If God Exists
In this Debate I will be debating with a "believer" and I will attempt to convince them that God cannot exist and the pro will be arguing and supporting religion. The religion that I would like to focus on is Christian and that is of which I will be critisizing. This will be a serious debate.
First of all, in the bible it states that God is a spirit. Since a spirit has no physical form, it cannot be matter, so if God were to somehow exist in light or sound. Also back to physical form, since we probably both agree that has no physical form since in the bible it literally states, “Spirit of God.” So if God has no physical form it is impossible for him to have a brain and to think, or to carry out any actions like walking or flying about. Therefore, almost everything in the Bible is impossible because God can’t do anything that he says he can. So now that I have proven, using scientific facts and reality to prove that this magical man can’t exist. I do not understand why the people of today still believe in religion. Religion was invented by primitive people 3,000 years ago to explain how the world worked, and to satisfy the human instinct to know. But now, today, we actually know. So why do we still dwell on faith to guide our lives even though the plain facts of reality show us that God does not exist. I believe that we still hide behind this curtain of faith because people won’t listen to the facts. It is like in the book 1984, the people of Oceania won’t ever listen to the facts, but will only listen to Big Brother because he tells you to. Religious people will never listen to reason because God says to put it in faith, so it is very difficult to pull religious people out of the magical world they live in, where God is their all-knowing hero that will protect them in every step in life and is their “savor.” This thought is very comforting and also adds to the difficulty of exposing religious people to truth since they will simply not listen, they are almost, brainwashed. Now that I have explained why this imaginary figure of God was created, how it is impossible for him to exist I would like to see any type of evidence that God exists since religion has none of that. Science has bones proving evolution, and evidence, because evidence is what actually proves something, not believing. “I do not want to believe, I want to know.” Carl Sagan.
I'd like to establish one thing up front: Saying that theists live in a "magical world" and are "almost brainwashed" is not an argument. I assure my opponent that I don't believe in magic, nor am I brainwashed. Since these statements are both false and irrelevant, I will ignore them. I hope we can avoid using such language in future rounds to prevent descending into ad hominem.
I'd also like to clarify the argument here. Con claims they will show that "God cannot exist." That is much different than saying "God does not exist." Con must therefore make a sound case for why it's not even a POSSIBILITY that God could exist. If I can establish that it's merely possible for God to exist, then I have succeeded.
Since no round conduct was specified, I will indulge in a few initial rebuttals.
== Rebuttals ==
Con claims that God cannot exist because he lacks physical form and therefore cannot have a brain to think or feet to walk. Of course, this assumes that God must be made of matter in order to exist. This is a strange assumption to make when discussing a being who is supposedly "supernatural." If god is supernatural (literally, "above nature"), then he is not bound by natural laws. Consider the following:
I think it's reasonable to assume that if God exists, then he is an omnipotent, supernatural being who created the universe. As the universe's creator, he invented the natural laws and the concept of matter. Therefore, if God created matter then he cannot be made of it because that means matter must have existed prior to its own creation, which is a nonsensical contradiction. I don't think it's hard to imagine the possibility that a supernatural, omnipotent god could figure out a way to walk even though he lacks feet. Con's argument essentially tries to define an all-powerful immortal deity within the confines of mortal human anatomy, which doesn't make much sense.
Con claims to have used scientific facts, but I do not see a single source citation. Once again, if god is "above nature," then it doesn't make much sense to use scientific facts derived from within nature as a way of disproving the possibility of his existence.
Unfortunately, I cannot offer more rebuttals because there are no more arguments. Con goes on to posit why religion still exists, makes some comparison to "1984," and then mentions the aforementioned issues with "brainwashing" etc... Finally, Con ends with a Carl Sagan quote which has no relevance to this discussion. None of these points are arguments, and they certainly do not prove why god cannot exist. As such, this will conclude my rebuttals.
== Arguments ==
On to my initial arguments. Once again, I do not have to prove that god exists, only that it is POSSIBLE he exists.
1. Origin: Even with all our amazing advances in modern science, humanity has done little more than scratch the surface of all the knowledge the universe has to offer. As such, even the most brilliant astronomers on the planet must admit that we still don't REALLY know how the universe began. Yes, we have the Big Bang theory, but it's an extremely broad theory that still contains many conflicting and unanswered hypotheses. Furthermore, we have no really good or verifiable theories as to what caused the "bang" in the first place. If nothing somehow exploded into everything, then what exactly exploded and what caused the explosion.... and then what caused the cause of the explosion? These are questions science may never answer. Since we have no answers to these questions, I submit that God remains as a possible "First Cause." (as a side note, Big Bang does not conflict with theistic creation at all. Big Bang states that the universe was "created" by a huge cosmic explosion of energy, which is essentially what creation posits as well.)
