The Instigator
JasperFrancisShickadance
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

God is a logical concept

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,119 times Debate No: 60616
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

I would like to debate you about Christianity. God is a logical concept; the Christian God never (and has never) changed. The Trinity is a perfect explanation for how the universe began. I will argue for religion (Christianity) and the science within it (Creationism). Con will attempt to show how the concept of God is not logical. In this debate we will only argue about the Christian God--also known as Christ--and this means that 'God' is a Trinity. The Trinity (3 in 1) is God the Father, Jesus the Savior, and the Holy Spirit/Ghost. I believe in God. I believe he created the world and the entire universe, and my opponent will attempt to refute my reasons for why Creator God/the Christian Trinity is a logical concept.

Definitions:

Logic =
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Christianity =
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
God =
http://www.religionfacts.com....

1st round acceptance.
2nd, 3rd round arguments/rebuttals
4th Round rebuttals and conclusion only (no new arguments)

Good luck!

LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!!
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

I accept.

As a side note, I believe this is the link my opponent wanted to post for the God definition. If not, please clarify as the link I tried was not working but this is from the site and I used the sub menus to get there.

http://www.religionfacts.com...

Debate Round No. 1
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Thank you again for accepting and clarifying one of my sources.

Logic is important


I just want to clarify once more that I am debating why, from logic's perspective, God is necessary and a sensical concept. Do you see why I want to debate you? Because as an atheist you must surely believe that God is the most nonsensical, illogical concept possible. I believe that sometimes logic overcomes the science in textbooks, which I will get into later, but I also believe that there is a great amount of complicating science in logic, therefore logic is important and we must use it when contemplating the idea of a Creator God.


As a side note, I will argue that if something is 'illogical' it is also 'unreasonable' but one may construct a logically valid deduction that has one or more premises that are unreasonable. That would be a case of being logical, yet unreasonable. The atheist Lewis Vaughn agrees with me, if you wanted to know.


Ever since Plato in his cosmological book called the Timaeus, the vast majority of people who have thought (and wrote) carefully about ultimate origin questions and the nature of reality have agreed with Plato that “something can’t come from nothing.” Even the average person who has not studied philosophy, when presented with the principle that “something can’t come from nothing,” will have this very clear thought that this is at least more likely true than not true. [1]


Without God...


The First Cause Argument


This reasoning has never been refuted, and my on-going statement that will be used in this debate is 'no thing can come from absoute nothing.' It's an axiom that shouldn't even be debated. To me, that statement is common sense (or logic). But what doesn't seem to be logical for everyone is the alternative to a Creator God. There are the atheists, the polytheists, and any other category besides monotheists, who have their own way of explaining how the universe began. The point is that my reasoning is that none of those explanations are logical because it conflicts with the most logical thing I know: that something cannot come from nothing. Since you probably already know the general definition of the First Cause statement I presented at top, I will dig a bit deeper.


Stephen Hawkings tried to assure us that, with the Law of Physics, it is quite possible and even evident that something came from nothing. But if all the physical laws had been explained and proved (known as the Grand Theory of Everything) our understanding of the actions of God would not be one whit greater: his existence and his actions are of a different order. [2] (Must I explain to you/S. H. what the definition of 'nothingness' is?) Most particularly it would not touch the question of how something existing comes out from nothing. That is a question which science cannot answer, and will never answer, because nothingness is not within its domain. Hawking apparently does not address this question – which is the true and ultimate Theory of Everything. But what philosophy can teach us is that neither he, nor you, nor I will ever explain creation, except through faith.


The Meaning of Life


What is the meaning of all this intelligence and animals who contribute to our planet if it all happened by pure 1 in a million chance? You might reply with something that has to do with evolution. Then I ask you, why did evolution happen? If evolution had happened, why are humans teh way we are now: feelings, emotions, and wisdom beyond any ape's comprehension? Why do humans even think about our existence if it all happened by chance for no reason? Why should we even want to live (what should be our motives for life) if we know that it's obviously a random happening that has no real objective? Please attempt to answer all those questions. I would be greatly pleased.

