The Instigator
MaskedSpartan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
evanjfarrar
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is God Real?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 536 times Debate No: 76641
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

MaskedSpartan

Pro

This debate is on the existence of God. Here are the rules:

1. Five rounds. First round is acceptance, second is opening arguments, third and forth is rebuttals and fifth is concluding statements.

2. Be respectful

Let's begin and good luck!
evanjfarrar

Con

Hello all. This is my first debate on this platform, so I hope it all goes well for both me and my opponent. I am happy to accept the challenge, and argue in the negative against the motion "Is God Real?".

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
MaskedSpartan

Pro

Today"s debate is on the existence of God. This is arguably the most important issue that we face in our lives; it affects everything. In the past, belief in God was considered to be just that, a belief. No evidence supported the assertion and atheism was considered the more intellectual position. Over the past fifty years that changed dramatically. There is over twenty, powerful arguments that point to the existence of God. As of 2015, there are no arguments for atheism that stands up to scrutiny. I ask that in this debate you consider who puts forth the most logical case and vote on that. There is three arguments that I will present, starting with the argument from reason.

The Argument from Reason

There is two views of the world: Naturalism and Supernaturalism. For those who don"t know, Naturalism is the view that Nature is all that exists. Supernaturalism, I admit, sound something out of a movie. However, the majority of the world holds this view. Supernaturalism is the view that there exists something outside of nature: Supernature. Supernature is seen as either singular (God) or plural (gods or lesser divinities). The philosophical principle of Ockham"s razor, which states that plurality should not be posited without necessity, shaves away multiple Supernatures. This leaves us with Supernaturalism as the view that there is something outside of nature, which is God. Now, imagine a coin. If I flip the coin and I tell you that it did not land on tails, what did it land on? Heads. It landed on heads, because that is the only other option. This is the same with Naturalism and Supernaturalism. If one self-destructs, the other is inevitable true. In a way, this whole debate is looking at a quarter. So much for the sophisticated image! We see that Naturalism self-destructs and the cause of this is the existence of reason.

All reasoning is on the Naturalistic view is molecules in motion and chemicals fizzing in the head. Much like a soda can! What seems like careful logic to you, is just cause and effect. Your reasoning process is completely subject to nature, not logic and not commitment to truth. Worse yet, this is all due to a process that is solely focused on physical mutations for survivability"not reasoning and certainly not philosophical thought like in this debate. Evolution has no regards for reason. The most reasoning that could be attributed to Evolution, is not eating poison berries or attracting a mate. Why should we trust a system for something it is not "meant" for? Would we trust to drive on a bridge if it was meant to be a pigeon perch? No, of course not! So why should we trust Evolution, molecules in motion and chemicals fizzing to help us understand the ultimate reality of the universe? We shouldn"t! So, if we were to take Naturalism seriously, we wouldn"t take Naturalism seriously! The argument can be formulated as follows:

1. Naturalism reduces reason to a closed system of physical cause and effect
2. This closed system of physical cause and effect cannot account for reason
3. Therefore, Naturalism is self-contradictory

Naturalism clearly is self-defeating. This brings us back to the coin analogy: since it is not tails, it
is heads. Since Naturalism is false, then Supernaturalism is true. It then follows, that God exists. But, there is more! Unless this argument can be shown to be false, all arguments and objections my opponent can throw at me will be regarded as white noise. If this argument remains unscathed, then all arguments and objections my opponent makes is due to a process that has no regards for reason. Thus, I feel that we not only have a powerful argument for theism, but even the death nail of atheism.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Let"s go from philosophy to modern science, in particular, modern cosmology. Atheists traditionally held the view that the universe is past eternal. That the universe had no beginning. Theists held on to the belief that the universe had a beginning, by mostly scripture. Now the role is reversed. Atheists hold that the universe is past eternal, even when all of science is against them. Some even gave in and now hold the traditionally theist belief that the universe began to exist. We now that the universe for two main reasons. Firstly, we can see that cosmic radiation, stars, planets, solar systems and even galaxies are moving away from each other. There is cosmological expansion. If we play the movie on rewind (a long film to watch!) we would see that all of the universe would condense to a single point of infinite density. Infinite density is a fancy way of saying nothing. Everything in the universe got so small that the universe ceased to exist. This is the standard theory of cosmology. It is what is taught in school all around the world.

Next, we know that the universe could not have an infinite past due to mathematics. Infinity is just a concept in our mind, the actual infinite is no-where to be found in reality. This is so because when we try to plug infinity into the real world, we get self-contradictory answers. What is infinity minus infinite? Well, it could be anything from zero to infinity! That is how contradictory of a notion that the universe is past infinite is. With the combination of modern science and mathematics, it becomes undeniable that the universe began to exist. This argument will look like this:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

We just looked at premise two, but what about premise one? It seems commonsensical.
But, when people get desperate to dispel an argument, they object to anything. If something could pop into existence out of nothing, we would expect to see it daily. We would see elephants popping into existence in Times Square, we would see a whole army of penguins come into being out of thin air and start marching, I would even have to worry about a lion or a great white shark popping into existence right now and eating me! This is clearly absurd! With all silliness aside, premise one is actually a metaphysical principle. It applies both in and outside the universe. It is a widely accepted fact.

