The Instigator
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Losing
50 Points
The Contender
jjmd280
Con (against)
Winning
73 Points

If there is a God, then it is most definately the Christian God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 20 votes the winner is...
jjmd280
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,606 times Debate No: 5874
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (114)
Votes (20)

 

wjmelements

Pro

The Christian God is defined as the God of the Holy Bible that is endorsed by Christianity. He is the God of Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham.

In order for my opponent to win this debate, he or she must either prove that it is most definately not the Christian God or that another god is more correct than the Christian God.

I will further clarify as necessary.
I will present my main points in the opening of the second round.
jjmd280

Con

My compliments to my opponent for a most interesting debate topic. I wish him luck in attempting to prove the unprovable, and without further ado, let's get this show on the road!

It is rather simple to prove in logical terms that God, in general, does not exist.

My arguments are as follows -

Argument 1 -

The following augment requires the acceptance of two basic ground rules.� If ground rule #1 is broken, I will have demonstrated the impossibility of god's existence.� If ground rule #2 is broken, I will have demonstrated a failure, on your part, to sustain a valid contrasting perspective.

Here are the ground rules:

GROUND RULE # 1:

1) If the very definition of god is proven to be self-contradictory, god's existence will be considered impossible.

Examples of self-contradiction:

This box is void of any content. By adding absolutely nothing,
it will have something in it.� Or...

Joe was never here, therefore he was.

You must agree that self-contradictions, like those above, are not acceptable, and based in logic.

GROUND RULE # 2:

2) Ignorance will not be accepted as a substitute for knowledge.

Example of ignorance being a substitute for knowledge:

There is no way we can tell if there are rabbits on Pluto, therefore there are several hundred. All of them can fly.

The deductive logic in the above example is unacceptable in any practical sense. The Christian God is said to be obvious.

Now, what is the most relevant attribute of God we can see?

What is god's most relevant attribute? In a word, what makes god, god?

Answer:

"His ability to Create"

Dictionary definition: �Creation - The emergence of something where once there was nothing.

A GROUND RULE WAS BROKEN - Number 1

The concept of creation is self-contradictory.

The concept of creation is impossible. � From "nothingness", only "nothing" can emerge. Given that creation, as a reality, is self-contradictory, god's existence is impossible.

Argument 2.

As the Christian God relies on the accuracy of the Christian Bible, I show it is errant.

Astronomy. This universe is 13.5 billion years old and arose out of a cosmic singularity. No account of the development of this universe can be harmonized with the creation accounts in Genesis except that these accounts were pure mythic folklore.

Archeology. There isn't any evidence for Israelites being slaves in Egypt for four hundred years, or that they wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, or that they conquered the land of Canaan.

Geology. Confirms the slow evolutionary development of life in the sedimentary rock layers on a planet nearly 5 billion years old, just as astronomy confirms the slow evolutionary development of galaxy, star and planet formation. Geology also disconfirms that there was ever a universal flood which covered the earth.

Brain Science. Confirms that strokes, seizers, and other illnesses stem from a brain malfunction and hence disconfirms that there is something called a mind or soul. If there is an immaterial mind where is it located? If God created us with a mind then there is no reason to expect that he also created us with a brain.

Modern Medicine. Has achieved astounding results that such superstitious practices like exorcisms and blood letting and supernatural healing are delusional. The late Carl Sagan, said, "We can pray over the cholera victim, or we can give her 500 milligrams of tetracycline every 12 hours…the scientific treatments are hundreds or thousands of times more effective than the alternatives (like prayer). Even when the alternatives seem to work, we don't actually know that they played any role." Voltaire said: "Prayer and arsenic will kill a cow."

Psychology. Confirms that who we are and how we behave are determined to an overwhelming degree before we reach the age of accountability. People are not evil so much as much they are sick. There is no rebellion against God. If God is omniscient then like the ultimate psychotherapist he knows why we do everything we do. There can be no wrathful God.