Suppose everyone believed God was real, particularly because the Creator had been scientifically proven and it is now the most obvious thing. First, we wouldn't be debating this, and we'd most likely be debating something about "God's personality" if anything! But to get back on topic, do you think everyone's perspective of the meaning of our lives would be much different and more secure and reasonable?

God from the Christian Bible is a likely Creator

Because there now is existence (and we do not intend to debate this point), then something has always existed. Either God always existed or matter has always existed. If there was no God, then matter has always existed. Matter, as much as is scientifically known (this author has a Ph.D. in one of the sciences) is composed of atoms which are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons (no one really knows what protons, neutrons, or electrons are composed of--though some type of energy appears probable there are also quarks and other items that seem to be involved). [3] The Bible backs up the argument that God has existed forever. Consider these verses: Genesis 21:33 says "Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called upon the name of the LORD, the Eternal God." Psalm 90:1 says "Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. Before the mountains were born or you broghtu forth the earth and the world, from the everlasting to everlasting you are God...For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." Psalm 100:5 says, "For the LORD is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations." Ephesians 3:10 says, "His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. Revelation 1:8 says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.'" Deuteronomy 33:27 says, "The eternal God is your refuge." 1 Timothy 1:17 says, "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen." [4]

The Bible talks about this type of debate and, quite suspectedly, says in Psalm 14:1: 'The fool says in their heart that there is no God, they are corrupt...The Lord looks down from Heaven on all mankind to see if there is anyone who understands, any who seek God. All have turned away." You can probably guess why. Admittedly, there is lots of misconceptions, lies, paths that lead down the wrong direction, misleadings, and confusing hypothesis and ideas. It's hard to know which one is correct. But if we study the nature of God and the Bible which is His Word, we can come to see the puzzle pieces fit together and take sovereignty over all man-discovered science.


Sources:




iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

Firstly, I would like to thank my opponent for opening this debate up to me. I think it is an interesting topic as an atheist, for the simple reason that the God concept to me is completely illogical. As such I always am interested to find out how others deem it logical.

Logic is important


Clearly, as my opponent has pointed out, I believe logic is very important. However, in the opening statement that my opponent gives about the importance of logic I think it is necessary to point out that in fact something can come from nothing and not as my opponent says “Ever since Plato in his cosmological book called the Timaeus, the vast majority of people who have thought (and wrote) carefully about ultimate origin questions and the nature of reality have agreed with Plato that “something can’t come from nothing.

Something coming from nothing, is known as the Casmir effect. In essence in the Casmir effect you have particles (something) coming into existence from the quantum fluctuation (nothing). (1)

To rebut an argument that may arise to this Casmir effect, which effectively shows that something can come from nothing. I will jump straight into what surely is philosophical rigmarole with no logical basis. My opponent may disagree that this nothing (quantum fluctuation) is not nothing, however let me be very clear this nothing is described, it has meaning, it is logical. In contrast the nothing my opponent may propose in fact has no logical basis. As such my opponent first needs to demonstrate that their nothing is actually factual and hence logical.

The First Cause Argument


My opponent used the first cause argument, which relies on the idea that something cannot come from nothing. As I pointed out above my opponent has yet to prove this nothing concept using logic. As such this argument has been effectively rebutted until my opponent can present evidence which shows both that the Casmir Effect is not real and logical, i.e. the quantum fluctuation is not nothing ,as well as further logical proof that the nothing presented as an alternative is in fact nothing.



My opponent then bashes Stephen Hawking, I must say I find this weird as again I will restate the same line of reasoning again. My opponent has presented zero evidence for nothing. Physicists (Stephen Hawkings included) have presented evidence for the only nothing which follows logically. As such everything my opponent throws at the debate at this moment does not stick as it is illogical, in fact we can say that it does not follow my opponents definition of logic. That is, it is not “science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.”(2) it is rather just what my opponent asserts with no scientific investigations.

