Debate Rounds (4)
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created
The facts are that science has a lot of limitations. Evolutionist claim science to support their theories but science cannot explain how something came out of nothing. Where did the benzene molecule come from? Where did the heat come from? These are all questions that cannot be explained by science. The basic question of what the first molecule was that showed up cannot even be answered by science exactly; at best someone"s theory of what he or she thought should have been there is offered. Science can theorize about black holes but nobody really knows what it is or how it works because it was never subjected to testing. I am mentioning this not as an argument for the existence of God but merely to point out that science cannot be used to determine or verify evidence for many different things that exist. The evidence used to establish whether someone existed is different from science because it involves written, oral, physical and visual evidence. This type of evidence is therefore used to draw conclusions and establish validity and is different from the scientific methods used and validated differently.
Science primarily claims to deal with nature. The fact is that some limited person bound by time and space here on earth that has never seen the entire universe said that about science. The limitation imposed on science therefore makes it impossible for science to deny or verify anything that is outside of nature and this includes the existence of God. I find it therefore strange that anyone would drag science into any God debate because by its own definition it does not have anything of value to say about the supernatural. To say that science cannot prove that which does not exist is presumptuous at best. The atom existed since the beginning of whatever you want to refer to but only in this age did we manage to discover it. Does that mean it never existed? Of course not. Love is something that everyone can experience. Can you put something on the table and say: Look, this is love? Can science observe love itself to test it? It cannot, only the effects of love can be observed but love itself remains invisible. Does that mean love does not exist? Of course not.
I think it is unreasonable to ask for scientific evidence when what is to be proved is outside of the capabilities of the scientific method as defined by mere mortals who wants to confine it to nature.
I have been very busy over the last few days and I'm almost out of time, so this argument will be brief. I will proivde more evidence in round 4.
You are basically telling me that God exists because his existance cannot be disproven. The obvious flaw in this argument is that this statement can be applied to almost anything. For example, I can tell you that there is a hippo in my backyard. There is no way to prove or disprove this statement, but we must assume that there is no hippo in by backyard since I have not provided evidence.
Your argument proves that it is impossible to prove God's existence. Nearly your entire argument is composed of reasons why science can't be used as an authority over god. You didn't provide any evidence of God's existence. Why? Because it is impossible to provide evidence.
You mention that there are some things science can't prove. Some of the examples you provide contain the ability to be proved by science (such as the benzene molecule), but technology isn't yet at the point to prove some of these concepts.
You mention that love is unable to be observed. "Love" is an emotion and not a physical object, therefore it can't be tested in a physical sense. However, science can be used to measure brain waves and other patterns that symbolize love.
Lastly, I would like to provide a brief argument of my own. I feel that Christianity is used as a defense mechanism against the fear of death, which is one of the most feared concepts among humans (sources will be provided later on). Christians believe that they will go to heaven when they die, and others (depending on the branch of christianity) will go to hell. This provides a "shield" against the fear of death, as Christians don't want to accept the eternal concept of dying. Again, there is no way to prove or disprove heaven or hell, therefore we can rightfully assume these places don't exist since there is no scientific evidence supporting them.
In conclusion, my opponent didn't provide any evidence of God's existence, the topic of the debate, in the last round. Again, it is impossible to provide evdidence of God's existence, and I will happily rebut any response to this claim. I wish my opponent good luck in the next round, and I apologize for my lack of time!
You stated: "You are basically telling me that God exists because his existance cannot be disproven".
That is a misrepresentation of my opening statement. I did not generalize the topic, I mentioned SCIENTIFIC CAPABILITIES as the base for my argument in the round. Your loose reference to what I was saying did not disprove anything I said about science. Don"t believe me? This is what I stated: In this round I will address one specific statement Con made and that is that he believes God does not exist because humans do not have the scientific capabilities to determine evidence of God"s existence. I addressed YOUR statement and never insinuated that the default position must be that therefore God exists.
