the Adam and Eve story is not taken literally by all Christian denominations).

Those who believe Jesus is the Son of God believe he needed to die for our sins. It's true God created Lucifer, but Lucifer chose to turn away. Some Christians believe that it is sin that created cancer, disease, death, etc. (The Fall). Others believe that disease, earthquakes, etc. are part of nature.

"Basically, Polkinghorne points out that the biological process that allows life to happen (the rapid dividing of cells) is the same process that allows cancer to happen. The process for cooling the earth also creates hurricanes. - See more at: http://www.elca.org...;

http://www.elca.org...

"The bible does not literally say, "The Earth is 6,000 years old.-" But upon examination it does. By following the genealogy from Adam all the way to present day, it rounds out to be around 6,000 years old. But there are fossils that date from around 3.5 billion years ago. This obviously contradicts itself. If the universe is 6,000 years old, then how can any type of matter exist before that? That is literally impossible. Therefore God cannot exist."

Not all Christians actually take the genealogy of Adam literally. And just because the Bible starts with Adam, it does not mean Adam was the first human. He may have simply been the first recorded human in the Bible.

"Since God is a spirit, then this God can not possess within himself any physical form. Without possessing physical form this being does not consist of matter. If a being does not contend with physical matter then this being cannot occupy space, thus not existing."

Christians believe that God is a being that lives outside the laws of our world. Also, those who believe in the Trinity believe that God did 'exist as matter' at a certain point (Jesus).

1
a : to have real being whether material or spiritual
b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Not everything exists as matter. I'm imagining things, but they are not real.

1. PRIMARY MOVER
I know a lot of Christians use this argument, but I'm going to use it anyway. The universe had to start somewhere. Think of a train and its cars. You see all the cars moving by, but you know something has to be pulling them; the train. The train, in this instance, is the primary mover.
Some may equate the Big Bang as the start. But where did the Big Bang come from? One answer is God. But where did God come from?

"If the answer is "he always existed" then we have a situation, from a causality standpoint, that is no more satisfying than a universe that springs forth from nothing. A creator that has always existed is an entity that somehow exists without a cause.
So this answer doesn't solve the causality issue whatsoever."
http://www.deepastronomy.com...

However, if God stands outside the laws of our world and is 'perfect', then it makes sense he could be the primary mover that caused the Big Bang. It is also worth noting the Big Bang is still only a theory.

2. Complexity of the Planet
Why is that Earth is the only planet that sustains life?

"The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day."
http://www.everystudent.com...

Also:
"Oxygen is the third most abundant element in our universe. Earth's atmosphere is 21 percent oxygen. "That precise figure is an anthropic constant [i.e., one permitting man's existence, seemingly by design] that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen were 25 percent, fires would erupt spontaneously; if it were 15 percent, human beings would suffocate" (Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 2004, p. 98)."
http://www.ucg.org...

What are the chances that this could happen by a random explosion, not 'guided' in any way?

Sorry I took so long, and sorry if these are poor arguments. Midterms, what can I say? Good luck next round.
Debate Round No. 2
hayhen13

Con


Thank you very much for that wonderful response Pro. I will start with my rebuttal and then my arguments.


Rebuttal:


“Christians believe that God gave us free will (this is key). We can choose good, or evil.”


As I stated previously; God is all-knowing. If God is omniscient he knows past, present, and future. If God knows what the future will be, it is a fixed subject, therefore you have no free-will. Saying that God gave us free-will is completely contradictory, for if God is to exist, you lack free-will. What you said is impossible, contradictory, a fallacy.


God does not make us do evil acts.


Yet he does. In the bible God commands Abraham to murder his son to prove that Abraham loves God. I personally believe murdering your son is evil; therefore God does command people to do evil things.


“Adam and Eve choose to turn away from God, as did the humans who were killed in the flood (it's also worth noting that the Adam and Eve story is not taken literally by all Christian denominations).”


Since God is all-knowing, God knew Adam and Eve would disobey him, and knew the humans in the flood would turn away from him. They did not choose this. Yet God still goes along with the plot for an unknown purpose. Yet effect was all of humanity sinned for eternity, and death to all living things. God knew this would happen, yet still went along with it.