2. Astronomical probability: If god cannot exist, then all life on earth is a giant cosmic accident. The raw probability of every variable needed to support life is extremely small. The exact distance of a planet to its star, the speed and axis of rotation, the atmospheric composition, the synthesis of proteins, etc... The chance of each of these events happening randomly in the same system on the same planet is close to zero. Notice, I did not say it IS zero.... so it is still a possibility. But this debate is all about what is possible and what is not. I submit that if we're willing to accept that the odds of evolution via cosmic accident are close to zero, then there is certainly also room for a nearly 0% chance that a supreme deity could exist.
3. Naturalism cannot produce true meaning, purpose, or morality: A purely natural process cannot produce intangible, unnatural concepts. Therefore, without God there is no true meaning, purpose, or morality in the universe. If my opponent believes this to be true then they have embraced Nihilism, and we will discuss that in the next round. I believe it is not true, and I submit that humanity's universal sense of meaning and purpose allows for the possibility that a god who instilled such things might exist.
Looking forward to the next round.
I congratulate my opponent on their response and I thoroughly apologize for language and descending, that was uncalled for.
So you said, as a comeback from my response about science was that, “If god is supernatural (literally, "above nature"), then he is not bound by natural laws” and, “I think it's reasonable to assume that if God exists, then he is an omnipotent, supernatural being” So you obviously you believe that God is “supernatural” and is totally inconsistent to facts and to everything that we have observed in the universe.
My opponent repeatedly says I must prove god exists to win the debate. This is false. Con specified their position in Round 1 as "God cannot exist." So, since I am opposing this claim, my position is "God can exist." This debate is about whether it's possible for God to exist, not if he actually does. It's not an excuse, it's the premise. I don't want to get too semantic, but I needed to clarify that.
Con says I must show proof to support my claim, and I 100% agree. Con defines proof as: "demonstrate the truth or existence of something by evidence or argument" and they go on to demand I must show evidence. Yet, my opponent seems to ignore that last word in their proof definition - "argument." I can also demonstrate proof through argument, which I believe I have done.
As a final disclaimer, Con provides videos and links to explain their arguments. They also list several random websites at the end. This is called an "appeal to authority" and it's a logical fallacy. If you want to make an argument, you have to say it in your own words within the character limit. Hyperlinks are not arguments. I'm not debating Neil Degrasse Tyson, I'm debating hayhen13. Since these points are not valid arguments, I will ignore them. I sincerely look forward to my opponent offering arguments I can actually respond to in the next round.
== Rebuttals ==
My opponent continually appeals to "scientific facts" that render God impossible, yet I still don't see any of these facts presented in Con's argument. The only trace I can find is when Con broadly mentions evolution and the Big Bang, neither of which I dispute. My point is that evolution and the Big Bang do not prove God is impossible. Like I said in Round 2, the Big Bang is quite compatible with theistic creation. For the next round, I challenge Con to specifically list the "scientific facts" they reference that prove God cannot exist.
Con says I must believe in magic according to a "literal definition" of the word, and I therefore contradict myself. There are no doubt many definitions for magic, but the top 3 listed in the Merriam-Webster dictionary do not match Con's definition, nor do they include the term "supernatural." So while Con can reference one definition, I have at least 3 others I can point to. Anyway, this is pure semantics, so let's move on.....
Next, Con curiously attacks my assumption that if a god exists he probably created the universe. I think this is an extremely valid assumption and I'm not sure why Con questions it. To be clear, the definition of God I am working with is: an omnipotent being who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. So yes, I am assuming if god exists he created the universe. I don't see a problem with that.
For the Bible verse reference, it's pretty obvious that Jesus is not saying "pray for whatever you want and I'll give it to you! Free money for everyone!" He is talking about "truth" - seek truth, ask for truth, knock on truth's door, and you will find it. Jesus was not concerned with making people rich, he was interested in revealing what he perceived as Truth. God refusing to turn you into a bird does not prove he can't exist.