I have other arguments, but to keep this in a manageable chunk for my opponent, I will rest my case here. I do reserve the right to bring them up in a later round, if my opponent is actually able to disprove my assertions. I do not claim originality in my arguments, only reiteration, for this is a topic for and of the Ages.

Again, thanks wjmelements for an interesting topic, and I eagerly await your response.
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Pro

the debate is not over whether or not there is a God, but whether or not it is the Christian God. Otherwise, it would be "There is a God, and it is the Christian God."
My opponent is trying to prove that, "If there is a God, then it is most definitely not hte Christian God.", and I am trying to prove that, "If there is a God, then it is most definitely the Christian God."
Further, my opponent's argument against the existence of any God is flawed, too, because of the laws of cause and effect.

Every effect has a cause.
The existence of the universe is an effect, which then requires a cause.
The very laws of the universe are an effect, which requires a cause.

I suggest that the Christian God existed before the universe. Any God that creates the universe and determines the laws of the universe would not have to be an observable part of the universe or obey the accept4ed laws of the universe. A god would be above the laws it creates and the universe it creates.

The bible is not errant, as I will rebut your claims.

Astronomy. The age of the universe as well as its origin is in theory, and one theory cannot disprove another. Further, many interpretations of the bible do not require that the universe be only a few thousands of years old. An all-powerful god could create the universe as if it were millions of years old in no time at all.

Archaeology and Geology. While not all evidence of the Old Testament has been found, much of it has.
Jericho: http://www.tektonics.org...
The crossing of the Red Sea: http://wnd.com...
The suggestion that the great flood killed the dinosaurs http://personals.galaxyinternet.net...
Geology does confirm that there was a great flood that covered the earth. There is a line of sediment found all over the world that divides dinosaur years and post-dinosaur years. THis could easily be the result of a flood.

Brain science. I'm not sure what my opponent is trying to say here. I do not cooncede this point, but I do ask for clarification.

Modern Medicine. The bible does not suggest that any rituals be used to cure people of disease.
However, the bible told man to avoid animals that were later found to be disease carriers. For example, the Isrealites were told to avoid pig. It is now proven to be the carrier of influenza. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Psychology. On most occasions, God has not poured out wrath upon individuals, but on groups. God has only done this a few times in the bible. The Christian God has love and compassion as any perfect psychotherapist would. There are man quotes of the bible that describe the nature of the Christian God, and I will source them in later rouns as neccessary.

I will elaborate as necessary.
Yes, this is a topic that has troubled the mind of man for all of mankind. Pascal's wager was one of the most logical assessments of this question; however, it does not prove anything or make anything certain.

Again, the universe requires a God, and the Christian God is most historically accurate.

I am often short of time. I posted this argument with barely much time left. I may struggle with time as we progress in this debate. If I fail to post an argument, then I will explain why in my 4th round.
jjmd280

Con

I shall refute my opponents argument point-by-point.

Existence Rebuttal -

First, he seems to have a problem with the logical progression of my argument. The assertion that "If there is a God, then it is most definately (sic) the Christian God." is disproven with the logical extension of my argument, "There is no God". By disproving ANY god, I disprove the Christian one by default. I see no problem with following this line of reasoning.

He begins with a flawed line of reasoning by using The famous Cosmological argument -

Every effect has a cause.
The existence of the universe is an effect, which then requires a cause.
The very laws of the universe are an effect, which requires a cause.

Rebuttal-

I agree that every CAUSE has an EFFECT, but to reverse it and assume that the Universe is an effect is an unsound argument. Besides, the universe as a whole is not an ordinary finite 'object', it is what finite objects constitute parts of; this means we have no reason to assume that the same principles apply. This can be said of both contingency of everyday material objects and their obeying of the laws of cause and effect. As Emmanuel Kant pointed out, we have only ever witnessed these properties within the universe. It would be going far beyond what we know to conclude that the universe itself has a cause or is contingent. Same with so called laws of the universe.