“Some Christians believe that it is sin that created cancer, disease, death, etc. (The Fall).”


I’m not sure what you mean by “sin.” A sin is breaking a moral principle, not sure how a word can create a disease… please elaborate in your next response.


“Others believe that disease, earthquakes, etc. are part of nature.”


Revelation 11:13 – “And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.


God does create earthquakes to murder numerous people, God therefore creates earthquakes, making in supernatural, not natural.


“Not all Christians actually take the genealogy of Adam literally.”


If it wasn’t literal, then it must have been figurative. I don’t see how a family tree can be interpreted as a metaphor, please explain.


And just because the Bible starts with Adam, it does not mean Adam was the first human. He may have simply been the first recorded human in the Bible.”



"The first man, Adam, became a living person."1 Corinthians 15:45


You are incorrect again, according to your bible Adam was the first human.


“However, if God stands outside the laws of our world and is 'perfect', then it makes sense he could be the primary mover that caused the Big Bang.”


I already established that God cannot be perfect, and I think the idea of perfection is a fallacy. It also makes very little sense. Let me explain.


You established that God stands outside the laws of our world. There is definitely equal amount of chance that neon pink space bunnies riding a chicken wing with Elvis stand outside the laws of our world. Anything that you can think of has a completely equal chance of creating the universe from your stand point.


Pro, please explain why you believe that God created the universe rather than neon-pink space bunnies riding a chicken wing through the universe. For they both have exactly the same chance of existing and starting the Big Bang.


“It is also worth noting the Big Bang is still only a theory.”


You are being deceived by the different ideas of the word theory. Usually we describe something as ‘just a theory’ meaning it is a proposed explanation for things which has not yet been supported by the evidence.


However in science the word theory is used to mean an explanation for the facts which is supported by all the evidence. In science a hypothesis is a proposed explanation. When we get good solid evidence for a hypothesis it becomes a scientific theory.


So the Big Bang is a scientific theory. It is misleading to describe it as ‘only’ a theory. It will only ever be replaced if someone comes up with a stronger theory that is also supported by all the evidence. Yet your idea that God created the universe completely lacks any type of constructive evidence.


Evolution is a scientific theory. Relativity is a scientific theory. Quantum mechanics is a scientific theory. The Earth being round is a scientific theory. No one who understands science doubts that these theories are true because there is just so much evidence in favor of them that it makes no sense to doubt them.


The Big Bang Theory is not as strong a theory as the previous three but it is still strongly supported by all the available evidence. It isn’t just a wild idea that will be easily replaced.


To summarize ‘just a theory’ and ‘a scientific theory’ mean two completely different things. Don’t confuse one with the other. It is unfortunate that we use the word theory in these two completely different senses.


"The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day."


"Oxygen is the third most abundant element in our universe. Earth's atmosphere is 21 percent oxygen. "That precise figure is an anthropic constant [i.e., one permitting man's existence, seemingly by design] that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen were 25 percent, fires would erupt spontaneously; if it were 15 percent, human beings would suffocate" (Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 2004, p. 98)."


Pro’s last argument was the usual one about the Earth being ‘too perfect.’


This universe is estimated to hold more than 100 billion galaxies. In our galaxy alone, there are around 8.8 billion Earth-like habitable planets. So assuming that each galaxy holds at least 8.8 billion habitable planets. If you do the math: 8,800,000,000X 100,000,000,000= 8,800,000,000,000,000,000,000!


There are then around 8,800,000,000,000,000,000,000 habitable planets in the universe. This obviously is a very rough estimate; the big idea is there is a LOT of habitable planets. And I hope you agree that there are billions upon billions of galaxies in our universe. And there are billions and billions of planets in each one. Resulting in uncountable billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of planets. The chances that one, just one of these planets could be suit life is humongous. This one planet out of the entire universe could suit life so we live here, and we call it Earth.


The Earth is also not perfect either. Grinding tectonic plates create earthquakes that brutally kill millions of innocent people. Deadly streaks of lightning that kill thousands of innocent people every year. Millions of people die from diseases.