The Meaning of Life


The meaning of life is not a logical argument. As this can clearly be subjective and logic is not meant to be subjective, it is meant to be objective or true, i.e. facts. To demonstrate this, let me give definitions of the words objective and subjective.

Objective: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings (3)

Subjective: relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind(4)

Now my opponents meaning of life is based on the argument that a god exists, or the supernatural. This is subjective as my opponent has not shown any proof that a god exists and this world view is based on emotion until it can be shown to be true. “If evolution had happened, why are humans teh way we are now: feelings, emotions, and wisdom beyond any ape's comprehension?” On the other hand, my meaning of life is based on the reality of nature. This is objective, as it is what I can observe and it is not based on my emotions.

So, yes, I have not answered my opponents question about the meaning of life. However, it is not necessary as my opponent is presenting a argument for the meaning of life which is not grounded in logic. This debate is meant to be about God being a logical concept.


God from the Christian Bible is a likely Creator


My opponent now makes that massive jump of assertion that the unproven creator is the Christian God. Yet, at this point my opponent has proved nothing! My opponent also assaults our sense with verses from the Bible, a book which needs to be demonstrated as accurate and the true word of God before it can be considered logical and relevant to the debate. However, before this can be done my opponent needs to logically demonstrate that God exists which has not been done. Please see the previous arguments if you do not believe me.

As such bold statements like “But if we study the nature of God and the Bible which is His Word” and “Because there now is existence (and we do not intend to debate this point), then something has always existed. Either God always existed or matter has always existed.” should not be taken as fact. As these bold statements are based on nothing, zero, nada, zip, zilch. They need to be proved!


Conclusion


My opponent has made baseless assertions after in building their case for a logical God concept. What makes it worse is that some of these assertions are demonstrably false, i.e. the Casmir Effect.

In effect my opponent needs to try again. Start from the beginning and build an argument that is logical. Build an argument that is based on fact. Don't build an argument based on emotional pleas.

I know hand the debate back to my opponent. You have some hard work ahead off you so good luck.

(1) http://www.scientificamerican.com...

(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...

(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...

(4) http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Debate Round No. 2
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

The process of this debate will not go very smoothly if Con and I are presumably arguing about the logic in the concept of "nothingness," if I understood my opponent's entire argument correctly. He says that I must provide my evidence that something can't come from nothing and he says that he does not believe you can prove nothingness! But because we know that there was a beginning to the universe, we can safely assume there once was nothing at all (except, perhaps, God). Plato and I agree(d) that it is logical, otherwise said as common sense, to believe that something cannot come from nothing. Unless my opponent can prove the opposite, this debate is in my favor.

My opponent clearly bashed me for bashing Stephen Hawkings. This is getting nowhere, Con! But alas, I must go with it. Read on to see that S. H. believes there was a beginning of time and there will be an end. This is, in fact, what he said about the beginning of time:

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end. When I gave a lecture in Japan, I was asked not to mention the possible re-collapse of the universe, because it might affect the stock market. However, I can re-assure anyone who is nervous about their investments that it is a bit early to sell: even if the universe does come to an end, it won't be for at least twenty billion years. By that time, maybe the GATT trade agreement will have come into effect."

He obviously seems to be quite sure about the dates and calculations. But the funny thing is, on the lecture he wrote [1] he didn't give any scientific reasoning for his belief that the universe didn't need a cause for the effect. So due to entertainment this brings, I will provide some quotes that Prof. Hawkings said about the meaning of life:

1. "We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." Really? That's great to have in mind.

2. "I think computer viruses should count as life ... I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image." He says the opposite of what the Bible says about God, which says that we are created in His image and in His nature. Interestingly disgusting, in my opinion.

3. "The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes." I am going to attempt to refute this because I think this is why atheists like you might believe God isn't necessary (or a logical concept).