This argument found its backing in the assumption that God must have created everything for a reason, so cannot be used to argue for God's existence without circularity, unless we can find another reason to accept it besides a gut feeling formed by experience of living inside the universe.

A more powerful case against the cosmological argument depends on the difficulty of seeing God as "a necessary being", the cause of Himself. This is a highly problematic notion. Why shouldn't the Universe or the Big Bang itself be considered the first, necessary cause? Since we cannot begin to comprehend the notion of necessity, we have no reason to assume it can belong to God's but not to universes, or even 'bangs.'

This effectively neuters the cosmological argument's intuitive force. But even if (and I hope I have shown that this really is a big if) it succeeds completely and shows the existence of some first cause of the universe, outside the universe, it does not in any way show the existence of God. It is surprising the number of people who use it as their proof for God without acknowledging that the first cause could be anything. In no way whatsoever must it be the God of the Bible and traditional religion. The most honest answer to give to the question of why the universe is here is: "I don't know." The truth is, religions have never known, either - merely claimed they do.
I still assert that by disproving God, I disprove ANY God.

Bible Rebuttal -

Astronomy -
I disagree, an all-powerful God COULD NOT create the universe out of thin air. See my first argument – out of nothing, comes nothing.

Archeology and Geology -
Most people know about Jericho in connection with the biblical stories of how the Hebrews conquered Canaan. Under the leadership of Joshua, they marched around the city seven times and God caused the walls to collapse. Unfortunately for believers in biblical literalism, no strata of destruction that would correspond with such an invasion has yet been identified.

Crossing the Red Sea -
"Curiously, no one can account for the precise whereabouts of that eight-spoked wheel today, though Hassan is on videotape stating his conclusion regarding authenticity. " - same link. At VERY best, a coral formation. This has never been authenticated.

The Great Flood-
It was impossible based on the Grand Canyon, and DINOSAURS?! You have to be joking.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Brain Science – No personality/soul without the brain – no God. Why create a brain if we already have a immaterial soul? Not logical.

Medicine – It doesn't, does it?
Matthew 10:8
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.
(God commands us.)

Prayer is a ritual commonly used to cure disease. Try and pray next time you are sick – let me know how it works for you. Excuse my curtness, just trying to drive the point home.

Psychology -
On most occasions, God has not poured out wrath upon individuals, but on groups – you say.
Only one word necessary-HELL

Again the Universe does not require a Christian God, or any God, for that matter.

I thank my opponent for his rebuttals, but as you have witnessed, they do not stand up against honest criticism. I look forward to our next round.
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Pro

I would again like to reassert that this debate assumes that there is a God, and my opponent is trying to prove, "If there is a god, then is definitely not the Christian God.", and I am trying to prove, "If there is a god, then it is definitely the Christian God."

Therefore I am not required to prove that there must be a god in this debate, but I will just because.
Intelligent design is quite evident. The odds of life occurring by accident is almost impossible to imagine. A functioning cell is impossible to even artificially produce, never mind accidentally produce.

Man is special. No animal can think to the degree that man can. Otrherwise, there'd be complicated animal structures. All other species of animals are hunter-gatherers. Mankind has diversified into a society that is complex. No other species has developed anything close to the International Space Station. Innovation is unheard of in any other species of life.

Life has only been found on earth. Even though some baceria has been found on mars, it is highly probable that it came from earth. http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Further, a big bang would require a cause, as a random occurence cannot explain the creation of the universe. Further, if there is anything else that could have created the universe besides a supernatural being, it is my opponent's responsibility to bring it up.

To my opponent's attempt at dsiproving the Christian God.
Astronomy- If a god is all-powerful, then nothing would prevent him from creating something out of thin air. This is because before there was a law of conservation of mass and a law of conservation of energy, there was no mass, no energy, and no laws of the universe. If there was a god before the universe, then of course it could create the universe and all its energy and then the laws of the universe would follow.