Heart disease: 596,577


Cancer: 576,691


Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 142,943


Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,932


Alzheimer's disease: 84,974


Diabetes: 73,831


Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,826


Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,591



Saying that the Earth is ‘too perfect’ is a bad argument for you haven’t accounted for the other countless planets in the universe. I believe that this argument has been defeated but if you still want to prove that the Earth is perfect then continue. If not, intelligent design is defeated.


Arguments:


People seem to believe that God is the most moral being in the universe. Part of this belief of the ordinary man is that God does not have certain kinds of feelings. Although God may have the feeling of anger, God does not have the feelings of lust or envy. Moreover, part of this ordinary concept of God is that God knows more than anyone else. In particular the ordinary man supposes that God knows (at least) all that men know. However these two beliefs, once correctly understood, are logically incompatible.


A person who knows lust and envy has at least had the feeling of lust or envy. Since God has all of men's knowledge and more, he must know lust and envy. But to say God has known lust and envy is to say that God has had the feelings of lust and envy. But this is incompatible with God's moral goodness. Hence God does not exist.




  • If God exists, God has not had the feelings of lust or envy therefore not intruding on his moral existence.




  • If God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows and more..




  • If God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows, God knows lust and envy.




  • If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy.




  • Thus impossible to exist.





Conclusion:


This is the end of my response. I believe I have successfully defeated your arguments, if you think otherwise then say so in rebuttal. I ran out of time for I was gone for the entire weekend, thus the restricted arguments. Nevertheless I intend to continue in the same fashion throughout the entire debate. I wish my opponent the best of luck in this debate and thank the audience for reading my response. I understand your predicament Pro and wish you luck in this debate. Also, good luck on midterms!!!


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


http://news.discovery.com...


http://www.cdc.gov...


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


https://www.biblegateway.com...







Kinryu

Pro

Midterms are over, but I caught a fever, sore throat, etc. Because of this I'll do rebuttals final round, if I get better. I will simply post some arguments.

Argument of Miracles:

-Shroud of Turin:
Believed to be the grave cloth of Jesus Christ. Scientific research has been done on the cloth.

"In fact, almost the whole Passion of the Man of the Shroud according to the Gospel could be read in the data supplied by the computer. Obviously, this is only a probable "reading," because, after 2,000 years, very clear details can be interpreted in terms of hypotheses or, at most, probabilities.

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to list the new data obtained with the computer, making a distinction between data previously undiscovered or doubtful on the 2-dimensional images. Undiscovered data include (numbers refer to the details on the illustrations of the face [fig. 1] and body [fig. 2] images):

the blood on the whole face. This is the logical consequence of a third dimension, corresponding to a single transformation law of all points of the face, even if without streams and clots of blood;
streams and clots of blood, most of which were previously undiscovered, flowing down or towards the fore part of the face and the hair;
the clot of blood cut on the left cheek near the left nostril (1);
the mark which begins on the right side of the hair is slightly cut on the right cheek and on the nose and stops on the above-mentioned clots (2);
the swelling of the right zygoma (3);
the cuts on the left zygoma (4);
the wrinkled clot on the left eyelid (5);
the two streams of blood flowing down from the nose (6);
the drop of blood under the upper lip (7);
the clearly stereoscopic drop of blood on the right side of the upper lip (8);
a sharp-pointed drop of blood on the right nostril (9);
the clot of blood on the right side of the upper lip (10);
the clot of blood on the left side of the upper lip (11);
the clot of blood on the lower lip under the drop of blood flowing from the central part of the upper lip (12);
the flowing aspect of the two streams of blood on the left side of the lower lip (13);
the two holes at the sides of the nose (14);
the cut on the nose near the two holes (15);
the excoriation of the tip of the nose (16);
the slight deviation of the tip of the nose (17);
the drops of blood on the right side of the beard (18);
the possible relief of the left-hand thumb on the 3-D image of the body (21);
Of the second data we can list:

the cut on the right cheek deriving from a cudgel blow (19);
the circular mark on the right eyelid probably left by a coin (20).
The correspondence between these data and the Gospels was detailed in my article as follows:

The Man of the Shroud sweated blood, as supported by the presence of blood in all the points of the face.
Therefore, he received heavy blows such as the numerous scourgings to be seen on the body image, the cudgel blow to be seen on the right cheek (19) and on the nose (15), the blow or blows on the clearly swollen right zygoma (13). As a consequence, he suffered the breakage of the nasal septum which is seen to be deviated and pierced by two lateral holes (14); the nose lost blood (6) which dropped from the upper lip (7), forming a clot on the lower lip (12).
The Man of the Shroud began the way to Golgotha with the cross on the right shoulder, as shown by the imprint on the linen wrap. At a certain moment, the forehead began to bleed with a stream flowing on the left side of the face.
This stream formed a clot on the left eyelid (5), a clot near the left nostril (1) and the clot on the left side of the upper lip (11). This last clot (11) enlarged and took on a sharp-pointed appearance and acted as a watershed; in fact it divided the stream of blood into two

rivulets which flowed on the left side of the lower lip (13). As this stream did not soak the beard vertically and as the clot near the left nostril was clearly cut while the victim was on the cross (as explained later) and hence was not fully clotted, the stream did not appear long before crucifixion. The Man of the Shroud fell, striking the left cheek on the ground, where the cheek was cut by the gravel (4); furthermore, the crown of thorns cut the skin, giving rise at that moment, i.e., not long before crucifixion, to the stream of blood mentioned above and to other streams which soaked the hair.

As shown by the nail marks on both wrists and feet, the Man of the Shroud was crucified. After a certain time he bent his head towards the right side. This brought about the deviation of the stream on the right side of the face causing it to flow along the right side of the nose to the right nostril (9) from whence blood dripped on the right side of the lip (10) and then onto the beard (8).

The clot of blood on the left eyelid was wrinkled (5) by the movement of the eyelid. When the Man of the Shroud bent his head the stream of blood was diverged and thus did not cover the wrinkles; this clot was quite large and stuck the eyelid of the left eye together.

The position of the drop on the right side of the lip (8) shows the inclination of the face before death. The other streams of blood also flowed towards the right side, as clearly shown in fig. 1.

A person with a sponge soaked in vinegar and put on the tip of a branch of hyssop refreshed the Man of the Shroud: in fact, we can note that the clot on the left side of the cheek (1) is cut.

The upper part of the cut is straight and may correspond to the flat part of the tip of the hyssop branch, due to the cut with a sickle, while the lower part is round and may correspond to the cylindrical part of the tip.

Furthermore, the mark beginning from the right side of the hair (2), is slightly cut on the right cheek and on the nose and stops on the clot, showing that at the beginning the tip of the hyssop branch was placed an the right side of the hair and then dragged across so that the sponge reached the mouth of the Man of the Shroud and caused the cut seen on the clot of blood.

Fig. 1 - Three-dimensional relief of the Shroud face, showing details discussed in text.

Fig. 2 - Three-dimensional relief of the Shroud image, showing details discussed in text.

Fig. 3 - Three-dimensional relief of the Shroud face after smoothing of rough transitions with a recursive filter.
The last drop, dripped from the nostril and is greatly diverged towards the right side (9). In fact, when He died the muscles of the neck were fully distended and the head bent down more.

The drop has a pointed form, because the gradual decrease in blood flows caused a decrease in its section, and its weight was not sufficient to make it fall (this is a proof that the blood ceased flowing while he was on the cross and hence that the Man died on the cross.)

To ensure that the Man of the Shroud was dead, a soldier stabbed him in the right chest with a lance, as shown in fig. 2 (22), and water and blood flowed out.

The death on the cross is also confirmed by the fact that all streams of blood are in the fore part of the face and none are directed towards the back, where they would have arrived had the Man of the Shroud continued to lose blood after the deposition from the cross. To keep the right eyelid shut, a coin was placed on it, as is clearly shown by the circular flat area in fig. 1 (20). The coin must then have been removed as the mark is impressed in the linen wrap.

The striking similarities of these facts with Gospel are a clear contribution in favor of the Shroud's authenticity.