But, what then is this cause? Well, there is only two types of cause: natural causes and personal causes. A natural cause is nature acting on and a personal cause in a person acting on. A natural cause cannot be the case because nature came into being at the time of the universe. The universe can"t cause the universe! Therefore, the only cogent possibility is a personal creator of the universe. We call this creator God.

The Resurrection Argument

The past two arguments showed the evidence for a God. This argument seeks to show not only the existence of God, but the identity of God. As you probably guessed, this has to deal with the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus made some remarkable claims, all the way from claiming to be able to forgive sins, to being God. If Jesus did in fact rise from the dead on Pascha morning, then His claims would be validated and that would entail that God exists. Even more, it would show that the God that exists is the God of Israel, the God of Christianity. We can list the syllogism as follows:

1. If Jesus rose from the dead, then His claims are validated
2. Jesus rose from the dead
3. Therefore, Jesus" claims are validated, entailing that God exists

Premise one is a universally accepted truth. Atheists and skeptics all accept this.
The controversy comes in premise two. In the twenty first century, now more than ever, there is a robust case for the Resurrection. There is five pieces of evidence that can be listed in the form of the "five e"s":

E1. The execution of Jesus via crucifixion
E2. The empty tomb of Jesus
E3. The eyewitness evidence
E4. The extra-Biblical evidence
E5. The emergence of the early Church

E1.The crucifixion of Jesus is considered to be the most trusted fact about His life. This is in very little dispute and has been accepted for thousands of years. E2.To modern surprise, Jesus" empty tomb was universally accepted by the entire ancient world. The religious authorities at the time did not say that the tomb was not empty. They said that that disciples of Jesus stole the body! Did they keep it in Peter"s basement and hope that the cops didn"t come knocking?! It is kind of funny to think about. The problem with this theory is that the Apostle didn"t have the ability, the opportunity, or the motivation. E3.We now possess an early Christian creed that dates back to, at earliest, twenty four months after Jesus" crucifixion. This creed list 515 eyewitnesses to Jesus" post mortem appearances. 515 people claimed to see Jesus after His death. Even more, some of the eyewitnesses were enemies of the early Christian movement.

E4.There is a multiplicity of ancient, non-Christian writing that mentions a religious leader, who supposedly performed miracles, who was called the Messiah and the Christ and who was crucified by Pontius Pilate who was named Jesus of Nazareth. Works included the Talmud, the Mishnah and writings of Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the younger. The ancient equivalent on Pliny Jr. These references where within 60 years of Jesus" life, if not sooner. Lee Strobel states that "this is like a news flash from the modern world!" E5.The emergence of the early Church is pretty remarkable. The leader of the movement was executed and humiliated in the capital city in front of thousands people and then 50 days after, in the same city, the Christian movement was in full swing with 6000 plus members. How could this happen if Jesus didn"t rise from the dead. It couldn"t.

Summery

I gave three strong arguments for the existence of God. I said that there is no coherent arguments for atheism and I will show that in my rebuttal. Keep in mind that until my opponent shows that my argument from reason is shown false, all of their arguments are to be regarded as contradictory
evanjfarrar

Con

Hello all. I would like to personally extend my gratitude to my opponent for the opportunity to actively converse and discuss the existence of God. My arguments draw to a straightforward conclusion: that there are no sufficient grounds to believe in the theory of supernaturalism, and belief in God's existence is not based in logic or rationality.

The question put forth for today's debate can be answered with as much confidence as questions like "Are ghosts real?" and "Do pigs have wings?". Simply put, within the realms of natural law, which the human race has pioneered for countless years, there is no evidence for the existence of God, despite what my opponent may claim. But please be aware that when I claim that God cannot exist, I am saying that the question up for discussion today has been sufficiently answered to support the claim that the God portrayed in religious texts is not real. The fact of the matter is that we will never be able to answer this question with absolute certainty. It is impossible to answer with certaintly that there is not a ghost in your garage, or an invisible, omnipotent monster under your bed. However, there are sufficient grounds, rooted in logic and reason, to deny the existence of God.


In the following sections, I will propose several arguments in similar format with my opponent's claims. After I present the premises, I will, to the best of my abilty, explain and elaborate further on each premise to formulate a full argument.



The Problem of Evil

This is, arguably, the most prominent and common argument used to counter theism. Here are the premises:

1) God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
2) If God were real, God would prevent all unjustified evil. [From 1]
3) There is unjustified evil in the world.
4) God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. [From 2, 3]

On Premise 1
This is drawn from widely accepted interpretations of religious texts and the common belief of theists.

On Premise 2
This premise is hypothetical, but due to the God's supposed characteristics, one can easily draw this conclusion through basic reason and logic. If God is morally good, and is both universally aware and all-powerful, I find it extremely hard to believe that God has a reason to let unjustified evils occur.

