The Instigator
Champybeat
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
SimonSmasher
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God"s existence

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 2 votes the winner is...
Champybeat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 783 times Debate No: 104985
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Champybeat

Pro

Hello.
I shall allow the opponent to begin the debate.
SimonSmasher

Con

So since you are claiming something, you are subject to the rule of debate known as "The Burden of Proof". This means YOU need to provide evidence for your claim because YOU are the one making the claim. For example: If I said the world was flat - I'd need some evidence to provide in order to be taken seriously. Likewise you need to be the one to give the evidence of god's existence.

Secondly, I might as well use the biggest piece of evidence against god, which is evolution. If you can agree that evolution is fact (which you should - you can literally see bacteria evolving in real time in petri dishes), then how does your religion still hold any weight provided evolution's existence?

Please answer these two points in your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Champybeat

Pro

Hello.
I. Concerning the burden of proof:
Indeed, it does lie on me for making the positive claim (I.e. "God does exist). And I would, just for example, point to such things that are impossible in a naturalistic/materialistic worldview; such things as the laws of logic, laws of nature, uniformity in the universe, etc. (And we could also fit in the fine-tuned universe, as well.) For example, the laws of logic - they cannot exist in a universe apart from God, as they are universal and immaterial - which contradicts the naturalistic/materialistic worldview which asserts only material nature exists. So the burden of proof concerning the laws of logic actually lie on the naturalist, for they must demonstrate they do, which they can"t because they are immaterial (you can"t bump your head on the "law of non-contradiction" for example).
II. Concerning evolution:
How in the world is this evidence against? It appears this is more of a baseless assertion. Sure, bacteria can gain antibiotic resistance, and sure organisms change to adapt to their surrounding environment. I am curious as to how this is evidence against a logical, orderly Creator who made his universe in such a way. And I"m curious as to why organisms must* follow these laws (concerning adaptation, evolution, etc.) in a naturalistic worldview.
(And note: I believe in the evolution you speak of [such as on the micro level]; I believe species change, for example [e.g. galapogos finches that Darwin observed]. I do not believe in common ancestry, however [i.e. I believe animals were ultimately fashioned by the Creator directly "de novo"]).
SimonSmasher

Con

Unfortunately, I am having a hard time understanding your first point. I don't want to misinterpret, so please correct me if I am wrong. You are saying that because a world without God is so contradictory and illogical, then I am subject to burden of proof? I would have to say this is in fact an extremely interesting and intelligent point that Is never thought of.

However, one issue I have with your argument, is a lack of proofs. You made the claims that "laws of logic, laws of nature, uniformity in the universe, etc. are impossible in a naturalistic/materialistic worldview", yet you only attempt to provide evidence for the laws of logic. If we are to hold a proper debate " I would expect you to provide at least an explanation for your points - or not to mention them at all. Since you have yet to elaborate these other claims, for now, I will ignore them.

Let us then address your laws of logic claim. You say these laws "cannot exist in a universe apart from God, as they are universal and immaterial". This "contradicts the naturalist/materialistc worldview which asserts only material nature exists", as you claim. I would disagree that these laws cannot exist apart from God, for in my opinion they have nothing to do with him, and furthermore, logic itself is not universal or immaterial. Logic is defined largely as two things. One, it is a system defined and used by humans as a thought tool. We have given definition to the system in which we make arguments, solve problems, and invent solutions. This can be seen throughout history, as philosophers developed these laws as time progressed. They did not discover them as Newton discovered the laws of gravity, they were invented. Although these laws may be extremely well thought out and complex, this does not make them divine. Two, the region of our brain which is responsible for logic is tangible and observable (just as it is in many other species displaying logical abilities). Logic is merely a problem-solving ability that allows species to choose the most favorable outcome. Therefore, the "Laws of Logic" are not a divine force, but a concept simply created by man.