Again you stated: "Your argument proves that it is impossible to prove God's existence". No, I said it is unreasonable to use SCIENCE to prove something that is without its bounds as defined by humans. This was my conclusion: I think it is unreasonable to ask for scientific evidence when what is to be proved is outside of the capabilities of the scientific method as defined by mere mortals who wants to confine it to nature. Please do not create a supposed argument; I was clear on what I said. You did not address my argument at all so far.
"Some of the examples you provide contain the ability to be proved by science (such as the benzene molecule), but technology isn't yet at the point to prove some of these concepts".
This particular statement I found the most surprising. If you can admit the limits of science but leave open the possibility that science might develop the technology to prove things we cannot prove now, then it is only logical that it may be possible for science to also develop the technology one day to perhaps observe and prove the spirit world. And again, I did not say science cannot prove the Benzene molecule, I said: Where did the benzene molecule come from. Your optimism that science will someday explain things we cannot explain now should at best justify an agnostic view rather than atheistic view. But I suspect, you leave out that option because you are already influenced by your own biases. If bias was not involved you would never have taken the atheistic view while believing someday science may explain that which we cannot explain now. But then again, I might be wrong about the bias thing.
"You mention that love is unable to be observed. "Love" is an emotion and not a physical object, therefore it can't be tested in a physical sense. However, science can be used to measure brain waves and other patterns that symbolize love". That's exactly my point and what I said. Science can observe the EFFECTS (.. only the effects of love can be observed). I fail to see your point for stating exactly what I said, unless it was to confirm what I said is true.
"Lastly, I would like to provide a brief argument of my own. I feel that Christianity is used as a defense mechanism against the fear of death, which is one of the most feared concepts among humans (sources will be provided later on). Christians believe that they will go to heaven when they die, and others (depending on the branch of christianity) will go to hell. This provides a "shield" against the fear of death, as Christians don't want to accept the eternal concept of dying. Again, there is no way to prove or disprove heaven or hell, therefore we can rightfully assume these places don't exist since there is no scientific evidence supporting them".
I understand what you try to say, but I am not going to respond to heaven and hell because that is not part of the debate. However, you claim science as you proof for not believing in God but then say: I FEEL (emphasis mine). You FEEL??? Is that scientific?? Please provide scientific evidence that prove what you FEEL is true or not. You make statements about the beginnings of Christianity, that they had a fear of death? The martyrs welcomed death!!!! How can you possibly prove your statement as absolutely true when the historical evidence is overwhelming against what you said? When the Christians were burned and tortured they could have saved themselves from death by denying Christ. Do you know what the RECORDED RESPONSES were? They would rather die than to deny their SAVIOUR whom they love. The Bible states it very clearly that love drives out fear. It"s something even true today. But please go ahead and provide the scientific evidence for your statement. I know you said you will provide evidence, and not necessarily scientific evidence, but science was your reason for not believing so I would expect that you use science for the claims you make. If not, you just prove my point that science has limits and cannot be used to prove everything. Do you want references? Read the Church father library or Foxe's book of martyrs.
You state: "In conclusion, my opponent didn't provide any evidence of God's existence, the topic of the debate, in the last round. Again, it is impossible to provide evdidence of God's existence, and I will happily rebut any response to this claim".
I stated: If you take the con position it will be up to you to provide arguments why you disagree with my statement.
You did not specifically ask for any evidence in your opening, so it was not necessarily required of me to do so. However, you are not entirely correct in what you say. I said the following: God is a being; it was revealed that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh. This was recorded and the historicity of Jesus is well attested too. Scientific capabilities cannot determine whether someone existed in the past or whether the legacy left behind by that person is true or false. The limitations of scientific capabilities is evident in that a person who lived in the past cannot be observed in the present by science or recreated to prove that the person in question existed.
That was an example of what I consider to be proof for the existence of God. Please feel free to refute it in your rebuttal using SCIENCE.
edawg99 forfeited this round.