Let's pay special attention to the 'unjustified' part as well. I specifically inserted 'unjustified' to account for a possible refutation of this argument; if this is not clarified, it is common for theists to reject Premise 2, and justify God's allowance of evil because of reasons like the preservation of the universe's balance, respect for the irregularities of the universe, etc. However, an unjustified evil is an evil that is not justified by any of these reasons; God, if existent, cannot live up to his definition of being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent if he allowes unjustified evil, and therefore, would put a stop to unjustified evil if this definition is true.

On Premise 3
There is obviously unjustified evil in the world. For example, take the Holocaust: an indelible stain on the 20th century, specifically the mass genocide of people (not just people of Jewish faith, but the disabled and mentally ill, as well as followers of Jehovah's Witness, and Roma Gypsies). The Holocaust was completely unjustified from a moral perspective, as it is evidently morally wrong to kill another human being. But over 6 million human beings? Why was this event overlooked by omniscient, omnibenevolent God? Why was it not stopped, as God has the power to do so?

On Premise 4
There is a contradiction in the theist claim that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

In Summary
One may ask how this applies to an argument against the existence of God. Sure, God cannot be what he is defined to be given our argument above, but does this really mean God cannot exist?

To put it bluntly, by rationally refuting the theist claim that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, we are striking down a key part of the supposed identity of God. This argument takes a considerable slice out of the pie of God's identity as defined in religious works. As I have said above, it is impossible to answer this question with certainty, but this argument allows us to reject the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, contributing to claim that there are sufficient grounds to deny God's existence as defined by religious texts.



The Problem of Multiplicity

This argument arrives at a slightly different conclusion, but is still supportive of my claim. As follows:

1) Different religions have different versions of God, or supernatural being(s) in general.
2) God (in a given religion) is looked to as the sole supernatural force of the universe.
3) Religions are contradictory. [1, 2]
4) Only one of these contradictory religions can be accepted, or none.

On Premise 1
Different religions have unique ways of defining God and God's characteristics. Hinduism and Christianity are two very different religions, both with very different ways of describing their own supernatural reality.

On Premise 2
Notable religions today primarily believe in their version of God(s) as universal and the "true" explanation of supernaturalism and its relationship with the natural world.

On Premise 3
Therefore, religions are obviously contradictory. There can't be multiple truths when the individual truths are both different and accepted as universally applicable.

On Premise 4
Then, either only one of these religions have a fully correct version, or none of them do.

In Summary
Many of you may question the purpose of this argument in relation to the question of God's existence. If only one of these religions' perception of God can be universally applicable, than countless religious theories on God's characteristics, or mere existence, must be false through reason. Or, none of them can be correct; this answer may solve the problems brought up by the above-mentioned arguments and others.

There are other questions also brought up on the subject of multiplicity: wouldn't a deity, if existent, reveal its existence to the entirety of the human race, not a small portion? How can any theist of a certain religion claim that their religion is true, when all others claim this as well, and no evidence seems to be present in pointing to a single religion?



The Logical Implications/Conclusion

God, as defined in religious text, is very unlikely to exist. As I have already mentioned, it is impossible to say with certainty God does not exist, as it is impossible to say with certainty that the Easter bunny does not exist (and on the flip side of the coin, there is no evidence at all for the existence of God). But rationally and logically, there are sufficient grounds for denying the existence of God, as proven in the arguments above.

What does this debate boil down to? If I were to guess on the origins of religion, I would say with confidence that religion was a human invention for the purpose of answering questions. During the time period where many of today's major religions become widely acclaimed, many questions that are now answered by science and observation of the natural, tangible world could not be figured out, or were never even approached with a refined method of logic, like the Scientific Method.

I think this debate proves, at least to me, that religion was a wonderful invention, one that can never be fully debunked. The separation of the natural world from religious concepts is what makes it impossible to say with certainty that God does not exist: we are fixed within our own natural world. This is why science is a better way of explaining the world than through the eyes of an arational theist- it is through physical proof in the natural world that knowledge is attained with certainty, and if this knowledge is at all flawed, than at least science is able to say comfortably that as a group, they were incorrect. Sure this may seem contradictory, but the truth is the truth until someone proves it is not.

Thank you all for participating, and I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
MaskedSpartan

Pro


Thank you con for that opening argument. Notice how in my opening statement, I said that there is good reasons and arguments that lead to the belief in God and there is no cogent arguments for atheism. I will first go over my arguments and then address my opponent's opening.

My Arguments

The Argument from Reason

1. Naturalism reduces reason to a closed system of physical cause and effect
2. This closed system cannot account for reason
3. Therefore, Naturalism is self-contradictory

Premise one refers to the Naturalist notion that our reasoning is really based off natural laws, and we (humans) come to use our reasoning due to Evolution. The second premise points out how since our reasoning is based off natural laws (on the Naturalistic view), our reasoning is not committed to truth. Molecules could care less if we have true thoughts, all they do is operate on natural laws. Worse yet, on Naturalism our reasoning ability comes from a process that yields physical mutations, NOT reasoning ability and certainly does not yield the true, ultimate view of reality. Thus, on Naturalism, our reasoning has nothing to do with truth. So then, why would we trust the truth of Naturalism if the view eliminates all truth? Naturalism is self-defeating. If you remember my coin analogy, since it is not heads its tails. Since it is not Naturalism it is Supernaturalism, which encompasses the belief in God.