The questions that still aren't answered are these: Why are humans the only (and most) intelligent creature that is possiblly existing in our universe?

And: Why is there life at all?

And lastly: Why did time itself even begin?

Rebuttals

Con says:

"My opponent used the first cause argument, which relies on the idea that something cannot come from nothing. As I pointed out above my opponent has yet to prove this nothing concept using logic. As such this argument has been effectively rebutted until my opponent can present evidence which shows both that the Casmir Effect is not real and logical, i.e. the quantum fluctuation is not nothing ,as well as further logical proof that the nothing presented as an alternative is in fact nothing."

Who is the Burden of Proof on, anyway? Since I am arguing that God is a logical concept, I might have the burden to present proof for the statement that there was a Cause of the effect. But because my argument that something cannot come from nothing is logically sound which means in this case makes common sense, and Con has not given any logical arguments that support his side of the Casmir Effect, I do not have anything to prove. His illogical arguments cannot disprove my logical statement.

Con says:

"The meaning of life is not a logical argument. As this can clearly be subjective and logic is not meant to be subjective, it is meant to be objective or true, i.e. facts. To demonstrate this, let me give definitions of the words objective and subjective."

My opponent then gave the definitions.

"Now my opponents meaning of life is based on the argument that a god exists, or the supernatural. This is subjective as my opponent has not shown any proof that a god exists and this world view is based on emotion until it can be shown to be true."

The meaning of life does not have to be based on the argument that a creator exists. In fact, I want it to be based on something different, but I have found no alternative. It is impossible to keep God out of this argument, whether I am pro or con, because a Creator makes things so much less complicated yet is mind blowing and logical; this makes it undoubtedly the most logical concept. This case, of the meaning of life, always seems to come back to the Cause and Effect argument because it is common sense that something cannot come from nothing. Until it can be proven that a Creator God is not possible, have you refuted me. My argument remains standing because you cannot, in any way, debunk the thought (concept) of a God. Nor can you tell what the meaning of life is.

Con says:

"My opponent now makes that massive jump of assertion that the unproven creator is the Christian God. Yet, at this point my opponent has proved nothing! My opponent also assaults our sense with verses from the Bible, a book which needs to be demonstrated as accurate and the true word of God before it can be considered logical and relevant to the debate. However, before this can be done my opponent needs to logically demonstrate that God exists which has not been done. Please see the previous arguments if you do not believe me."

First off, please scroll up to Round One invitational. You will see that the three definitions I give are logic, God, and Christianity. There happens to be a reason for that. Secondly, I must point out how my opponent has proved nothing either! Thirdly, the accuracy of the Bible can be easily proved by Creationism. But in this debate we happen to be arguing the concept of God, not the existence of God. These are two different subjects completely, meaning Con has been off topic for most of this debate so far! Creationism/Evolution is for a different debate, but I can give you all some good sources [2], [3], [4] that can explain 'God' to you.

"My opponent has made baseless assertions after in building their case for a logical God concept. What makes it worse is that some of these assertions are demonstrably false, i.e. the Casmir Effect." How, dare I ask Con, is what I said false? None of what he said was logically sound, but that's because he didn't prove anything for his statement the concept of God is not logical.

Conclusion

I concede that some of my arguments may have been appeals to emotion. But if Con thinks so too, he should give examples so that I can explain what I was trying to get across. My opponent took his rebuttals the wrong direction by saying nothing can be done if I don't prove "God exists" and "something can't come from nothing." Next time he should think twice about who has the BoP and not spend a whole round arguing about definitions and saying things like as such "everything my opponent throws at the debate at this moment does not stick as it is illogical..." yet does not explain why he says such. Thank you for your time, Con, but let's stay on topic for this round.

Sources





iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

Thanks to my opponent, this round I will keep brief and to the point. In fact I will not be replying to most of the contentions as you seem to be adamant about logic I thought why not debate logic.