Archaeology and Geology-
As for Jericho, evidence has been found: http://www.mnsu.edu...
As for the crossing of the Red Sea, more studies are being done to see if it is coral or not the best way to tell would be to find more of it.
The great flood could reasonably have killed the dinosaurs. The Grand Canyon also makes the flood evident and most obviously proves the great flood. http://www.rae.org...

Brain Science- Thanks for clarifyng this point. All speices have brains. They regualte the many involuntary functions of the body like other organisms. Just because we are the only species that can actually think scientifically doesn't mean we don't need a brain. The brain has too many functions to be excluded. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...

Medicine- That quote was Jesus' command to his disciples. They were sent out and told to make a following themselves. The bible does not prescribe that all sick people be healed by prayer. However, an all-powerful god could heal the sick, as Jesus and many of his disciples did. There are no accounts of the disciples or Jesus failing in an attempted healing. Most of these healings were public, and there would be many witnesses to disprove any faking of these events. Obviously, there aren't any or they would have turned up after all this time.

Further, my opponent has not explained how the Israelites were able to know which animals carried disease and which didn't.

Psychology-
Justice- The principle of moral rightness; equity.
Wrath- Forceful, often vindictive anger
Hell is the eternal punishment for the mass of people who never turn from evil to Christ. This is not an act of wrath, but punishment. Is justice wrath in the real world?

As I again insist, there is a god, and the Christian God is more accurate than any other explanation.

Nothing has been found in such so far in such an old human race to disprove the Christian God.
I am hoping for a timely response. I hope this time it is solid evidence as opposed to speculation against logic.
jjmd280

Con

As Christianity recognizes only their God to exist, logically, you are required to prove that God exists. You took it a step further, and I backed up a step. No conflict there.

Intelligent Design is quite evident.
This claim lacks any substance. It is nothing more than a subjective assertion. That design is far from self-evident is demonstrated by the difficulty people have in trying to describe the objective evidence for it.

The odds of life occurring by accident is almost impossible to imagine.
This is a quintessential argument from incredulity. Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else.

A functioning cell is impossible to even artificially produce, never mind accidentally produce.
I agree, but man has not had millions of years to try. Life has. Life was not an accident – it was a logical result of its time, environment and many other factors. Complexity arises from natural causes: for example, in weather patterns and cave formations.

Man is special.
Only in a worldview that denies the vastness and diversity in our Universe. Even a "Biblical creationist" might find himself unable to believe that we are the only intelligent beings "God created" in a cosmos of countless blazing stars and (who knows how many) planetary bodies? So much cosmic "real estate" going to waste. Doesn't sound very "purposeful" does it? But we are smart, I'll give you that. The study of evolution shows that reason is an extremely recent development, and was not needed before that. Still, reason is what makes sense to us as thinking primates, it is what defines falsifiability, it explains why we can agree on things, why some things work and others do not, and why some things are (we can agree) ridiculous. Never mind what they are, it is always reason that we use to make the determination.

The fabrication of an all-knowing being does not make any reasonable sense, nor does it set up a usable framework that would be an alternative to reason.

No animal can think to the degree that man can. Otherwise, there'd be complicated animal structures.
Beehives? Termite mounds? Can you build a nest? Can you build a true beaver dam? Complicated is a loaded and subjective word.

All other species of animals are hunter-gatherers.
I assume my opponent is citing agriculture – Leaf cutting ants use agriculture, and they build complex nests.

Mankind has diversified into a society that is complex.
So have ants, termites, bees, whales, chimpanzees, dogs, cats, and on and on. Again complexity is ill-defined and subjective.

No other species has developed anything close to the International Space Station. Innovation is unheard of in any other species of life.
Innovation? http://blogs.psychologytoday.com... Innovation is not a human-only trait. Hasn't my opponent heard of apes that use sticks to tease out termites from mounds?

Mars -
Life on Mars Likely, Scientist Claims http://www.space.com...

My opponent's link is outdated, and tainted with creationist propaganda.