Hence, the probability that the Man of the Shroud was Jesus Christ is greatly increased by the results obtained with the aid of the computer.

The computer showed us also what the face of Jesus Christ probably looked like before the Passion or after Resurrection, through an electronic cleaning of the blood and wounds which provides the almost natural images of the face (fig. 3)."

http://www.shroud.com...

- Our Lady of Guadalupe: picture of Mary on Juan Diego's tilma.

"Mendoza noted Our Lady's tilma shows the radiant rays of the sun surrounding her as she appeared, wearing a blue-green mantle that depicts the universe.

Also fascinating is the pattern of stars strewn across her mantle. According to Mendoza the pattern mirrors the exact position of constellations on the day her image appeared on the tilma, Dec. 12, 1531. He used a graph to prove it.

It has been found that by imposing a topographical map of central Mexico on the Virgin's dress, the mountains, rivers and principal lakes coincide with the decoration on this dress, he said.

The fact that the tilma has remained perfectly preserved since 1531 is a miracle in itself, according to Mendoza. After more than four centuries, Juan Diego's tilma retains the same freshness and the same lively colour as when it was new.

Analysis shows that there is no trace of drawing or sketching under the colour, even though perfectly recognizable retouches were done on the original.

He said a professor from NASA conducted an independent analysis in 1979 and concluded that there is no way to explain the quality of the pigments used for the pink dress, the blue veil, the face and the hands, the permanence of the colours, or the vividness of the colours after several centuries, during which they ordinarily should have deteriorated.

Much research has also been conducted regarding mysterious images that appear in Our Lady's eyes. The images reflected in her retinas are of the moment when she left her imprint on Juan Diego's tilma and Mendoza showed enlarged pictures of those images.

Peruvian Jose Aste Tonsmann, an expert in digital image processing, produced them. The figures in Our Lady's eyes' reflection show the people historically known to have been present at the unveiling of the tilma in 1531 - Bishop Zumarraga, his interpreter, Juan Diego and several family members."

http://www.freerepublic.com...
Debate Round No. 3
hayhen13

Con


Thank you for that response Pro.


Rebuttal:


I found your response to be quite confusing. I understood that it was mostly about a cloth/shroud that Jesus supposedly wore. I do not see the connection between this and what we are debating. This does not prove God’s existence at all, yet proves that a man was wrapped in this cloth when he died that could maybe be Jesus.


This leaves me in an awkward position for there is nothing to rebut. Pro’s entire argument was scientific research and no argument. Pro has also not done a rebuttal so nothing to rebut there either. Since there were no arguments made , there are no arguments to defeat. Since this is my last response of the debate this leaves in me in a bad situation. But since there were no arguments, there are no arguments to rebut, thus making this a short rebuttal.


Conclusion:


This is my last response of the debate. This has been an enjoyable debate and I look forward to its outcome. I have put forth many arguments and so has my opponent. This debate is now in the hands of the voters. Thank you!


(And could luck getting over your sickness :D)


Kinryu

Pro

Between sickness and midterms, its been a rough few weeks. This has effected my arguments, which so far have been weak. Now that my better, I'll make sure My final arguments are solid. Thanks to Con for good debate, voters please vote (because no one votes on my debates).

Rebuttals:

"As I stated previously; God is all-knowing. If God is omniscient he knows past, present, and future. If God knows what the future will be, it is a fixed subject, therefore you have no free-will. Saying that God gave us free-will is completely contradictory, for if God is to exist, you lack free-will. What you said is impossible, contradictory, a fallacy."

1.) Just because knows what is going to happen, it does not mean he controls or influences our decisions. I may know it's going to rain, but does that mean I make it rain? If I place a cookie on the table, and I know my daughter will eat it, does that mean I made her eat the cookie? No. Also, we do not know what God knows, and thus his knowing of what we will do can't effect our decisions.

2.) There is also the argument that God knows things only through the present. Because he lives outside of the laws of our world, he is not bound by time. Thus, we can not associate past, present, future to him. If he sees everything through the now, then the future is not fixed.

"Yet he does. In the bible God commands Abraham to murder his son to prove that Abraham loves God. I personally believe murdering your son is evil; therefore God does command people to do evil things."