Logic




If you have an argument with propositions and a conclusion. Then if any one proposition is wrong then the whole argument is invalid. In fact as the following source says “A sound argument is an argument that is both valid and factually correct.”(1) Which brings me to the next point.




Nothing



I will dedicate my argument in this round to the fact that Pro argues most importantly (the main assertion) that something cannot come from nothing. This is demonstrably false. I will now go into further detail why.



Please note that all of Pros arguments rely on this assertion. As such, if I can show Pro is wrong using evidence based science then Pros arguments fail.



My opponent has said this debate is not going to go smoothly if we disagree about what nothing is. With this, I completely agree. I have shown what nothing is according to the standard model (quantum vacuum) and this has been demonstrated. However, it seems my opponent misunderstand this, and as such I will go in detail to what nothing is.


Nothing: The quantum vacuum otherwise called as zero point energy.(2)


What is interesting about this nothing, is that in this nothing you can see particles arise and annihilate. So you are seeing something coming from nothing, please see reference 1 from round 2 if you are in doubt about this.

Now while some physicist may disagree to what this nothingness is, that is what exactly is the quantum vacuum and if there is no quantum vacuum then is there is no big bang etc.(3) These questions have clearly very large implications, as if we disregard the quantum vacuum then the big bang did not happen which leads to an eternal universe and the concept of god dies with this proposition. On the other hand if we accept the quantum vacuum as nothing and the big bang did happen, then god also dies. As from this nothing, something can in fact arise. Please go to this link and watch the video.(4)


I hope now my opponent is beginning to see why I say they need to prove nothing. I have shown the only real concept of nothing to be true, to counter my argument you need to disprove this and show the that your nothing is real.



Something from Nothing again



My opponent has said I have not shown the Casmir effect to be logically true? Yet the link I provided in the first round shows this to be a very valid scientific phenomena. Maybe my opponent thinks science is not logical? In the movie clip mentioned in reference 4 cited above, you can see what is meant by the Casmir effect. In fact, here are a number of scientific publications which have demonstrated the Casmir effect.(5,6,7) I have also decided to embed a youtube video that further demonstrates the Casmir effect here.(8) Its long so you don't need to watch it.





In brief the Casimir effect is obtained by evacuating a cylinder with two metal plates of negligible mass put near each other. You are literally removing everything in this cylinder, that is there is no gas, no light, there is nothing as defined above. Then when you observe this tube of nothingness, what you will see is these metal plates moving together. You are literally observing something coming from nothing!




If you are not impressed now, then nothing will ever impress you.



Some other points


Regarding Stephen Hawkings, I don't mind you bashing him. I was just pointing out the flaws with your argument which has to do with nothing. So basically see the arguments above.


Also the questions you say are unanswered are irrelevant, as you have yet to prove your initial premise.


As such why do I need to answer these questions when your argument to get to these questions is flawed. In fact I think these questions could make some good debate questions.



Conclusion


In this round I have shown that something can come from nothing. My opponents whole concept of god being a logical concept is based on this premise. I have demonstrated this premise to be flawed, as such the idea that god is a logical concept is void. This is according to the laws of logic which my opponent holds so dearly.


Now I hand the debate over to my opponent for their final round.



(1) http://people.umass.edu...

(2) www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
(3) http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
(4) http://www.newscientist.com...
(5) http://arxiv.org...
(6) http://arxiv.org...
(7) http://web.mit.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Thank you. Now for the last round.

My opponent continues to talk about the form of my argument. For example: "If you have an argument with propositions and a conclusion. Then if any one proposition is wrong then the whole argument is invalid. In fact as the following source says "A sound argument is an argument that is both valid and factually correct." But I don't see his point.