My opponent made no objection to this argument, which leaves it standing as strong as ever. Keep in mind that since this argument still holds, it follows that all the reasoning/argumentation of my opponent can be regarded as contradictory because reasoning is inherently anti-Naturalism.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has as cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

There is only two types of causes: natural and personal. This cause cannot be natural because nature came into being when the universe came into being. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a personal cause. A personal creator of the universe. This description is universal understood to be describing God.

Again, no objections to this argument which means that it follows that God exists and is the creator of the universe. This also confirms my statement that there are good reasons for believing in God.

The Resurrection Argument

1. If Jesus rose from the dead, then His claims are validated (including in His claim to divinity)
2. Jesus rose from the dead
3. Therefore, Jesus' claims are validated (including His claim to divinity)

I supported the second premise with the "three E's of evidence"

E1. The execution of Jesus via crucifixion
E2. The empty tomb of Jesus
E3. The eyewitness evidence
E4. The extra-Biblical evidence
E5. The emergence of the early Church

This argument not only confirms God's existence, but it reveals that the God that exists is the God revealed by Jesus, the God of Israel. I wont go over the E's, because I want to address Cons arguments. I encourage you though, if you want to clarify each "E" then look back to my opening.

Con's Arguments

First, my atheist friend claimed that there is no evidence for God's existence. Then what was all that I just went over! Not to mention the many other arguments such as: the teleological argument, the argument from contingency, the moral argument, the ontological argument, the argument from desire, the argument from conscious, the argument from abstract objects and so many more! This statement is silly. And no, I don't claim to be able to prove God's existence, but I do claim that is possible to show that God's existence is highly probable.

The Problem of Evil

1) God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
2) If God were real, God would prevent all unjustified evil. [From 1]
3) There is unjustified evil in the world.
4) God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. [From 2, 3]

The age old argument right? This has been addressed as early, I dare say, from Moses time. However, I admit that this is a tough emotional problem for anyone. When we look at this logically, we see that this is not much of an argument at all. In response to premise two, I have two comments. First, one cannot know if God has good reasons for allowing evil. Somehow, this evil might cause a ripple effect and cause something good. On the more rigorous level, God simply allows evil for the existence of free will. If there is free will, it is completely possible for someone to commit a horrible dead. Some would even say it's certain that someone will. If God prevented evils, He would be taking away free will, which would be a far worse crime. We would be robots, only able to do what God wants us to do. That would be the definition of a totalitarian dictatorship. God allows evil so that we can have the great gift of freedom. Finally, I would say that evil is actually evidence for God! We can list the argument as follows:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values exist
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore God exists

This can be a tough argument to understand, so I will walk you through step by step. The first premise refers to objetive moral values. What are these? An objective moral value is something that is truly good or truly evil. It is not a matter of opinion, it is true. Why would objective moral values not exist if God does not exist? Because there would be no basis for morals. That is NOT to say that one needs God to be moral. I have good atheist friends that are amazingly good people. I am saying that there is no basis for moral values. On the atheistic view, morals come from upbringing or Evolution. Each of which do not yield an objective truth. It would be subjective, matter of opinion. If something "evil" was done on the atheistic view, it could not be justified that it was truly evil. It would just be socially acceptable.

However, evil exists as Con describes in the holocaust. The genocide is not just socially unacceptable, it was a moral abomination, and Con agrees. Somethings are truly evil. not just matters of opinion. Evil is a description of objective morality. Therefore, God exists.

The Problem of Multiplicity

1) Different religions have different versions of God, or supernatural being(s) in general.
2) God (in a given religion) is looked to as the sole supernatural force of the universe.
3) Religions are contradictory. [1, 2]
4) Only one of these contradictory religions can be accepted, or none.

Yes. I affirm that there can be only one true religion. This is similar to saying that since there are multiple ice cream flavors and that multiple people have only one favorite, that there can be no good ice cream! Believe me, I had some good ice cream before.

But, Con says that there is no evidence pointing to any religion, but all religions claim to be true. I would strongly disagree. There are multiple arguments for Christianity such as the Resurrection, the Trinitarian Argument and the Lewis Trilemma. However, there are no arguments for other religions that conclude, "therefore, this religion is true."

Finally, Con asks why God didn't reveal himself to the whole world, but to a certain group of people. This is a matter of efficiency, is it not. It would be easier to have a world wide revelation to the whole world then to have a group of people spread the word over hundreds of year, is the claim. Well, efficiency is only a concern to one who has limited resources or limited time. God has unlimited resources and time, so why does He care about efficiency? Just because a finite person such as Con would do it different, does not meant that an infinite being like God would do it that way. This could even be regarded as hubris, telling God what to do!