Yes, but he stopped Abraham before he could murder his son. The whole thing was a test of Abraham's Faith. Abraham's son was never actually murdered, so I don't see what the problem is.

"Since God is all-knowing, God knew Adam and Eve would disobey him, and knew the humans in the flood would turn away from him. They did not choose this. Yet God still goes along with the plot for an unknown purpose. Yet effect was all of humanity sinned for eternity, and death to all living things. God knew this would happen, yet still went along with it."

As I stated above, God decided to give us free will, even though he knew some would turn against him (or he knows things only in the present). Assuming the former, he created humans and gave them free will because their sin would bring about the need of Redemption. It's true all things die, but Christians believe in the afterlife.

"Im not sure what you mean by sin. A sin is breaking a moral principle, not sure how a word can create a disease; please elaborate in your next response."

In other words, disease, death, etc. was a consequence that ensued from the Fall. Before the Fall there was no disease, death, after the Fall there was.

"Revelation 11:13 "And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.""

God does create earthquakes to murder numerous people, God therefore creates earthquakes, making in supernatural, not natural.

The earthquake was not literal.

"And the same hour - In immediate connection with their triumph.

Was there a great earthquake - "An earthquake is a symbol of commotion, agitation, change; of great political revolutions, etc. See the notes on Revelation 6:12. The meaning here is, that the triumph of the witnesses, represented by their ascending to heaven, would be followed by such revolutions as would be properly symbolized by an earthquake."
http://www.godvine.com...

"If it wasn't literal, then it must have been figurative. I don't see how a family tree can be interpreted as a metaphor, please explain."

Very well. Eve was created by Adam's rib-->rib is near heart, protects heart--->woman equal to man, man should protect woman. Eve to Mary as Adam is to Jesus (Eve was first to sin, Mary without sin, Mary is part of Redemption, etc.). There is more symbolize in the 'Adam and Eve' story, I just listed some.

"You are incorrect again, according to your bible Adam was the first human."

Actually, 'my' military edition Bible only contains the New Testament. Also, the Adam and Eve story, as I gave examples above, is probably metaphorical/figurative.

"I already established that God cannot be perfect, and I think the idea of perfection is a fallacy. It also makes very little sense. Let me explain.
You established that God stands outside the laws of our world. There is definitely equal amount of chance that neon pink space bunnies riding a chicken wing with Elvis stand outside the laws of our world. Anything that you can think of has a completely equal chance of creating the universe from your stand point.
Pro, please explain why you believe that God created the universe rather than neon-pink space bunnies riding a chicken wing through the universe. For they both have exactly the same chance of existing and starting the Big Bang."

For something to be outside the laws of our world, it would probably lack physical form. But neon-pink bunnies (awesome as it would be), are physical things. Physical beings, restricted by time, space, etc. would not be able to do what God (who is not physical) does. I also have a "riddle" for you. How do you know that you (and the rest of the world) are not in some sort science experiment, being watched and recorded by giants? You can't prove me wrong, because the giants do want us to know of their existence. What I'm trying to get at is a lot of ridiculous things could be true. But do you think they are?

"A person who knows lust and envy has at least had the feeling of lust or envy. Since God has all of men's knowledge and more, he must know lust and envy. But to say God has known lust and envy is to say that God has had the feelings of lust and envy. But this is incompatible with God's moral goodness. Hence God does not exist."

I have a very simple question for you. Who would he lust or envy? He is omnipotent, omniscient. Who would he envy? He is not a physical being. How could he lust?

"I found your response to be quite confusing. I understood that it was mostly about a cloth/shroud that Jesus supposedly wore. I do not see the connection between this and what we are debating. This does not prove God"s existence at all, yet proves that a man was wrapped in this cloth when he died that could maybe be Jesus.
This leaves me in an awkward position for there is nothing to rebut. Pro"s entire argument was scientific research and no argument. Pro has also not done a rebuttal so nothing to rebut there either. Since there were no arguments made , there are no arguments to defeat. Since this is my last response of the debate this leaves in me in a bad situation. But since there were no arguments, there are no arguments to rebut, thus making this a short rebuttal."