Casimir Effect

Con: "What is interesting about this nothing, is that in this nothing you can see particles arise and annihilate. So you are seeing something coming from nothing, please see reference 1 from round 2 if you are in doubt about this." The references just prove my case. My opponent obviously can't grasp that pure nothingness cannot include particles, and though it is quite insuperable to fathom, it is vital to have the idea of straight-out nothing in your head as you try to figure this out. The last paragraph in his link he gave went like this:
'Einstein's theory of gravitation implies that this energy must produce an infinite gravitational curvature of spacetime--something we most definitely do not observe. The resolution of this problem is still an open research question.'
The site Con gave proof that science cannot explain the origin of this universe and the way everything came to be! This is fascinating and amazing, because the only alternative for the creation of this universe, is a legit Creator, a.k.a. God.

IAAA can't prove anything for his side of the argument. Why? Because, as he said before, it is impossible to observe nothingness since we have something in existence at all times. Particles are something, is it not? So my opponent's video is invalid. His entire argument the past round has been invalid, due to the fact that he based it on an assumption that NOTHING really IS SOMETHING (particles). Why? At 2:20 in the video, it says that energy is what creates the particles. But this straight out contradicts Con's definition of 'nothingness,' which is: 'the quantum vacuum otherwise called as zero point energy.'

Of course, atheists have to have some sort of explanation for our existence, so they create the Big Bang concept and, controversially, the evolution hypothesis. Science seems to out do religion--or so they say. Point is, all the arguments, debates, and thoughts about abiogenesis and the origin of this universe COMES BACK TO THE CONCEPT OF GOD. A Creator God is the only logical concept out there, and my opponent has proved that throughout this debate itself.

Con: "I hope now my opponent is beginning to see why I say they need to prove nothing. I have shown the only real concept of nothing to be true, to counter my argument you need to disprove this and show the that your nothing is real." Well, because of our topic of logic/common sense, I used

This link [1] tries to explain the Big Bang. But the mistake it makes, is it does not explain what nothingness is. There is a giant, obvious hole in the explanation because it doesn't say where those particles, where the energy, where the air, where any of that even came from before going on to say how those particles, energy, etc. became

Studies show that there was a beginning to the universe; that something started it (or from your perspective something just happened). [2] You can't deny that there must have been a beginning, you can't defy the fact that there was once an utter place of nothing (physical). Soooo...

Which is more logical: Faith in Creator God? Or blind faith that everything came from nothing?

John Lennox once said:
'Faith is not a leap in the dark; it's the exact opposite. It's a commitment based on evidence...and it is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. That provides a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding discussion.' [3]]

Con said: "Then when you observe this tube of nothingness, what you will see is these metal plates moving together. You are literally observing something coming from nothing!"
That's the thing, in nothingness there will BE no metal plates or movement! Besides, as I said previously, you cannot prove this because the nothing could do ANYTHING, because it is impossible (at this time) to create an environment of nothing.

My resolution has been that the Creator in God is a metaphysical necessity. [4] Since my opponent does not believe I proved my initial premise, I will further explore possibility that God is not real.

Logic tells me that without God we can't make sense of the world, without God we have no foundation for epistemology, no foundation for science and none for ethics. Apart from God you can know nothing and that is why it's the only reasonable, or logical, world view. The way we view the world is the most productive, because it is telling you that we are not stardust but that we are special, beautiful creatures made in the image of God; the way we view the world is the most constructive because of morality produced; our world view is the most logical and reasonable because it explains free will, (im)morality, explains the meaning of life, and works with what science brings about.

Some atheists might mock the Bible, saying 'how convenient it is for a book to tell you not to question what it says.' I can imagine my opponent thinking up all the clich"s in Christianity and others, and then explaining why they are illogical and--sorry for a lack of words--a stupid concept altogether. But the Bible actually says this: "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." Why would a religion's book say that? 1st Peter 3:15 [5] is proof for the validity of Christianity in general because the Bible tells us that the world (people and their culture) will do everything the opposite as Christian and it will be difficult to stay on the right path with God. The main book that is supposed to promote it's so-called religion, tells the followers the truth: that the Christian journey will NOT be easy. Why? Because the Book IS the truth. It holds some of the most astounding philosophies and stories ever known. From the 6 days of creation [6] to the end times prophesies [7], God reveals the beauty of life to us through His Word [8].