My opponent says that human imperfection proves God cannot exist. It doesn't. It proves that God gave humanity a choice, and we chose to reject his plan and invite imperfection into the world. If God is truly perfect (which he must be, by definition), then it makes no sense to measure him against a human definition of perfection. If we admit that humans are imperfect creatures with limited knowledge, then we cannot possibly know what true perfection is.
I again point to the fallacious logic of saying God must be made of matter. When Con says "we have never observed anything other than matter in the universe, so why should we assume that somehow doesn't exist in God. It can't" they violate the Problem of Induction. This is like saying "I have never observed a black swan, so all swans must be white." This is a fallacy because, obviously, black swans do exist, and no amount of observations of white swans can discount that. So, simply saying "we have never observed anything not made of matter" does not prove everything is made of matter. I once again submit that matter is unnecessary for the existence of a supernatural, spiritual being.
Con's rebuttal to my Argument #2 is not really a rebuttal. They basically said scientists have found evidence to support the Big Bang, which I agree with. The Big Bang is the "giant cosmic accident" I'm referring to. If there is no supreme being controlling things, then the Big Bang was essentially a random accident.
I fully realize there are other earth-like planets. That still doesn't change the fact that they are extremely rare. I assure Con that I do not need a lesson in basic astronomy, I know how planets form.
Finally, I'm shocked that my opponent can deny the possibility of god, yet accepts that true meaning, purpose, and morality exist in the universe. I eagerly look forward to hearing Con explain how this is possible.
For the sake of brevity, I'll leave it at that. I still submit that Con has failed to demonstrate why it is not possible for god to exist.
Thank you for that response, I enjoyed it.
“For the sake of brevity, I'll leave it at that. I still submit that Con has failed to demonstrate why it is not possible for god to exist.”
I guess I have to prove that God cannot exist, so I will prove that God can’t exist through proof and evidence. To prove God is impossible, I will first use fact. I have already proven that God is magical. (The definition I used was by Google https://www.google.com... ) And magic has already been proven to not be real; therefore a magical creature, God, has already been proven not to exist. Also, God could not have created the universe since, vast data shows that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, not one week! I suggest you ask your God in your prayers why he created a Sun that gives off UV rays that cause cancer, and earthquakes that cause mass death.
“God refusing to turn you into a bird does not prove he can't exist.”
Well, it actually does, because in: Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16 it says, pretty descriptively that God will answer your prayers and if you have prayed, I hope you can admit that God has never answered you.
“God refusing to turn you into a bird does not prove he can't exist.”
In the Bible it says, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” So if I believe in faith I “will receive whatever you ask for in prayer” so, according to the bible, I should be able to turn into a bird.
"’I have never observed a black swan, so all swans must be white.’ This is a fallacy because, obviously, black swans do exist, and no amount of observations of white swans can discount that.”
You gave a very clever comeback for this and I compliment you on that. But, by this same theory, then radioactive neon teddy bears traveling through space can exist. Because no matter how much of the real world we observe, they can always be there.
“I'm shocked that my opponent can deny the possibility of god, yet accepts that true meaning, purpose, and morality exist in the universe. I eagerly look forward to hearing Con explain how this is possible.”
I will explain that this is possible because it is part of human nature. Not given to us by Gods. This is scientifically proven that morality comes from human society. I find it ludicrous to believe that someone wouldn’t think it was wrong to see millions of people slain and tortured just because a God told them it is. In a recent survey, many Christians were asked, “If God commanded you, as he did to Abraham in Genesis 22, to take one of your children and kill him/her upon an alter as a demonstration of your faith and obedience, would you do it?” And the vast majority said absolutely not. They said that because they were acting on an evolved moral system, that naturally recoils at the idea of murdering another living being. Now you say that we get our morals from a God that would like someone to murder their child for the God’s own pleasure, as in Genesis 22.
That concludes my response I’m sorry, but I could not put much time into this debate so I hope it supports me. I will explain more in the next response about God’s existence. Thank you for this debate, good luck!
Con continues to press their point that God is a "magical creature" according to their google definition, and is therefore impossible. I have already shown that there are multiple definitions for "magic," and Con has given us no reason to accept their single definition while rejecting all others. I submit that Merriam-Webster is probably a more accurate source for definitions than google.com. Anyway, this argument is purely semantic and contains very little, if any, substance.
The universe being 13.5 billion years old does not disprove god's possibility whatsoever. I am unaware of any theories, even theistic ones, that claim the universe is one week old, so I'm not sure where my opponent is going with that. My simple counter to this is perhaps god created the universe 13.5 million years ago.