Conclusion

I said that there are good reasons for the belief in God, while there is no coherent arguments for atheism. No objections where made to my arguments, which all conclude that God exists. All of Con's arguments either don't show God's nonexistence or even proves the existence of God! Please pay attention to who has the best arguments in this debate and vote on such. At the moment I would appear to be winning because all of my arguments are standing and it seems that all of Con's arguments are torn down. Thank you.
evanjfarrar

Con

In this response, I will aim to rebut my opponents arguments as well as respond to my opponent's counterarguments.


Rebuttal

My opponent has proposed that naturalism is self-contradictory by the following points:

1. Naturalism reduces reason to a closed system of physical cause and effect
2. This closed system of physical cause and effect cannot account for reason
3. Therefore, Naturalism is self-contradictory

I do not think all of these premises are true. Firstly, I agree that naturalism reduces reason to a closed system. But this closed system encompasses the observable universe, one that we know we can learn from and develop our own knowledge of the world around us. It is completely irrational to say that this closed system somehow 'cannot account' for reason, and therefore, naturalism is a contradiction in itself; I would argue that reason has been developed through observation of the natural world. The human view of the universe is achieved and developed through understanding of nature's laws and natural occurrences.


So:

1. The observable universe has arisen through natural laws and properties.
2. Human reasoning has arisen and been developed through observation of the world around us.
3. Naturalism, therefore, can account for reason, as reason has arisen through observation of the natural world.


------------------


My opponent has also used the Kalam Cosmological Argument in his favor, an extremely popular argument among supernaturalists.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
(4. Therefore, there must be a supernatural creator - as claimed in the post-analysis written by my opponent)


I am afraid, though, that there is a key flaw. By claiming that there is a separate entity from the universe, that accounted for the cause of the universe in the first place, supporters of this argument are only trapping themselves. To illustrate this, I have a quotation:

"Claiming that God lies outside time, space and the universe does not advance the opposing argument. For even if we accept God into the picture, we can define a new totality, embracing God and everything that exists. That totality, again by definition, can have no cause or purpose, because there is nothing outside of it in time or space."

- Paul Harrison, 1996
http://www.pantheism.net...

Basically, by claiming truth of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, one is saying that the supernatural world is a separate entity. But when did that begin? What cause does that have? According to the argument, both of these questions are valid, and have not been answered.

Another quotation:

"Is there a purpose when pebbles are blown across the sand in a desert? Is there a purpose when breakers slam into a rocky shore?

We must learn not to ask for purpose in our own existence. Of course we can have goals. We should seek to make the earth a better place for humans, and a better place for other species. But the purpose of humans as a whole, the purpose of life as a whole, or the purpose for which each individual exists in the first place, is simply to be, to play, to dance, to sing, to love, all just for the sake of it.

The universe, or the totality "universe plus God," could only possess a meaning in relation to something outside. And by definition there is nothing outside a totality. It is inconceivable that they could have a meaning."

- Paul Harrison, 1996
http://www.pantheism.net...

Equally sound logic is shown above: the logic of necessity of comparison. We cannot claim a meaning of the universe if we have no tangible comparison, and no comparison can be shown in a totality of a universe (specifically a naturalism-supernaturalism totality), therefore, it cannot be true that the universe has a meaning.


------------------


The third argument my opponent brings up is not very plausible either. Until we all have been presented with tangible proof (which is impossible, I can guarantee it), I am not prepared to accept that someone has risen from the dead, and neither should any rational person. I cannot say anymore in response to warped logic, such as using a clearly unnatural, unseen and unproven occurrence like resurrection to prove the existence of God.


------------------



Responses to Counterarguments

Argument 1

"Somehow, this evil might cause a ripple effect and cause something good. On the more rigorous level, God simply allows evil for the existence of free will. If there is free will, it is completely possible for someone to commit a horrible deed. Some would even say it's certain that someone will. If God prevented evils, He would be taking away free will, which would be a far worse crime."

This is a notable response to the problem of evil: the defense of free will. This response has several key problems. First of all, this response solely addresses human vs. human evils. The argument of free will states that with humanity's free reign, instituted by God, of course evil will occur, but this is inevitable given the existence of free will. However, this is highly flawed, because of the lack of consideration for evils outside the scope of human vs. human evils.


Take this for example: lightning strikes, and sets a forest thicket alight with a deer inside. The deer, unable to escape the fire, dies a horrible death. Can this unjustified evil, instituted by the workings of nature, not humanity, be defended by free will? Of course not.


Argument 2

"Yes. I affirm that there can be only one true religion. This is similar to saying that since there are multiple ice cream flavors and that multiple people have only one favorite, that there can be no good ice cream! Believe me, I had some good ice cream before."

I'm afraid that analogy is quite off the mark. What you are saying is that there are many ice creams and people have a favorite, just like there being many religions and different followers of those religions. People can choose what ice cream they want without having to choose that flavor as their new favorite, however, with religion, since religions lie in contradiction with each other, that allowance of choice is not really there. That's why you don't really see a follower of two different religions simultaneously.


"There are multiple arguments for Christianity such as the Resurrection, the Trinitarian Argument and the Lewis Trilemma. However, there are no arguments for other religions that conclude, 'therefore, this religion is true.'"