Con says: "As such why do I need to answer these questions when your argument to get to these questions is flawed. In fact I think these questions could make some good debate questions."
Why are you debating this if you won't accept the truth? The truth is that there are other world views from yours. The truth is that NOT ALL science proves your world view. The truth is that you do not know why, where, how, when, what or who started the universe, and you do know that your view on it doesn't make sense. The questions of the universe are the 4 or 5Ws, and the answers always have "GOD" results. See link [6] and try to disprove Creationism.

But then I must ask, why do you care what others believe if what you believe is just a cause of randomness from the fizzing of your brain, that you are nothing more than stardust, that you are just matter and you will die away because of nature at any time?

I have yet to find a reason that the concept for the Christian Creator is unnecessary, or unreasonable, or illogical.

Thank you.

Sources:

[1] http://www.nsf.gov...
[2] http://gizmodo.com...
[3] http://www.thepoachedegg.net...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[6] https://www.youtube.com...
[7] http://www.gotquestions.org...
[8] https://www.youtube.com...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con


Thanks to my opponent for the debate, please realize what follows is not a personal attack. However, I am at a loss how to explain why I reject your hypothesis.



My opponent either refuses to accept the logic that I have presented, or I have used to difficult examples. So lets try one more time in this round to show why my opponents entire argument is false.



This is how something comes from nothing.



1) Nothing is defined as the quantum vacuum, or the zero energy state. That means that is nothing. So at this point we are observing no particles, or to put it differently we are observing nothing.



So thats step 1.



2) The we observe these particles pop into existence, this means we are observing something. This is us no longer observing nothing.



So thats step 2.



So we have nothing, and then something arises. So, something comes from nothing.



So when Pro points out that this is not nothing, Pro has yet to provide an alternative that is tried and tested. I fact we are just given bold assertions to take Pro on faith. I am sorry to say Pro logical concepts don't rely on faith only, they require truth. You have not shown there to be any truth to your nothing assertions.



Your argument is defeated. Its defeated by pure reasoning, and while you may not see my point, I am hoping that the voters can follow the simple logic I pointed out in previous rounds and again here.



Truth be told, these concepts are not easy concepts to grasp and I have honestly tried my best to present them in the simplest form possible. If I have failed to explain these concepts in simple English, please let me know so I can try refine this for future debates. However, I would ask that you don't vote against these truths if you feel you don't understand them.



Now a few other points and fallacies that I feel I should point out.



Einsteins theory of gravitation which my opponent claims defeats my argument has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. It has to do with gravitation. As such, please do not buy into my opponents false pleading when they say “The site Con gave proof that science cannot explain the origin of this universe and the way everything came to be! This is fascinating and amazing, because the only alternative for the creation of this universe, is a legit Creator, a.k.a. God.



My opponent states “Of course, atheists have to have some sort of explanation for our existence, so they create the Big Bang concept and, controversially, the evolution hypothesis. ” The concept of Big Bang was not created by atheists, it is a well established scientific theory. To say atheists created the Big Bang to discredit theism sounds like loony tunes. Additionally, evolution is not a controversial hypothesis it is a very widely accepted scientific theory so much so that it is considered a scientific fact by many.



My opponent also quotes John Lennox, may I say here just as I said for Stephen Hawkings, I do not care what he said. I want to see the logic, I want to see the science, I don't want appeals to authority.



Lastly, pro goes on a bit of a rant.


“Con says: "As such why do I need to answer these questions when your argument to get to these questions is flawed. In fact I think these questions could make some good debate questions." Why are you debating this if you won't accept the truth? The truth is that there are other world views from yours. The truth is that NOT ALL science proves your world view. The truth is that you do not know why, where, how, when, what or who started the universe, and you do know that your view on it doesn't make sense. The questions of the universe are the 4 or 5Ws, and the answers always have "GOD" results. See link [6] and try to disprove Creationism.”