UV light is harmful in some circumstances, but it also has many benefits. For example, UV light is responsible for the formation of vitamin D in the skin . If god exists, then he did invent UV light.... but he also invented an atmosphere containing ozone that protects the earth's surface from its harmful effects. Under a healthy ozone layer, dangerous levels of UV radiation do not reach the earth's surface. Besides ozone, UV light is easily blocked by hair and clothes (which are made from plant and animal fibers.... which god also created). God never commanded us "thou shalt take thy shirt off at the beach!"
I'm a bit confused why Con is using so many Bible verses as proof that God cannot exist. This is a catch-22. In order for a Bible verse to serve as valid evidence, my opponent must accept the Bible as a credible source. If the Bible is a credible source, then it proves god exists, and if it's not a credible source, then it cannot count as valid evidence for Con's argument! So which is it?
I will not admit that God has never answered a prayer, and Con cannot prove otherwise.
However, I will still entertain this idea. It is well known that Jesus often spoke in figures of speech called parables. Parables are metaphors, they are not meant to be literal. So Jesus is not literally advocating throwing mountains into the sea. They key here is context - scripture must always be interpreted through the broader picture of scripture. Yes, there are time where Jesus encourages people to pray with great faith and confidence, as if to move a mountain. But Jesus also gives an example of exactly what a prayer should sound like. This is often called "The Lord's Prayer."
"This, then, is how you should pray:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,[a]
but deliver us from the evil one."
- Matt 6:9-13
So Jesus says prayers should consist of worship, asking for god's will, asking for provision (daily bread), and forgiveness. No mention of turning people into birds or granting random wishes like a genie. Moving on....
Even though my opponent gives an extreme example, they are technically correct that neon astronaut teddy bears cannot be disproven simply through a lack of observation. Making a claim of certainty from the absence of evidence is called an "argument from ignorance," and it's a logical fallacy. My rebuttal still stands.
The final point - morality, purpose, meaning. Con continues to say things like "this is scientifically proven..." yet still refrains from actually explaining or citing such scientific "facts." I challenged Con in the last round to specifically cite all these facts they are alluding to, and they did not.
A random survey (that also has no citation) does not demonstrate how true morality, meaning, and purpose can exist in a purely random and natural world. There can be no objective purpose or moral truth in the world if there is no source of objectivity. Nature cannot be a source. I agree that only a crazy person would deny the evil of slaying millions of people. But let's take it a step deeper - if there is no god and the random natural process is all there is, then what exactly makes killing intrinsically evil? I again submit that the universal appeal to morality and meaning (which Con makes themselves) is enough to concede that a god is possible.
I would list more arguments, but I don't believe Con has successfully refuted my original 3, so I will stop here.
Looking forward to the concluding round.
Thank you for that clever response, now for my response.
“demonstrate how true morality, meaning, and purpose can exist in a purely random and natural world. There can be no objective purpose or moral truth in the world if there is no source of objectivity.”
So your argument was that morality, meaning, and purpose can’t exist is a random world, which is a very good question that you raised, and I applauded you for that.
I will thus defeat this argument, by showing that in no way, the Bible shows true morality, meaning, and purpose. “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.
If you believe that morals and purpose have to come from God and the Bible, I’m sorry to demonstrate to you, that this is incorrect. The very book Christians get their morals from is in fact very immoral, as described in the previously given quote. You get your morals from a God that says,
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
“As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
So your; loving and holy God gives descriptive instructions on how to pillage villages and how people are property. I will assure the voters that there are many, many, many different verses in the Bible that show the true morality in your beloved God, but I believe I have made clear what the Bible’s ‘true morals’ are and do not want to waste more space with thissince I have defeated your argument.
Many Christians’ excuse for God demanding Abraham to murder his own son more God’s pleasure, and other acts of ‘true morality’ is that; the Bible is not meant to be taken ‘literally’ or, that it was only the Old Testament and things were ‘different’ back then. I will then inform these believers that the whole foundation of the New Testament is that; Jesus is the son of God, and he is redeeming humanity from original sin, and the only way to redeem this is to have the horrible death and torture of his son. The very thought that we humans, are born into sin, is a sinister idea. This, thus concludes my point on how humanity does not account their morality on this God, and therefore defeats your entire claim. “I again submit that the universal appeal to morality and meaning (which Con makes themselves) is enough to concede that a god is possible.”