Geology and Archeology -

I don't argue Jericho didn't exist – I argue the Biblical account of it – which my opponent has yet to refute. Red Sea - I hope they can – seeing that they have yet to relocate the "wheel". One person does not proof make. Flood - The existence of the entire column at one spot is irrelevant. All of the parts of the geological column exist in many places, and there is more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts. (the basis of my opponents argument.)
http://home.entouch.net... - Very good resource on why The Flood is impossible.

Anyone who theorizes that a 'soul' is responsible for motivation or behaviour must account for the following facts:

Drugs can alter states of mind, in both short and long term.
Biochemical imbalances can cause abnormal emotions and feelings.
No emotion ever studied by scientists has been to be without biochemical causes.
No emotion has been found that we 'feel' before the relevant chemicals are secreted and the relevant brain circuits activated.
Brain damage can alter consciousness.
Altering or exciting mammalian brains causes emotional outbursts.

Israelites were able to know which animals carried disease and which didn't.
Some people say that the rules were given for health reasons, but there is no biblical evidence for that, and scientific studies have not proven it.

Is it justice to damn an altruistic and loving Jew, and lift up a murderous Christian who found Jesus in prison?

I ask the voters to consider the worth of the facts presented, and the merits of each arguement -
Debate Round No. 3
wjmelements

Pro

As this is the last debate round, I will clarify and simplify this debate for the voters.
I thank my opponent for this debate.
Many animals have done some things like build shelters, which are considered basic needs of life. There is no record of their search for knowledge and none of them have been found to think scientifically.

Again, whether a god exists or not isn't the topic of this debate. Again, the topic is, "If there is a God, then it is most definitely the Christian God." To disprove any god does not argue for either side.
However, this does not effect the debate.

To the debate:
Archaeology and Geology-
More and more evidence has been found to defend the biblical account of Jericho, as I have sourced.
I agree that one person does not make proof, but it does create an interest that will lead to a thorough investigation. This event has not been disproved.

As for the flood, there is still a debate among Christians over whether the flood was global or local. However, the sediment layer found all over the globe is significant proof of the global flood. I have already sourced the logical possibility of a global flood occurring.

Health- The Israelites had laws passed down from their God that coincidentally told them to avoid animals that happened to now have been found to carry diseases. Anyone that came into contact with these animals were to be separated from society until declared 'clean', or well. The Israelites may or may not have known that these were also the animals that carried the diseases, but hey were unique in this knowledge in their time. There is no explanation.

Leviticus 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

The beginning of Leviticus chapter 11 tells which animals can and cannot be eaten. Pigs carry influenza, as I have already sourced. The Israleites are told not to eat birds, especially dead birds. We now know that birds, especially dead birds, carry a large variety of diseases.

Brain science-
Though brains can be artificially altered, our emotions are reactions to stimuli, as it is the same as with most other species of life. However, only man can override its emotions and act logically despite them. Further, man can manipulate its emotions for the entertainment of others, as found in theatre. There is no proof that any animal can do similar.

Psychology- God promised to judge all others who were not Christians according to their deeds. So, there is justice. This is not wrath.
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

I urge all voters to vote PRO despite bias, because the Christian God has not been disproven and has been in fact proven logically and scientifically. Further, my opponent has tried to twist the topic by disproving all gods. My opponent has neither disproved the Christian God, nor provided a more accurate alternative.
Atheists should vote purely on the victor in this debate, as they have bias against both arguments.
I urge all others to ignore their bias and vote sctrictly on who had the better arguments. This includes Christians.
Thank you for reading this debate.
jjmd280

Con

Now to summarize my arguments, and not beat a dead horse by repeatedly countering my opponents illogical conclusions.
If everything must have been created, then god must have been created as well. If god is not created, then everything mustn't have a creator, so why should life or cosmos have one? Or why couldn't the cosmos be that cause?