Yes, there are differing world views. But not every world view is correct. You said God is a logical concept and as such you need to prove it. Lastly if I may be so bold to ask, Why do I need to disprove creationism? It has never been proven in the first place and this is what you call shifting the burden of proof when you ask me to disprove something.



Now I hand this debate over to my voters. I ask that they hold in mind what the resolution of this debate is. My opponent said they would show that God is a logical concept. If you believe my opponent has shown this please by all means vote Pro, and explain why you believe Pro said so as I have no idea why my opponent said its logical.


Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Daktoria 2 years ago
Daktoria
Also, Pro's position is dependent on empiricism, not rationalism, and like history, empiricism is illogical, so again, Pro lost.
Posted by Daktoria 2 years ago
Daktoria
I just gotta say Pro lost this debate from the beginning. Con could have said nothing and still would have won. Pro historicized rather than analyzed the concept of God, so since history is illogical, he automatically lost.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
This has been interesting! Maybe there should be a part two, lol :D
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Its okay. I just wanted to make sure. :)
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Thank you for validating my link, I am sorry for not rechecking the source before posting it. :{
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Did you get my message?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
JasperFrancisShickadanceiamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Neither had poor conduct in this debate. S&G - Pro. While both had proper S&G for the most part, I noticed several spelling errors from Con in the final round. Due to the fact that Pro didn't have as numerous errors, I must award Pro this point. Arguments - Con. Pro presented the something from nothing arguments which remains a popular theory to date. Aside from this though, nothing else Pro presented really took off in regards to affirming the resolution. There was alot of emotional appeal, shifting of burdens, and biased sources. Pro also made alot of assumptions regarding truth. Con presented the Casmir effect which refutes the something from nothing argument. A majority of this debate was spent arguing who proved/lacked what, and at the end, I found the evidence for the Casmir effect to outweigh the evidence presented for the something from nothing theory. This also plays into my source vote which I award to Con due to his sourcing from less biased sites/studies.
Vote Placed by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
JasperFrancisShickadanceiamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution is that God is a logical concept. The main flaw with Con's argument is saying that "nothing can cause something" which pro refuted well in later rounds. Pro did not need to provide evidence for God, but simply demonstrate how God is a logical concept.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
JasperFrancisShickadanceiamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was a little condescending, but I'm going to explain why she still gets the conduct points. Con never actually argued the Casmir effect. He simply said it was a thing then posted a link for everyone to read. Technically that's plagiarism, because no original argument was made. Con just took someone else's work and made it an argument for his debate. In order for it not to have been plagiarism, con should have explained it thoroughly in the debate and explained why that negated God. Even still, I think the argument about whether or not God gas a logical concept got lost in a debate as to whether or not he exists. Pro did provide a logical concept (the unmoved mover argument), and con didn't actually refute that. I did, however, still give con the sources point for using concrete sources, while pro used a blog and "proofthatgpdexists.org." I don't usually have a problem with Christian sources (as in a problem with bias), but those two aren't considered really reliable in my book.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 2 years ago
Daktoria
JasperFrancisShickadanceiamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: To be clear, I believe that God can be a logical concept, but Pro went on a tangent from the very beginning by focusing on the creation of concrete reality. Logic is abstract, not concrete. You can't demonstrate the supposed logic of God by taking that path. Pro continues to try to discuss how something comes from nothing, but again, this isn't logical. Logic isn't about the manifestation of concrete reality into existence. It's about the manifestation of IDEAS which TRANSFORM reality's existence, ideas which don't need to come from experience. Furthermore, this isn't to say that life is necessarily meaningless either. The point is that life's meaning comes from the process of living as an abstractly reasoning creature who's in touch with objective reason, not from something that preceded life.