“they are technically correct that neon astronaut teddy bears cannot be disproven simply through a lack of observation. Making a claim of certainty from the absence of evidence is called an "argument from ignorance," and it's a logical fallacy. My rebuttal still stands.”
Okay, what I don’t get about religious people is that, they choose to base the foundation of their whole life on the chance, that in an alternate reality, God could exist, and he can never be disproven since anything's possible. Even if God somehow existed, why any intelligent person would base the foundation of humanity on this slim chance is beyond me. My point in mentioning neon astronaut teddy bears was to try to help religious people realize the absurdity of their belief, by proving that neon astronaut teddy bears have just the same amount of possibility to be just as real as their God, and to show them the logical reason.
I absolutely agree that, “Making a claim of certainty from the absence of evidence is called an "argument from ignorance," and it's a logical fallacy.” Since that is exactly what I am trying to portray! Religion is exactly, “Making a claim of certainty from the absence of evidence” since, what evidence do you have that God exists? You have given none, and you continue to elude that answer. I agree with you that this is, “a logical fallacy” since it absolutely is, as I have stated previously.
I will prove that, as you said, religion is a “logical fallacy” since the definition of faith is, by Merriam-Webster, since you apparently only approve that one, is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” So when God says ‘have faith’ he really only means; believe strongly in me, but never listen to science, for they have proved I don’t exist. This is why so many religious people hate science, it makes me very sad. “Faith is the surrender of the mind; it’s the surrender of reason, it’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It’s our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something. Of all of the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated.” Christopher Hitchens.
“I submit that Merriam-Webster is probably a more accurate source for definitions than google.com. Anyway, this argument is purely semantic and contains very little, if any, substance.”
This is merely an opinion; this debate is over God’s existence, not different definitions of words. It is unfair that you get to pick and choose your own definitions to help your debate. And actually interesting enough, you lie. By Merriam Webster, the full definition of magic is: “an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source” The fact that you would lie about definitions and facts to prove your debate saddens me.
“I am unaware of any theories, even theistic ones, that claim the universe is one week old, so I'm not sure where my opponent is going with that.”
I can understand how you were confused with this. I was referring to the world’s creation in the Bible, in which God creates the world in one week. I apologize if this was made unclear. But then you go on to say:
“My simple counter to this is perhaps god created the universe 13.5 million years ago.”
Well according to your own Bible, the universe is 6,000 years old, “the Bible indicates that the universe is about 6,000 years old. For those who claim to believe the Bible, this difference alone should be sufficient reason to reject the big bang.”
So, for God to exist, the universe has to be 6,000 years old. But there is scientific proof and evidence to show that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, as even you mentioned. So therefore God cannot exist. I hope you respond to this, and do not evade it.
“UV light is harmful in some circumstances, but it also has many benefits.”
This whole paragraph that you made was how UV rays help us. This was a response to my claim that; if God is perfect, why did he create imperfect things, example: UV rays that cause cancer? Your response was saying that UV rays actually help humans, which is correct, but if God created all the laws of the universe, then why did he have UV rays cause cancer, why did he created cancer in the first place, for all it does is end lives and cause despair. You never defeated my argument, merely gave information on the sun, please answer why God created cancer in your response.
“If the Bible is a credible source, then it proves god exists, and if it's not a credible source, then it cannot count as valid evidence for Con's argument! So which is it?”
This is a very clever response, very clever in deed, I compliment you for it. I obviously do not believe that the Bible is a credible source since it contradicts itself, much more than 143 different times, and its explanation of the universe is inconsistent with everything that we have observed in the universe. So yes, you are correct in that the Bible is not a credible source at all; I am astounded in why people base their lives on it. So the question is why I use it as evidence, well I use it as evidence to show that God and the Bible are not credible sources, and to show that God doesn’t exist. I am using what God apparently said in the Bible to prove his nonexistence.
I believe have defeated all arguments and proved God’s nonexistence, look forward to the results.
Bible King James Version
Before I begin, I'd like to re-emphasize that this debate is about the POSSIBILITY of God's existence, not the ACTUALITY of it (see Round 1).
== Response ==
Con's answer for how objective morality and purpose can exist in a godless world is simply: "God is mean." (a paraphrase, of course). With all due respect to my opponent, this is an irrelevant and slightly humorous answer. Saying "the Bible teaches bad morals!" does not remotely answer the question of how objective morality exists.
