Debate Rounds (5)
1. - Your opening line "God: An immaterial being that transcends all space and time, a supernatural being that defies our current laws of physics." seems to be only part of the truth based on other things you have said. You later included the life and resurrection of Jesus as a reason why God exists, so I believe it is fair to say that you are a Christian and that you are arguing for the Christian God. If this is the case I can continue with this argument, but if this isn't the case we can take Jesus off your list of reasons as to why God exists. The God you are describing in your definition is unfalsifiable and I can therefore not prove him wrong, but the God of the bible is falsifiable because of his direct influences on the world, assuming that the bible is true. This is just a request for clarification, but I can argue your remaining points before your exact position is verified.
2. - "Atheists usually claim that it popped into being out of nothing, but surely that doesn't make sense!"
If your argument is entirely based off of something not true then your entire point is false. Most intelligent atheists will say "We don't know." which is true, we don't, and just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we have to come up with a super natural explanation for it. Humans once believed that lightning was Thor's hammer smashing down on the clouds, but we found out that it really was imbalances of electricity and now nobody believes that old story. Also if it's so impossible for the earth to pop out of nothing and there can't be infinite cycles of universes collapsing and re-expanding, how the heck did your God come to be? Did he just pop out of nothing? You said that it's impossible though. Did another God create him? That would be an infinite cycle of creation though. Is he outside the lays of physics? That might cut it for you, but the day I believe that is the day pigs fly.
3. - "P.C.W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for star formation is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeros."
Just because something is improbable doesn't mean that it's impossible. For example, if there's a 1 in a billion chance of someone winning the lottery and more than a billion lottery tickets are bought then it's really probable that at least one person will win the lottery. The same goes for the Big Bang. Maybe there were a thousand billion billion Big Bangs before the one happened that was suitable for star formation, or maybe we got lucky and the one Big Bang that actually happened was the one that was suitable for star formation. Improbability is not cause for a conscious creator, and don't bother bringing up the banana argument because I already have that one covered.
4. - "So I'll leave it up to my opponent to choose. Either he must show me where objective morals come from in the absence of God, or admit that there is no objective morality, and therefore there is nothing wrong with rape."
Do you know what a fallacy is? Well to give you the dictionary definition it is "A mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument." and this is a prime example of a false dichotomy which is a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. In this argument you leave out the possibility of subjective morality. Something is "wrong" if the social group you are in deems it so. The reasons behind this decision are not always right, but in the case of our society and rape they are. Rape is horrible because it hurts another human being. Thankfully our society has deemed that wrong, and people who rape are punished. Your assertion that you need God to be moral is incorrect. Each individual has the opportunity growing up to use reason and their upbringing to decide what they think is right and wrong and then apply that reasoning to situations that they will encounter. Are these morals then "right"? Well it depends on the background you come from, and are in the eye of the beholder. You get your morals from a 2,000 year old book that says it's ok to own other people as slaves and I get my morals based on the belief that whatever hurts others the most is worst. This video is very good at explaining my view on this (first video)
(By the way I am a girl, so she has chosen neither of your options)
5. - "Finally, the evidence for God comes in the facts concerning the resurrection of Jesus."
You base your 4 assertions on the words of new-testament scholars which should be given as much factual power as Hemingway scholars or J.K. Rowling scholars. It is impossible to prove that the bible is the word of God, Jesus was the son of God, or Jesus' resurrection actually happened. This is impossible because the bible was all hear say. You might as well say that Hobbits exist because it's written down in The Lord of the Rings. Your personal faith also has nothing to do with weather the bible is fact or not.
6. - As it has been said before, lack of evidence for no God is not evidence for God. If you don't understand it you can watch this video: (second video)
Ignore the profanity and strange character and look at the substance and it'll make sense.
7. - Millions of stable people in Germany in the 1940 believed that it was ok to massacre thousands of Jews. Does that make that ok?
8. - Yes morality is a social adaptation even when it comes to the bible. "Oh the pope says that I have to believe in God or I'm going to hell. Everybody else is believing it too. I don't want to be out of the crowd, or burned forever. I'll believe in God"
9. - During the middle ages you were killed if you weren't catholic. For a very long time people have been forced to believe in a certain thing.
10. - You just saying that people have always believed in God doesn't make it true. I could say that people in 1000 B.C.E. believed that aliens existed, so aliens must exist, but that doesn't make me right does it?
11. - This documentary is long, but it can explain the theory of evolution far better than I can (third video)
Also one experiment by one person cannot discount the work on numerous scientists backing evolution. Also isn't it funny that 90% of all scientists are either atheists, agnostics or unaffiliated with any religious organization?
12. - No beneficial mutations? Think again http://bigthink.com...
Also left handed people, red hair, blue eyes, increased height, ability to painlessly form crystals in your tear ducts (she's rich now) and so much more!
Also as one last note. Atheistic Dogma!? The bitterness in his heart? Soul? Peace of Christ? Buddy you can state these as fact all you want, but your lack or evidence is astounding! The day you back up statements with any sort of actual proof will be the day pigs fly- you know a lot is going to happen when pigs fly. Maybe you'll stop being fooled by the Christian authority, but, you know, I doubt that'll ever happen.
"Also if it's so impossible for the earth to pop out of nothing and there can't be infinite cycles of universes collapsing and re-expanding, how the heck did your God come to be?"