What I try to illustrate with the problem of multiplicity is that, yes, there is only one true religion (which you have admitted), but that creates a web of falseness and lies within the spectrum of religions. No religion can be pointed to as the sole truth. Even though one might want to say that Christianity is the only proven religion, if Christianity is proven, and the knowledge is easily accessible, why don't we all believe in Christianity? Because either we believe in another religion for its 'truth', or we simply choose not to believe in religion, both of which are completely plausible explanations.

This begs the question once again- why doesn't God, if he exists, point out to the world that he exists in conformance to the true religion? My opponent answers that "this is a matter of efficiency", however, I find it hard to believe that an omnipotent God that supposedly created the entire natural universe would find it inefficient to tell the human race, a single species inhabiting a single planet in a single galaxy, that he exists.


------------------


I thank my opponent for his arguments, and I await his reply.

Debate Round No. 3
MaskedSpartan

Pro

Thank you Con for that rebuttal. My opponent made a couple objections to the arguments that I presented as well as attempting to salvage the supposed arguments for atheism. Let's look at each objection and argument carefully and see if any of them stand up to scrutiny.

My Arguments

The Argument from Reason

1. Naturalism reduces reason to a closed system of physical cause and effect
2. This closed system of physical cause and effect cannot account for reason
3. Therefore, Naturalism is self-contradictory

Evanfarrer responds to this argument with his/her own syllogism:

1. The observable universe has arisen through natural laws and properties.
2. Human reasoning has arisen and been developed through observation of the world around us.
3. Naturalism, therefore, can account for reason, as reason has arisen through observation of the natural world.

While I would refute premise one on the basis that natural laws only exist in the universe, therefore natural laws could not give arise to the universe, I will focus on premise two. Premise two makes the bold assertion that we developed our reasoning abilities due to our observations of the world around us. Why bold? Because it is in and of itself a contradiction. When we observe a phenomena, we come to a conclusion regarding said phenomena due to our reasoning about the event. When we observe gravity, we arrive at the conclusion that gravity exists or is a force in the world because we think through it. The thought that gravity exists and holds much of the universe together doesn't just pop into our heads! We have to think/reason through it. The observable world cannot give rise to reasoning, because we need to be able to reason in order to comprehend and understand what we are observing,

Keep in mind that on Naturalism, your reasoning is predetermined by natural laws. Not commitment to truth. If Naturalism is true, we arrived at this conclusion because of predetermined chemical reactions due to natural laws. Not because of truth. So the very notion that Naturalism is true is self-destructing because there really is no philosophical truths on the Naturalistic view. Like I mentioned before, since Naturalism is self-contradictory, then it follows that Supernaturalism is true. This entails that God exists on the definition of Supernaturalism.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

My opponent objects to none of these arguments. Instead of this, Con poses two questions and a misunderstanding. The questions are this: When did the supernatural world begin, what caused it? Although these are certainly interesting questions, they bare no relation to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The argument deals with the cause of the universe and shows that a personal creator caused it. It does not even mention the supernatural world. Next, Con goes on about how "we cannot claim a meaning of the universe if we have no tangible comparison." Question, when did I mention the meaning of the universe? Never. I argued for a cause, not meaning to the universe.

Also, keep in mind that since Con did not object to any premise or the conclusion, it would logically follow that the conclusion that the universe was caused by a personal creator, God.

The Resurrection

1. If Jesus rose from the dead, then His claims are validated (including in His claim to divinity)
2. Jesus rose from the dead
3. Therefore, Jesus' claims are validated (including His claim to divinity)

Con does not object to any premise or supporting evidence to this argument, yet again. Con just says that "until we all have tangible proof, I am not prepared to accept that someone rose from the dead." Con's grand objection is saying that he/she doesn't want to believe it. Historical knowledge is not due to tangible evidence, it is due to best inference. Let me list out to you what has been established and then let you decide.

Jesus was put to death on the cross and was buried. Three days later, His tomb was empty and 515 people claimed to see Him walking, talking, eating and even being touched by the eyewitnesses. Then, the only twelve people that could know if He really rose from the dead, willingly chose to be outcasts, beaten, mocked, tortured and killed for their belief in the resurrection. They willingly chose that when they were in the unique position to know the truth, and yet they chose an incredibly hard life for no gain at all. All these statements are backed by portions in the Talmud, Mishnah and writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the younger. All of these sources are non-Christian and some are even ant-Christian. You can decide for you self if you think that Jesus rose from the dead, or it was all a big hoax set up by the Apostles for no gain at all.

The Problem of Evil

1) God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
2) If God were real, God would prevent all unjustified evil. [From 1]
3) There is unjustified evil in the world.
4) God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. [From 2, 3]

My opponent, I think, agrees that preserving free will is a good reason to allow human evil. He rejects free will as an explanation for natural evils. He says, "lightning strikes, and sets a forest thicket alight with a deer inside. The deer, unable to escape the fire, dies a horrible death. Can this unjustified evil, instituted by the workings of nature, not humanity, be defended by free will? Of course not."

