Debate Rounds (3)
I'd like to reiterate that the existence of any god is a positive claim and that it is up to my opponent to make the case for the existence thereof. I eagerly await a retort containing such a case.
I have taken this debate for my opponent's sake. From his first round argument I get the impression that he thinks belief in God is a positive notion, the existence of God would be positive, yet he has not been presented with arguments that would justify his existence. I will present those arguments to him. Though my arguments will not be from a Judeo-Christian perspective, I do believe that the God I believe in is the same God of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jesus (Judeo-Islamo-Christian). Because my opponent has not presented a formal format to the debate, I will simply take his main concerns and address them as contentions. My arguments will point to biblical sources, but I must point out that my philosophy is based on science, and not religion, therefore my interpretation of statements will be from the context of a society void of science and the scientific method in comparison to generally accepted science. All my biblical sources will be from Young's Literal Translation.
1- There are various definitions for omniscience. None appear in the bible. I will, however, attempt to present theological perspective, and compare it to science.
a. 1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight : possessed of universal or complete knowledge (http://www.merriam-webster.com......)
2- The simple theological definition for omniscient is "all knowing". This theological belief is based on several passages: 1 Sam 2:3- For a God of Knowledge is Jehova; 1 Kings 8:39- Thou hast known, Thyself alone, the heart of all the sons of man; Matthew 6:4- thy Father who is seeing in secret Himself shall reward thee manifestly; etc.
a. There is no literal statement in the bible suggesting that "God would know how to create a problem he could not solve". This notion does not conform with the literal definition of omniscience, nor does it conform with the origins of God's omniscience in the bible.
3- From a scientific perspective, I stand largely with philosophers such as Alan Watts who believe that consciousness is universal. All consciousness is an adaptation, evolution, and manifestation of the nuclear (of the nucleus) consciousness of the Universe. A quick description of this philosophy shows that the Universe must be conscious for various reasons. Science observes that atoms at one point became conscious of each other, and formed symbiotic relationships in forming the first single celled organism. Evolution led to sensitivity to light. This sensitivity evolved into eyes, while other traits also evolved, etc. etc. until we reach the current highest state of evolution of universal consciousness which is manifested in humans- we are aware of ourselves, we are aware of others, we are aware of the universe, we rationalize our existence, etc. Some theorize that the next stage of evolution of this Universal consciousness is total awareness, in which all conscious beings are tapped into the energy that sustains consciousness in the first place. Christians call this energy "the Holy Spirit". Buddhists refer to the state of "nirvana" in which Japanese Buddhism refers to the first step as "satori". In Hinduism this is referred to as "moksha".
In short, God is all knowing because his is the energy which sustains all life and consciousness. Universal energy and consciousness is of him, and it is him. The Universe is aware of every action- this is Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". There is not a pebble thrown into a pond that does not have a set of consequential reactions- however minute we might view them.
Now that I've presented my first contention, the rest will be much simpler. I believe this issue to be trivial, and historical arguments have been convoluted by doctrine, theology, personal bias, etc. I will simply present that God, as the Universal energy, is the source of all energy in the universe. He is "all powerful" because all energy originated with him. The empirical Law of Conservation of Energy states that "energy can neither be created, or destroyed". My opponent states that an omnipotent being "would be able to construct something he could not destroy". This is not true considering a logical definition of omnipotence. I will not present theological definitions because I do not think them logical. A rational definition for omnipotence, understanding how the universe actually works, can be simply- that from which all energy originates.
This is another concept I thoroughly reject. A truly "all powerful" God would not possess inherently human traits like weighing whether or not a human action is good or evil. Good and evil does not exist anywhere outside of human consciousness, and is a manifestation of a lack of adherence to societal moral laws. God does not belong to any "society", nor is he capable of human actions, thoughts, desires, etc. Because God is incapable of, say, raping a child because he is a pedophile (God has no age, no sexual organs, no sexual desire, no mind to corrupt, etc.), this action cannot be considered by God as "evil". Evil is a purely human concept. Ecclesiastes 3:19-22; Eccl 8:14; Eccl 9:11; These and Ecclesiastes as a whole, though written from a religious perspective, provide a basic philosophy that we do not and cannot know what God wants. We know the seasons, we learn weather patterns, etc., we sow, we reap, and we live life accordingly. Though the word "evil" is mentioned several times, it is in the context of what man does unto man, and what man wants for himself that he cannot take beyond his physical life. Evil is a condition of exclusive to humans, period. There is no punishment of "souls". When you die, your energy returns to the Universe... ashes to ashes, dust to dust, consciousness to consciousness.
I expect my opponent will have some questions, arguments, etc., so I will stop here, and await his response. Thank you.
BarCode forfeited this round.
BarCode forfeited this round.
missmarysubijano forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.