Now on to your second point on evolution. You say that you believe in evolution on the micro level, but you don't see how this provides evidence against God. Well, if that is how you see evolution, then it would make sense for it to be unworthy evidence. However, I was not making the point for solely micro level evolution. Evolution is not exclusive to micro levels, it is a law of nature that shapes species and creates new ones. Common ancestry, an idea you refuse, is based upon the ideas of micro level evolution, something you agree with. This cherry picking is not acceptable within the scientific world. If you can not agree with common ancestry, then you can't agree with evolution. Back to my point, if evolution is true, then God's existence must be false; because he did not make humanity, nor any species. Here are the best sources I could find to support evolution's existence as it is regarded as scientific fact. I would encourage you to change your view on evolution, even if you remain religious, for many people of faith also accept evolution. Denying evolution is an outdated and ignorant trend akin to denying the shape of the earth.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://humanorigins.si.edu...
http://biologos.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Champybeat

Pro

I. The primary idea of my first point is that 1.) I believe we can all agree the laws of logic exist (or else we might as well end the debate, if we can"t argue logically); 2.) the laws of logic are immaterial; we can"t touch them nor see them. This is a huge problem for a worldview without God (i.e. naturalistic/materialistic worldview), where only physical nature exists. If we are to hold to this worldview, we cannot accept that the laws of logic exist, as they can only be immaterial (and so not compatible with a materialistic worldview).
II. Yes, they are impossible. The naturalistic/materialistic, by definition, holds that ultimately, everything that exists has to be physical, and nature is all there is. The immaterial laws of logic are not material.
III. We describe what we observe, yes, but that didn"t mean we invented the laws of logic, rather we discovered them. For example, before humans came into existence, the sun could not be a sphere and rectangle at the same time, as contradictions are not possible? Why? Contradictions are illogical. But again, we must dig deeper; where did these laws come from, and the universe have to obey them at all times? What determined such things are illogical in the beginning? We have them the label "law", but it"s because we observe them that we were able to give them the label "law". For example, humans did not decide contradictions are impossible - they observed it.
IV. Perhaps you misunderstood me - I never claimed any laws were divine.
V. If the laws of logic are limited to our skulls they are not laws of logic. As logic would be completely subjective. Also, the laws of logic work everywhere in the universe at all times. Contradictions are universally impossible; it"s not our brains that decided this subjectively.
Back to evolution. . .
I. Evolution is a law of nature. But why? What determined the laws of nature (and logic, mathematics, etc.)? Humans sure didn"t invent them! These laws would be in place regardless if we existed.
II. It is most definitely not cherry-picking. Evolution is not a doctrine. We observe micro evolution. We"ve never observed macro evolution. When species evolve, they lose genetic information (e.g. coyote cannot return back to a wolf). Macro evolution requires an increase in genetic, beneficial information - the opposite of what we typically observe.
III. Evolution would explain life? How in the world? Biological macro evolution, true or not, does not explain the beginning of life. And again, evolution (on any level) can be considered a law of nature - it always works. But why? What causes the Law of evolution (or any natural law) to come about by natural processes? Why must the universe submit to these laws?
IV. To compare the denial of evolution to the denial of a spherical earth is very, very wrong. Never have we observed macroevoltion. From a lack of transitional fossils (Darwin"s would be astonished at the lack of he lived into the 21st century), the Cambrian explosion, the never observed process (increase in beneficial genetic information), the failing to explain the origin of the natural laws (including evolution), and the failing to explain the origin of life by abiogenesis - it is most definitely not unreasonable to deny we came from a common ancestor.
SimonSmasher

Con

I agree that the laws of logic exist, yet I disagree that they are intangible. The laws of nature and logic can be observed through the scientific method as these laws govern over that which is observable.

For example, in an experiment, a scientist places an apple and a pair on an elevated position within a vacuum. He has a tracking device in the fruit to document their speed. He lets the fruit fall to the ground, and calculates their accelerations. He finds their acceleration to be the same! Another scientist in a far-off country performs a similar experiment and they find the same result. This is a law of nature: gravity. Although these scientists are observing objects, they can observe this law of nature and its effect on the material world because it is equally a part of the material world.

Upon further thought, I am unable to fathom how laws of nature or logic could be "immaterial" as you say. What are you imagining the alternative to be? How could a law of nature be material, when it is the force governing that which is material? If you are trying to say that since it is only observable through other means (i.e. seeing the laws through experimentation), then yes, they are "immaterial". Yet what does that prove? You seem to think because these laws exist outside of humankind, then it must be proof of God. This is not the case. Just because we did not make the laws of nature, doesn"t mean a God did. They existed before us, and will for all of time after. You ask why do these laws exist, why do they govern the universe, if not for God? Well these questions are incredibly pointless. Asking why the sky is blue isn"t a meaningful question. Science can tell us how the sky is blue, but to ask why is pointless! What point does this serve? I don"t understand why everything needs to have a meaning. The universe is as it is, and why is a question for philosophers but in the end these questions mean nothing. The only real questions are those that ask how. Just because science doesn"t have all the answers, doesn"t mean God is the next best explanation. Sometimes saying "we don"t know" is the correct response (and most commonly it is).