The term Christ or Christos needs to be understood in its proper perspective to understand who Jesus claimed to be. The Messiah or Christ was prophesied to be God. Jesus was asked during his trial: "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" (Mark14:61). The High Priest understood what the relationship was between the Christ and the Son of God. I have heard people say that Jesus never claimed to be God but if the meaning of the Christ, the Son of God, is understood then it becomes clear that Jesus did in fact claim to be God. John 10:32-33: Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
The following people who attest to the existence of Christ were not Christians themselves. However, they were contemporaries of the Apostles and many witnesses who were still alive who witnessed the miracles, death and resurrection of Christ. If you want the sources for the statement below, then type each name below into a search engine and you will find multiple references.
Thallus (52AD) When Jesus died there was a period of darkness. An event like that would be significant and Thallus who was not a Christian recorded such an event. The same was also mentioned by Phlegon (80-140AD) as recorded by Julius Africanus.
Tacitus (56-120AD) Tacticus was a Roman who mentions Christos who was crucified under Pontius Pilatus.
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD) Mentions Christ and made also a reference that his followers worshipped Christ "as to a god".
Suetonius (69-140AD) Refer to Christ or Christians. The name given to the Disciples of Christ.
Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.) Lucian records that the leader of the Christians was crucified.
Josephus (37-101AD) Josephus mentions Jesus and that he was crucified. He also mentions that His followers were called Christians. Again, the name was given to them because they believed Jesus was the Christ.
The Babylonian Talmud (70-500AD) The Talmud makes reference to Jesus. Today some try to deny this, but the existence of Jesus was recorded by the Jews.
Archeological Evidence " "The new artifact is an ossuary, a medium-sized box in which human bones were placed for permanent burial after the flesh had all decayed away. This practice was employed for only a brief period of time from about B.C. 20 to A.D. 70. The box is made of a soft, chalky, limestone, common to the area. The contents have long since vanished. Most remarkably, an inscription has been etched into the side which reads, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" in the Aramaic script of the time. Careful studies, including scrutiny under a scanning electron microscope show the inscription to be genuine. The patina, or oxidized surface equally covers both box and the interior of the etched letters. The recognized expert on such matters, Dr. Andre Lemaire, concludes: "I am pleased to report that in my judgment it is genuinely ancient and not a fake."
http://www.icr.org... This is a Christian source but there are many other secular sources who reported the same finding.
There are many references to be found tin the Church father library to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some of the early Church fathers even knew eyewitnesses who were still alive in their time.
Polycarp (AD 69-155) Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. He attests to what the early Christians held as the common faith regarding Jesus Christ. But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who raised Him from the dead.Galatians 1:1 (http://www.newadvent.org...).
The evidence that Jesus existed is overwhelming considering the time that passed up until now and the sources preserved until now. Not only was his existence confirmed but He was also referred to as the Christ when spoken of, God manifest in the flesh. There are many people today who try to ignore the evidence by trying to claim that this or that account is a forgery or that Christians changed sources for their own purposes. I listed the non-Christian and Christian sources that agree together that shows that the above mentioned claims of forgery are not correct. The non-Christians had nothing to gain by stating what they stated about Jesus Christ. It must also be remembered that early Christians were persecuted, hated, and blamed for anything that went wrong, their property was confiscated, burned, tortured and killed for what they believed in. There was no material gain for inventing stories about Jesus. There was no fame or fortune. There is also no reason or logic to die for a lie. The early Christians were eyewitnesses and contemporaries of eyewitnesses whose faith was based on what they have seen and experienced, truth and not a lie. In later centuries the mega churches started appearing and it can be reasoned that the mega churched had something to gain, politically and financially, but this is not true of the early Christians.
I have asked different people who claimed they are atheist on this site to answer three basic questions on what Christians believe. None of the people could tell me what Christians are to believe according to the BIBLE. They argue against the Bible and Christianity but I find it strange that someone will argue against something they do not know about. Have you ever read the Bible from cover to cover (a KJV)? Have you ever tried to find a Biblical solution to a problem in the Bible instead of dreaming up something? Perhaps you should follow Job's example. He said: in ignorance have I spoken but now I will put my hand on my mouth (my paraphrase). "Taste and see that the Lord is good" open a KJV Bible and start reading the Bible, and not read about the Bible.
edawg99 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by harrytruman 10 months 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||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
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.