I was trying to get at that the tilma and shroud were too 'perfect' to have been made by human design, thus alluding to the divine. A rebuttal to this would be to try and prove the tilma and shroud fake, which you did not do.

1.A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
2. There are numerous well-attested miracles.
3. Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
4. Therefore God exists.

PASCAL'S WAGER:
This argument states that the consequences of not believing in God and following his 'commands' are far worse than believing in God. Non-believers will have no reason to live a moral life, and thus will probably be sinful. The consequence of not believing is eternal damnation, whereas believers are rewarded for eternal life. Thus, it makes more sense to strive for eternal life, rather than risk going to hell.

Believers---heaven
Non-believers---hell
God doesn't exist---no gain for either

Anselm's Ontological Argument:

http://www.princeton.edu...
In the area marked A we have things that exist in the understanding alone; in the area marked B we have things that exist both in the understanding and in reality; and in the area marked C we have things that exist in reality but not in the understanding. (For obvious reasons, we cannot give any concrete examples of the last category.)

At this stage the fool has conceded that God exists in the understanding: so God belongs either in A or in B. Anselm now argues that God cannot exist in the understanding alone. The argument seems to proceed as follows.

(1) Suppose (with the fool) that God exists in the understanding alone.
(2) Given our definition, this means that a being than which none greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone.
(3) But this being can be conceived to exist in reality. That is, we can conceive of a circumstance in which theism is true, even if we do not believe that it actually obtains.
(4) But it is greater for a thing to exist in reality than for it to exist in the understanding alone.
(5) Hence we seem forced to conclude that a being than which none greater can be conceived can be conceived to be greater than it is.
(6) But that is absurd.
(7) So (1) must be false. God must exist in reality as well as in the understanding.

Teleological Argument:
States that the universe is so complex that there must have been an intelligent designer.

"The human brain has approximately 10 billion gigabytes of capacity."
"In fact, even single-celled bacteria are so complex that, without all of their parts working together at the same time, they would have no survival potential."
http://www.gotquestions.org...

If you really study biology, chemistry, etc., you will probable wonder how these complexities could be random. Take DNA for example.

Out of space to write, voters please vote.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Atheism_Debater 2 years ago
Atheism_Debater
Hello
Posted by WIamwe 2 years ago
WIamwe
hayhen,
I would like to debate this with you if Kinryu, can not complete the task.
I am W. Iamwe Ph.D. author of/doctoral thesis: Amen Code - Mathematical Proof of the Existence of God, Multiple Universes , and Parallel Dimensions based on Jesus' Gnostic and Biblical Teachings, and the Divine Plan for Global Economic and Social Security.
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
MattStPaul,
Thank you very much and I understand your predicament.
"firm belief in something for which there is no proof" Merriam Webster

I understand where you are coming from, but I stand by my definition.
An example is; if a person would drown in a river, yet you wouldn't find their body. That persons mother might have "faith" that her son escaped, by having belief in something in which their is no evidence. In religion there is no evidence at all to support the fact that God exists, and preachers mention faith a lot. Such as, "Have faith in the lord"
Which connotates. believe in the lord even though their is no evidence.
This is how I came to the conclusion of my definition, and I still believe it is true.
Posted by MattStPaul 2 years ago
MattStPaul
@ djdipretoro
I agree. I thought the definition of "faith" was odd.
The part "...in which there is no evidence or proof." seems to cast 'faith' in the negative, Most definitions I looked up agreed in the first part (strong belief) but the second was always absent. Here it seems demeaning, unintellectual. In my experience, most believers in G-d are doing so BECAUSE they have proved G-d and found Him true through answered prayers, inward conviction, study of the Scriptures, etc. Seems they have plenty of proof...Well, at least that's what I base my "faith" on.

Just wondering, djdipretoro, what definition you were troubled by?

Anyway, I look forward to reading this debate.
Good luck both!
-MSP
Posted by djdipretoro 2 years ago
djdipretoro
I would love to debate this topic, but the definitions I would redefine.
No votes have been placed for this debate.