Debate Rounds (5)
Whether or not there is a God is entirely dependent on whether or not the universe has purpose. An easy way to think of it is simply that an ordered thing must have been ordered by a thing capable of ordering. Perhaps a redundant way to say a simple truth, but I'm sure it is easily grasped. So, if there is order in the universe, then there must be one who ordered it. So then, in order to prove that it is logical to think that there is a God, I must prove that there is order in the universe.
Now, this task is much easier than it may seem. One can easily tell from observing organisms that they are ordered and serve specific functions, down to their smallest part. For example, a bird's wing is for the purpose of flying and its beak is for the purpose of eating, and these two parts of the bird combined with all it's other parts, form the entire bird, who's purpose is to survive. This purpose is shared by all beasts. Another simple truth, but a necessary one.
Now, Man also is purposed to survive, but analysis of his body reveals that he is made for more than only surviving. It is very obvious that in many ways, Man is unlike any other animal.
A few of the most important traits are:
- Man's upright posture
- Man's unparalleled comprehension
- Man's unparalleled linguistic skills
From Man's body, one can discern what each implies about his purpose. I will go through these three traits and unpack what each reveals.
Man's upright posture causes Man to be more naturally inclined to gaze upward, unlike beasts which naturally have their faces towards the ground, and it causes his hands to be free from the earth, while animals must tread with their paws.
Man's inclination to look upward reflects his mind's ability to ponder higher things, things not pertaining to his survival. Beasts are not rational, and therefore are incapable of reasoning and pondering higher things, which is reflected in their faces being positioned towards the ground. Man's hands being freed from the ground is also extremely important, because his intellect and free hands allows him to make art. Man is the only animal capable of making and appreciating art. Thirdly, Man's linguistic skills reveal that he is meant to live in community with other men. Language is essential to society, and without it, Man would likely live as a nomad. While other animals seem to have things akin to society, none have society as complex and necessary for health as Man. This reveals that Men are meant to live in society with one another. I could go on, but I fear already I've spent too much time on the foundation of my argument.
So, it has been demonstrated that Man is unique among the animals, and has a higher purpose than the others. His purpose is to survive, like the beasts, but also to ponder higher truths and make art in society. This makes the existence of God seem more logical, because why would nature simply choose one animal to be intellectually capable, and curious about higher things (things like God), if it had no reason for doing so? It makes sense that God would give Man these intellectual tools, so that Man could ponder truth, and eventually discover God.
Now, some take Man's complex and noble nature as proof of God in itself, like you said: "humans are so complicated that they must have a maker," but you bring up the very naturally rising response: "who made the maker?" This idea is complicated, but not unintelligible. I say that the "Prime Mover," (that thing which has caused everything in the universe but is not in itself caused by anything) is the most logical explanation for the origin of the universe.
Now, without getting too scientific, I say that Divine Agency is the most logical cause of the universe because entropy in a system always naturally increases, effect always follows from a cause, and matter cannot be created or destroyed. And so it was unnatural (supernatural if you will) for the big bang to have happened. The big bang is theorized to have been a great explosion of order in an instant, where there previous was little to no order, with great amounts of matter being created, with seemingly no cause for doing so. This big bang is completely unreasonable apart from being the work of a God. To put it in bullet point:
- The big bang is supernatural because entropy decreased in the system
- The big bang is supernatural because effect came from no cause
- The big bang is supernatural because matter was created
So simply naturally, this big bang is quite impossible. And yet, there seems to be a great amount of evidence suggesting that it happened. It is more logical to think that this event was caused by a supernatural being than to think that the universe for some reason acted completely against it's nature this one time.
To your third question, God cannot simply "make himself or just appear," he never appeared, he always has been. Now this makes sense because time is only the measure of change, and God never changes, therefore he is outside of time. And Man does change, so he is inside of time. Note, Man only shares some of the characteristics of God, those are what set him apart from the beasts.
So then, in short recap and conclusion, I have said:
Firstly, that it is most logical to think there is a God because of Man's nature,
Secondly, that it is most logical to think there is a God because it is the most logical explanation for the universe,
Briefly and thirdly, that God's having been forever is not impossible, but logical.
I hope my attempt to write my argument in the most understandable way was successful, and I look forward to your response. Please respond to each point clearly and individually.
I look forward to your reasoned response.
I think most people would agree that things evolve to better suit their environment and increase their chance of survival. Man was in a bad position at one point and the only way to get out was to think outside the box. So basically use our imagination. Many species go extinct all the time because they don't have an imagination which makes humans the dominant race. But just because humans have an edge over the rest of these creatures does not mean that it was intended by a greater power. Saber-toothed lions went extinct but many other animals survived. Does that mean that god favors some animals over others? No of course not. Some animals adapt better than others giving them an edge. Now by this logic one species would adapt better than all the others. That is why humans are dominant. It's not a god given blessing.
You'd asking why nature would defy its own laws only one time? Why does nature have laws? Humans gave nature laws but that doesn't mean the laws are true. The laws are made from what we humans can gather. There is plenty we can't prove and plenty we can. The whole big bang theory is what got me thinking about the proof on both sides. Of course there is proof of the big bang like how the universe is slowing down or how there is noise of an explosion in space but there is also plenty that can't be proved. Mostly about what happened before the big bang but for the most part i think it has enough proof to be a viable option. You said that there is no other answer to the universe so their must be a god. Just because we dont have the tools to prove something does not mean that we should automatically assume some divine being created us all.
So basically since we can't prove that there was anything before time there must have been god. People look at this wrong. People look at it and try to make the religion fit in the facts when instead they need to find new facts and new ideas if one doesn't fit the facts. You're taking the lack of knowledge that we humans have and trying to shove your religion into it and try to make it fit. I don't see this as a reasonable thing to do. It's like trying to put a square object into a circular hole.
Secondly, you are correct, due to the modern scientific method, we don't really know many things for certain, we can only be sure to a certain degree that a theory is correct, but I am claiming that God is logical not through the scientific method per se, but really just through observation and logic. So, it doesn't prove anything to say that we don't know for sure that the big bang theory accurately describes the creation of the universe. The evidence suggests that it is most logical to think the universe was created by the big bang, and the big bang is evidence that it is most logical that God was involved, as I stated above, and as you failed to address.
To state that more clearly, I am not arguing that it has been proven 100%, without a doubt that God exists, I am arguing that it is most logical to believe in God. I am directly contesting your thesis that: "people believe in god because they don't have another answer. In other words they follow a non-existent thing to compensate for their ignorance because they're scared of the unknown and want to make it known by any means necessary including convincing themselves there is a higher power." So far, I've given you logical reasons why God is logical, and you have failed to respond.
In your response, please prove that what I have said is false, and prove that "[I'm] taking the lack of knowledge that we humans have and trying to shove your religion into it and try to make it fit."
I anxiously await your well-reasoned response.
NathanaelsOption forfeited this round.
This debate has been a complete disappointment for me, as Nathanael came into it talking a big game. If anyone thinks they could have argued Nathanael's side of the debate better than he did, please contact me. I would be interested in rearranging this debate with a more competent opponent.
Nathanael, if you do visit this debate again, I hope you at least take away from this that theology is not as simple as you seem to think it is, and perhaps you do not " see the truth." And perhaps, you are really the one who is "compensat[ing] for [your] ignorance."
Your last chance to properly defend yourself approaches. Good Luck.
NathanaelsOption forfeited this round.
SeekinTruth forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year 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: Con ff more than Pro, so conduct to Pro.
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.