First of all, please understand that I am making assumptions about the universe, I am arguing from what we do know. We do for a fact know that the universe had a beginning. The universally (or almost universally) accepted scientific evidence points to an origin for the physical universe billions of years ago. This evidence includes large-scale homogeneity, redshifting as proof of an expanding universe, the abundance of light elements, cosmic background microwave radiation (CMBR), fluctuations in CMBR, the large-scale structure of the universe and the age of stars just to name a few. All the predictions of the Big Bang model are subject to stringent parameters, and the predictions of this theory have been confirmed by science. Unless you can show me good evidence that God had a beginning, you can"t claim that he did just because the universe does.
As for the collapsing and re-expanding universe, this Oscillating Model (as it is known) could only be possible by denying homogeneity and isotropy, which are two scientifically confirmed facts of the universe. This theory was an attempt at avoiding an absolute beginning, but has been refuted in 1970 by Penrose and Hawking's formulation of the Singularity Theorems. These theorems showed that under very generalized conditions an initial cosmological singularity is inevitable, even for inhomogeneous and non-isotropic universes. Almost everyone in the scientific community now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.
So I don"t reject the Oscillating Model a priori, but because the evidence is against it: (1) The termini of a closed universe must be singularities and no space-time trajectory can be extended through a singularity. (2) There are no known physics which would cause a collapsing universe to bounce back to a new expansion. (3) The observational evidence indicates that the mean mass density of the universe is insufficient to generate enough gravitational attraction to halt and reverse the expansion. (Associated Press News Release, 9 January 1998) (4) Since entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in such a model, which has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations with each successive cycle, the thermodynamic properties of an Oscillating Model imply the very beginning its proponents sought to avoid.
If you have evidence for other universes, please present it, but until then I"ll go with Occam"s Razor: the simplest answer needing the least amount of speculation is the best. Why should I hypothesis multiple universes that I don"t have evidence exists, when I can postulate a single more simple origin of things based on evidence we do have? Further, everything that has a beginning, has a cause. This is the cause and effect principle. As the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially. As the cause of matter it must be immaterial, in fact, being timeless, changeless, implies immateriality. Ockham's Razor will shave away further causes, since we should not multiply causes beyond necessity. Does that answer your question about where God came from? This entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe without any material cause.
Such a transcendent cause is plausibly to be taken to be personal. If the cause of the origin of the universe were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, it would be impossible for the cause to exist without its effect. For if the necessary and sufficient conditions of the effect are timelessly given, then their effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and changeless but for its effect to originate a finite time ago is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without antecedent determining conditions. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal creator.
As for your illustration of a billion lotteries, you can"t apply this to the universe without evidence that these other universes exist. You are against Occam"s Razor here. This also doesn"t answer the complex fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. You also said:
"I get my morals based on the belief that whatever hurts others the most is worst."
But based on what do you say that hurting others is wrong? Such things go on in the animal kingdom all the time, and no morality is attached to it, so if there is no God, and we are just highly developed animals as atheists think, then where does morality enter the picture? I appreciate your right to reject objective morality, but if you truly think all morality is subjective, then in your world view, slavery isn"t really, truly, wrong! If atheism is true, then your view against rape is nothing more than your subjective opinion, which you have no right to force on others who might consider it their right to rape women. So in the absence of a higher, transcendent standard of morality, you can"t justly condemn anything as wrong.
As for the Gospels, I don"t claim all of these are the word of God, only that they contain some of God"s word. Rather, some of them are simply historical works. Luke 1:1-4 shows that he was purporting to write history. He didn"t claim to be inspired by God. He got his information from the eyewitnesses. Matthew, John, and Peter were alive in the time of Jesus; so were Mark and Paul. These writings were made while the eyewitnesses were still alive, and Paul invited his readers to check with such witness to validate the truth of Christ"s appearances. (1 Cor 15:6) The Gospels were not written in the form of myths. The New Testament could not be myth misinterpreted and confused with fact because it specifically distinguishes the two and repudiates the mythic interpretation (2 Peter 1:16). There wasn"t even enough time for myths to develop and replace the historical facts concerning Jesus. So the Gospels have to be true, and I"d like to know what your theory is on their development. For sure they weren"t lies: The "cruncher" in this argument is the historical fact that no one, weak or strong, saint or sinner, Christian or heretic, ever confessed, freely or under pressure, bribe or even torture, that the whole story of the resurrection was a fake, a lie, a deliberate deception. Even when people broke under torture, denied Christ and worshiped Caesar, they never let that cat out of the bag, for that cat was never in that bag. No Christians believed the resurrection was a conspiracy; if they had, they wouldn't have become Christians.
"Millions of stable people in Germany in the 1940 believed that it was ok to massacre thousands of Jews. Does that make that ok?"
No, which proves that morality is objective; it is binding even if millions of people don"t believe in it. The only rational explanation for this if a transcendent cause of morality, namely, the nature of God as he reveals it to us. But if as you claim, morality is subjective, then you have no right to say these millions in Germany were wrong. What makes your morality more right than theirs? In the absence of God, there is no foundation on which to ground moral values. You are lost in subjective relativism.
I won"t reply to entire documentaries, so please just make points you consider evidence and I"ll reply to these. I"m yet to see a beneficial mutation. How is red hair and blue eyes supposed to be beneficial? What"s more, this illustrates variation within the kind, not evolution.
ThePrincesska25 forfeited this round.
ThePrincesska25 forfeited this round.
daley forfeited this round.
ThePrincesska25 forfeited this round.
daley forfeited this round.
ThePrincesska25 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 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:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Didn't bother to read, conduct to PRO since CON disappeared.
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.