I agree that free will does not relate to natural evils as such, but there is an explanation for natural evils none the less. Natural evils are permitted because without them, natural goods could not exist. To use Con's example of lighting, in order to rid the world of lighting caused deaths, one would have to rid the world of lightning. But, in order to rid the world of lighting, then one would have to rid the world of clouds. To rid the world of clouds would to destroy the water cycle, and in effect, cause a planet wide drought that would kill off every living. To preserve planet wide life, seems to me at least, a good reason to allow a deer to die. This also applies to earthquakes and other natural evils, but due to character restrictions, I wont go over them.

The Problem of Multiplicity

1) Different religions have different versions of God, or supernatural being(s) in general.
2) God (in a given religion) is looked to as the sole supernatural force of the universe.
3) Religions are contradictory. [1, 2]
4) Only one of these contradictory religions can be accepted, or none.

Like I said earlier, I agree that only one religion could conceivably be true. I stated that Christianity is unique because it is the only reason that has positive arguments/ evidence for its truth. I even gave a couple examples. My friend asks why, if Christianity is proven, then why doesn't everyone believe in it? I never said that Christianity is proven, and I conceded earlier this debate that we can't prove any religion.We can, show a high probability of it.

Someone may not be a Christian in light of the evidence for several reasons. In a talk with one of my atheist friends, I gave evidence for the Resurrection and my friend just stated at me. He then exclaimed, "Wow! I never knew there was evidence for Christianity." A lot of people are not aware of the arguments for/against Christianity and thus are not affected by the evidence. Second, some people do not hold their views because of philosophical or scientific reasons. So it would not be likely for such a person to be swayed by such evidence.

Summery So Far

My opponent only objected to one premise, on one argument. Con did not object to my other arguments, and either confused what we are talking about or said that he/she just doesn't want to believe it. At this point in the debate, it would at least appear, since my arguments are unscathed and my opponent's arguments are crippled, that I would be winning this debate. I forgot to mention in the past rounds that I put my sources in the comments. Thanks again Evanjfarrar for this thought provoking debate!
evanjfarrar

Con

Immediate Response

I don't really understand where the idea that "[I] only objected to one premise, on one argument. [I] did not object to [Pro's] other arguments, and either confused what we are talking about or said that [I] just doesn't want to believe it" came from. I objected and proved the irrationality and warped logic in both your first and second arguments, and left a counterclaim on your third. So I don't think this accusation is very justified.


Anyway, I digress. Here is my formal rebuttal.


Rebuttal

I will format this so that I am responding to specific points made in your rebuttal. This will hopefully be shorter, so that attention and full awareness of my arguments can be paid in full.


1) "The thought that gravity exists and holds much of the universe together doesn't just pop into our heads! We have to think/reason through it. The observable world cannot give rise to reasoning, because we need to be able to reason in order to comprehend and understand what we are observing."

What my opponent infers is that basic reasoning is fixed, which may be correct. We have to have some basic understanding of the world around us to function. But advanced developments of reasoning and knowledge is made through observation of the world around us. A famous example is the apple dropping from the tree, which inspired Newton to formulate his theory on gravity. This is an advanced collection of reasoning based on observation of the world around us.

I would argue that the idea does pop into our heads, and that is because we have observed much of the world around us so that we can formulate a comprehension of a concept like gravity. I would imagine Newton looked for a natural cause to the apple falling from the tree, and formulated an idea of attractive, downwards force. How else would the apple fall from the tree? Certainly claiming God is the answer is warped logic and a simple cop-out.

2) "Although these are certainly interesting questions, they bare no relation to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The argument deals with the cause of the universe and shows that a personal creator caused it. It does not even mention the supernatural world."

Yes, the questions are very relevant. The KCA consists of the claim that the universe had to have a fixed beginning with a cause. The purpose of this questioning was to provoke a thought- does everything really have to have a cause to exist? The answer to this is obviously no. We can already indirectly show through science that particles can pop into and out of existence without 'cause', shown through the Casimir Effect.


Another basic refutation that I presented (and you seemingly ignored) was the fact that we cannot assign a cause to a totality. By the belief in the totality of the natural-supernatural complex, it is logically impossible to assign meaning or cause. We simply cannot claim that everything has a cause to exist.

3) "it would logically follow that the conclusion that the universe was caused by a personal creator, God."

No, unfortunately, that is also a complete cop-out. The conclusion that the universe has a cause, and therefore that proves the existence of God, is applicable to a fallacy known as God of the Gaps, which assigns a reason for an occurrence as to call for the existence of a supernatural being.


4) "Jesus was put to death on the cross and was buried. Three days later, His tomb was empty and 515 people claimed to see Him walking, talking, eating and even being touched by the eyewitnesses. Then, the only twelve people that could know if He really rose from the dead, willingly chose to be outcasts, beaten, mocked, tortured and killed for their belief in the resurrection. They willingly chose that when they were in the unique position to know the truth, and yet they chose an incredibly hard life for no gain at all. All these statements are backed by portions in the Talmud, Mishnah and writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the younger. All of these sources are non-Christian and some are even ant-Christian. You can decide for you self if you think that Jesus rose from the dead, or it was all a big hoax set up by the Apostles for no gain at all."