Back to evolution, you clearly didn"t read the articles I provided. Macro evolution is observable through fossils, and countless other means (such as DNA). Transitional fossils don"t exist for a reason! That"s not how evolution works. I"ll provide an easy to understand youtube video that will hopefully lead you to exploring more. Your coyote and wolf example make no sense, a coyote CAN turn back into a wolf if its environment demanded such adaptations that resemble its ancestor.

https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Champybeat

Pro

I. We observe the universe obeying them - subject to them. We cannot physically see the laws of logic.
II. You seem to be missing the point. Are they part of the material world? Sure, the entire universe follows these laws. This still doesn"t explain why the universe acts in such a way, and why the universe is "bound" to them (i.e. they can"t be broken).
III. I ask where did such laws come from. Where did they originate. Why must the universe obey them? Why does the universe *have* to always work in a logical, orderly way. When it came into existence, why does it function so properly in accordance with these laws?
IV. Science doesn"t always close gaps - it often opens them. The immaterial laws of logic are not compatible in a universe where *everything must be physical, material. This logical, orderly universe points to a logical, orderly Creator.
V. Science will never discover logic. Logic is presumed for anything (e.g. we must presume we are logical from the start of the debate).
VI. But to shut out God for everything is pointless - lest, naturalistic processes become our "god of the gaps" (I.e. we don"t know but it HAS to have come about naturally [Darwin said this about the origin of life]).
VII. The question of where the laws of logic care about is quite important, indeed. Otherwise, we are totally missing a foundation for logic. The laws of logic is evidence for a logical Lawgiver who made his universe in an orderly way. To shut the door on God and claim "it"ll be explained one day -naturally!" Is far from scientific. On top of that, they can"t be explained naturally. They are not composed of anything. They were "in place" when the universe began.
VIII. I would also like to ask where DNA information came from - for it is immaterial. The immaterial information is what makes you you rather than a cabbage. Where did such information come about that makes the variety of organisms we see today possible?
IX. No, a coyote will never return to its ancestor - it lost genetic information. We"ve never observed an increase in beneficial, genetic information. The coyote can "evolve" and adapt to its environment, but it will not be able to return to its "previous form". As for DNA, we can expect similarity if we have a common Designer (e.g. a "blueprint", so to speak, for his organisms that would live on the same earth). An argument for DNA similarity is based on preexisting presuppositions that will lead to different conclusions.
X. What is your personal explanation for the lack of transitional fossils?
SimonSmasher

Con

I'm really sorry, I am having a hard time understanding you and your arguments. I concede the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
Champybeat

Pro

Okay, I understand.
To summarize as simply as possible, concerning the laws of logic:
1.) They are immaterial and universal; 2.) The universe has to obey them; 3.) They existed before humans (we did not create them, rather discovered them); 4.) They cannot exist in a materialstic worldview (which states only material nature exists).
Therefore, this is one example of evidence for a logical Lawgiver who made his universe in a logical and orderly way - the Creator.

And as a Christian, I must address my purpose is not to win an argument with you, rather, lead you to consider the existence of God, and lead you to his Son. For we are sinners. And yet, God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross to save us from our sins, and was resurrected three days later - making salvation possible to all men. Therefore, if we put our faith in Christ and his saving work for us - confessing him to be Lord - we will be saved and receive the free gift of God. For we are saved by the grace of God alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
And I believe that, as John Piper puts it, 'God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in him'. Ultimate satisfaction and supreme happiness are only found in God alone through Christ. Forever, we can enjoy God and bring glory to him - all because of the Christ.

I most definitely appreciate the debate. It was enjoyable speaking with you, and thank you for the respectful discussion.
SimonSmasher

Con

I am grateful for the respectful discussion as well, I think Christians such as yourself are very kind and intelligent people.

I won't summarize my points as I have conceded.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by SimonSmasher 8 months ago
SimonSmasher
@asym allow me to challenge you to a formal debate on evolution.
Posted by tfroitz1 8 months ago
tfroitz1
You state that there being "laws of logic" is not consistent with the naturalistic worldview and that these laws are something above the material. Now I don't see any reason to thing that logic is some immaterial law. This would for example raise the question how this entity logic would bring physical things to work in a certain way. Now if we look at how logic developed it is pretty much obvious why the natural world works by the rules of logic.
Logic is in itself a concept which is used by brains of high enough development. This is due to the fact that logic is derived by humans, through the observation of our natural world. It can be well accounted for by evolution, as such organisms which judge their surroundings according to logic have a higher chance of survival. Humans build the "laws of logic" through observation of the surroundings and developed a system of logic which would obviously describes the natural world because it was derived from it.