It's very interesting that Con chooses to quote Richard Dawkins in listing out God's "evils." This is the very same Dawkins who also wrote "There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." and "We are machines for propagating DNA. . . It is every living object"s sole reason for living."  So, I'm curious as to how the man who says there is "no evil and no good," nor any purpose beyond propagating DNA can turn around and express moral outrage at all of god's supposed "evils." This is exactly my point, and Con failed to address it - before I can respond to the moral character of god, I need to know on what basis my opponent accounts for the existence of concepts such as "good" and "evil," because if there is no basis for making such categorizations (which there isn't), then Con's protest of this point is meaningless and impossible to answer. My claim was not that the Bible teaches true morality, it was that true morality does not exist if god is impossible. Con did not defeat this claim... they simply neglected to answer it.
Next, it's interesting that Con accuses "religious people" of basing their whole life on chance... because that's exactly what atheism is! If god is impossible, then EVERYTHING exists by chance - the universe exploded into existence by chance, earth formed by chance, non-living proteins evolved into living organisms by chance, etc... Furthermore, it is by pure chance that I don't get into a fatal car accident tomorrow, or that my heart stops beating next week. If there's ever a philosophy that embraces existence through pure chance, it is atheism!
Religion, in fact, is not claiming certainty in the face of zero evidence. I have provided 3 major pieces of evidence for why god could possibly exist, and Con has largely ignored them. I readily admit there is no 100% proof that god exists, but neither is there 100% proof that he does not. "No proof" is not the same thing as "no evidence." Science has most certainly NOT proved that god doesn't exist. Quite the contrary, the most atheism can ever claim is that "there's no evidence that god exists." Which, of course, violates the very logical fallacy we seem to both agree with.
My opponent says that it's unfair if I get to pick my own definitions for the debate. I would kindly remind Con that they were the one who initiated the argument of "magic" based on a definition of their own choosing, not me. I merely pointed out that there are many possible definitions for magic, and that Con gave no reason to accept their chosen definition over all others. Finally, I most certainly did not lie, and I encourage my opponent to re-read Round 3. I referenced "the top 3" Merriam-Webster definitions, which after you examine the blue box in the following link: http://www.merriam-webster.com... you will see that my statement was perfectly accurate.
There's not a single passage in the Bible that says the earth is 6,000 years old. In fact, "young earth creationism" is a very new idea and it is not the historical position of the Christian Church. Many Christians, including myself, do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old. My simple response is: the universe does not have to be 6,000 years old for god to exist.
Although I think the UV light discussion is outside the scope of this debate, I will give a short response. The root of Con's protest is: UV light may be helpful sometimes, but then why would god also make it harmful? A fair question. Using Con's logic, this protest can also apply to just about anything: Chemicals can be helpful, but also harmful. Metal can be helpful, but also harmful. Medicine can be helpful, but also harmful. Assuming god exists, does it mean he is therefore imperfect because he allowed for chemicals, metal, and medicine? No. It means he intended for things to be used in a certain way, and when humans abuse them things go wrong. So, I think it's perfectly reasonable for God to say "there's this thing called UV light, which is good but can also be dangerous. But don't worry, I created this thing called ozone to protect you from it. If you preserve the ozone and cover your skin with clothes, you'll be fine." So is god to blame when we destroy the ozone and go shirtless at the beach? No.
Next, Con admits the Bible is not a credible source, so therefore it cannot be used as proof that god is impossible. This is not a debate about the truth of the Bible, it's a debate about the possibility of god. I believe that's all that needs to be said.
== Summary of Arguments ==
My evidence for why it is possible for god to exist remain as follows:
1. There is no solid explanation for how nothing exploded into everything during "The Big Bang" or what caused the Big Bang and why. Since we do not know what caused the universe, the possibility of god cannot be eliminated.
2. The probability that the perfect conditions on earth arose by random chance is nearly zero. The chances are so small, that scientists have had to invent experimental and (quite frankly) strange theories like the "multiverse theory" to account for them. Since we really have no idea how to account for our existence under such slim odds, god cannot be dismissed as an impossibility.
3. Con agrees that morality and purpose exist objectively, yet they cannot account for the source of these concepts in a godless world. As such, god remains as a possible source.
I don't believe Con has refuted these three arguments, but that will be fore the voters to decide.
**Personal note: Thanks to Con for this interesting and fun debate, great job. If you'd like to continue this discussion in a less formal setting, feel free to private message me.
|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||3|