Besides this argument has another leap. If everything has a source and god is that source, then god must have existed without it before he created it. So if god created time and space, he must live outside of time and space. Thus he is non-existent. If all life must come from something and that is god, god is not alive and hence non-existent. If moral must come from god, god lacks moral. If logic comes from god, god is illogic. If nature comes from god, god is unnatural. If existence comes from god, god is non-existent. If god is the cause of everything, god is void.

God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely injust. The absurdity of this infinite punishment appears even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of the human's imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.

The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means for overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books called the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man. No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigma. And yet the perfect God expects the imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.

A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.

I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the Christian God. No reasonable and free thinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is as contradictory as that of the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of the Christian God is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.

While believers may find comfort in being faithful to impossibilities, there is no greater satisfaction than a clear mind. And I implore the voters to use theirs and vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
114 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Votebombing, especially in religious topics, dominated this era of ddo. The resolution wasn't as important back then either.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 8 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Wow. It's a shame that wjm lost this. Con didn't even know what he was debating about and completely ignored the resolution. How did Con win?
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
You are being intellectually dishonest when you say that Christianity had no role. It , for the third time, was NOT the only reason, but a major one. That's all I will say.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
The financial problems were caused by Diocletian and others taxing the aristocracy out of the urban centers, where they were impervious to taxation and recruitment.

Source: My history professor, John Lomax, Doctor of History, Medievalist.

Besides, the Byzantine Empire was just as Christianized as the west, and was one of the longest lasting empires in the history of the world.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
I did not say it was the only factor - but it was a factor, far greater than you give it credit.

The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon

As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister: a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity.

http://www.ccel.org...
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
You know as well as I do that Christianity as a contributing factor to Rome's fall is highly suspect. It is certainly one theory, but one that is far more controversial than a number of other more reasonable explanations. A more expensive military force combined with lower tax revenues as a result of some very stupid policies on the part of late emperors, constant invasion and a plague that killed 25% of the population are just a few. Christianity had nothing to do with it.

Looking forward to your first response.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
What was one of the main contributing factors to the collapse of the Roman Empire? Constantine's adoption of Christianity. (not the only one, but up there with the leaders.)

Sorry, didn't mean to blame theism per se - I meant to blame Christianity, among other things.

OK - that's enough from me for now - I want to post round 1 of our debate tonight. Gotta get crackin".
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
"I must add, though - as the BB stands TODAY - there is no God in the equation."

I never said he WAS part of the equation, only that at th time it was seen as having theistic implications. There is far less room for God in an infinite universe than in a finite universe. But I think we've beaten that dog dead.

Heresy is a distinctly Catholic concept. It is more of a semantic argument on my part. You'll find that I'm very literal and definition-oriented. Yes, his theology would be considered unorthodox by most modern Christians, but as I said before, this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is whether or not theism stunts scientific inquiry. CLEARLY it does not.

To blame theism for the dark ages is completely inaccurate. You will remember that theism had been around for thousands of years before Christianity spread through Europe. The dark ages were a function of the collapse of the Roman empire, not some ignorance brought about by Christianity.

I likewise apologize if I have offended you in any way. We are both intelligent and educated enough to dispense with personal insults, you more so than I.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Indeed belief in the Universe and it's laws is no different than belief in God..."

Um...

Existence exists, the opposite would imply that we aren't talking right now. There is a big difference between that and an omnipotent being :D
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
I must add, though - as the BB stands TODAY - there is no God in the equation. There was when it was starting out - but as freer thinkers often do, they take a simplistic explanation of religious implication and expand on it - and are left with a godless equation.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
wjmelementsjjmd280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
wjmelementsjjmd280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by solo 8 years ago
solo
wjmelementsjjmd280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by ghegeman 8 years ago
ghegeman
wjmelementsjjmd280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
wjmelementsjjmd280Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RightwingJew 8 years ago
RightwingJew
wjmelementsjjmd280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
wjmelementsjjmd280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
wjmelementsjjmd280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by pjwillis 8 years ago
pjwillis
wjmelementsjjmd280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
wjmelementsjjmd280Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70