Now the question why the world works by certain laws such as the natural laws which imply it working according to logical laws is a question, which is hard to answer. Your perception is that just a god could make it that way. This isn't actually necessarily true, as there are several possible scientific models for example of the multiverse which are scientificly consistent with the observations we make inside our universe. The view taken by many cosmologist is, that there are multiverse models which fit the date and even some with a good chance of being true (Sean Carroll explains it well (for example in https://youtu.be...). As there are scientific ways to explain it and also the god hypothesis for the beginning of the universe isn't fitting the date (you can always make them fit because god is not well defined, but that has nothing to do with actually finding the truth) of our universe as well, we can see that our world can be accounted for without a god.
Posted by Asym 8 months ago
Asym
You must appreciate the evidence around you. If I suggest to you that the computer you are using has just come about from no where with all those complex features and functions, I am sure you would not believe that and it cant just happen by chance. There must be someone who has designed it to perform all the complex tasks it performs. How can you then not understand by looking at the fascinating design of universe and all that exists and say that there is no GOD.

You drink water to sustain and live. You get abundant water on planet earth. Why? There is someone who knows you want water to live. You need energy from sun but do not wish to get burnt? There is surely someone who knows that and has placed the sun at a distance which is just fine and enough to give energy but not burn.

Why has the process of transformation now stopped from APES to MAN. APES and MAN maybe now both are happy and content in their bodies.
Posted by Asym 8 months ago
Asym
Who determines that "having an adaptation to grow disproportionately would not be advantageous."? You have conceded to my argument and what I am implying that GOD is the sole of everything around us. Majority of humans are not born with disproportionate body parts are in great proportion and size.

The intricate and complex features that our bodies are blessed with cannot just happen by chance. You must have sense to appreciate. How and why the body of the female is different from male. Who has designed the reproductive system the way it is in Humans and other species too.

You talked about breasts, females have big breasts and feed milk while males do not grow breast and feed. Females conceive and give birth males do not. The female body has been designed that way. Male body on the other hand is different.

If there is no GOD who has designing this and why is it the pattern the same in all bodies. I talked about the sun to imply that it is following a pattern which itself is explaining that is working under the Command and order of ONE TRUE GOD.

HIS NAME IS ALLAH AND HE IS ONE AND ALMIGHTY. I invite you to read a copy of English QURAN. The only religion that explains everything. He has created all that exists.
Posted by SimonSmasher 8 months ago
SimonSmasher
@asym Your face and hands are symmetrical because having an adaptation to grow disproportionately would not be advantageous. For that matter, your ears and hands aren't exactly symmetrical, there's lots of people who have differently shaped breasts, feet, ears, etc. When you mentioned the sunset, you think the theory of evolution explains the sunset?! Evolution merely explains the complexity of life, the sunset occurs due to a rotating earth orbiting the sun. For that matter (again), the sunset isn't at the same time day to day, year to year, nor is it the same as it were 1000 years ago. How is the evolution of ape into man so nonsensical? The species are extremely similar in both a physical and genetic nature. Overtime, the two species diverged and the apes possessing bipedal spines and intelligent brains became humans. There's literally fossils showing the transition from the great apes into homo sapiens! I don't see how this seems so outlandish... It's not as if one day a monkey was walking along and then *poof* it was a human. Before you comment on evolution, you should learn for yourself what exactly it is you're talking about.
Posted by Asym 8 months ago
Asym
Evolution is a totally flawed theory because simply speaking why my left hand is similar to my right hand in shape and size. My left side of the face is in symmetry to right. How is this possible. Had been due to evolution why did my right ear not grow out of proportion. This is logical and cogent evidence for people with common sense and understanding. Lets look at the sun now. The sunset today will be exactly at the same time the sun set of about 1000 years ago. Where has this order come from, surely not from evolution theory...monkeys transforming into humans...nonsensical
Posted by Zlatanq8 8 months ago
Zlatanq8
Evolution?
Can iPhone 5 go to iPhone 6 by itself?
Posted by hunter76869 8 months ago
hunter76869
are your for Gods existences or against
Posted by Debating_Horse 8 months ago
Debating_Horse
Why did you make two debates based on the same topic?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 8 months ago
Mharman
ChampybeatSimonSmasherTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
ChampybeatSimonSmasherTied
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: Concession.