I am shocked at the lack of logic in your claim of evidence for resurrection. Great, several eyewitnesses wrote down that a man returned from the dead and that he could even be touched, eat and talk! I present Shakespeare's Othello: "Villain, be sure thou prove my love a whore / Be sure of it. Give me the ocular proof." (III.iii.369-370). Again, you have no tangible evidence, and I doubt anyone can find any for something so naturally impossible.


I apologize for the lack of ability to show me 'the ocular proof' of the resurrection. Your argument unfortunately rests as illogical and irrational.



Conclusion

I will not claim that my opponent's arguments are in shambles (because quite frankly, I completely recognize the validity of his claims). However, I don't think there is much logic in the support of arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument and proof by resurrection.


Dilemmas like the problem of evil and multiplicity prove the unlikeliness of God's existence, and the improbability of a paralleled, supernatural world. The simple truths are these: everything does not need a cause to exist. The resurrection cannot be proven as historically accurate, and it is very much a cop-out to say that because of this improbable and unproven event, God exists.

I await my opponent's closing statements.
Debate Round No. 4
MaskedSpartan

Pro


I would like to thank Envajfarrar again for this great debate and would like to thank everyone who has been watching this debate over the past couple of days for your interest in such an important topic. Due to debate etiquette, I will not turn this conclusion into a rebuttal. Throughout the debate I provided three arguments for the existence of God and my opponent provided two arguments for atheism. It seems that Con stopped defending his/her arguments on the basis of my objections and focused on my arguments. It would appear that both of Con's arguments have failed on this basis. In addition, Con pushed mostly the same objections as before. The same objections that I already answered. The only new objection was to the Cosmological Argument. Even if these objections ring true, I would still have two strong arguments for the existence of God and my opponent would have zero standing arguments for atheism. I will now provide a survey of the debate.

My Arguments

The Argument from Reason

1. Naturalism reduces reason to a closed system of physical cause and effect
2. This closed system of physical cause and effect cannot account for reason
3. Therefore, Naturalism is self-contradictory

Remember that the reason premise two is true, is because on Naturalism, any reason at all is completely dictated by natural laws. What goes on inside your head (on Naturalism) is molecules in motion with the addition of chemicals fizzing. I drew a comparison to a soda can, there is not much difference. Now, your molecules move as such and your chemicals fizz as such because they are predetermined to act as such due to natural laws. Your brain and your reasoning are completely dictated by a predetermined series of physical cause and effect. Not commitment to truth. What may seem like careful reasoning or the search for the truth or even the finding of truth is really just chemicals fizzing dictated by natural laws. I can't stress this enough. On Naturalism, all reason is NOT careful logic, but just a glorified soda can.

My opponent made a remark to this, regarding how through observation of the world can yield reason. OK, but this reasoning still runs into the problems I noted above. Con's objections merely push the problem back a step and then runs into the same problem.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

My opponent was questioning the supernatural world and whether or not that has a cause or when it began. I took this to mean heaven/paradise or of the sort. Clearly, this argument does not even mention the supernatural world, so I regarded it as a red herring. It now is cleared up to be asking if everything has a cause. Virtual particles are then brought up. This is a good question and I refer you to a video listed here: https://www.youtube.com.... I hope this is not breaking the implicit rules of debate, if it does, I am incredibly sorry and will take full accountability for it.

The Resurrection

1. If Jesus rose from the dead, then His claims are validated (including in His claim to divinity)
2. Jesus rose from the dead
3. Therefore, Jesus' claims are validated (including His claim to divinity)

The second premise is backed by the "five E's".

E1. The execution of Jesus via crucifixion
E2. The empty tomb of Jesus
E3. The eyewitness evidence
E4. The extra-Biblical evidence
E5. The emergence of the early Church

My opponent asks for ocular or tangible evidence. I responded by informing my opponent that much of history and the grand majority of ancient history is not based of tangible evidence, but due to the best inference. I then listed this summery and asked you the audience to see for yourself if the hypothesis matched the evidence:

Jesus was put to death on the cross and was buried. Three days later, His tomb was empty and 515 people claimed to see Him walking, talking, eating and even being touched by the eyewitnesses. Then, the only twelve people that could know if He really rose from the dead, willingly chose to be outcasts, beaten, mocked, tortured and killed for their belief in the resurrection. They willingly chose that when they were in the unique position to know the truth, and yet they chose an incredibly hard life for no gain at all. All these statements are backed by portions in the Talmud, Mishnah and writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the younger. All of these sources are non-Christian and some are even ant-Christian. You can decide for you self if you think that Jesus rose from the dead, or it was all a big hoax set up by the Apostles for no gain at all.

Con's Arguments

The Problem of Evil

1) God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
2) If God were real, God would prevent all unjustified evil. [From 1]
3) There is unjustified evil in the world.
4) God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. [From 2, 3]

I responded to premise two a couple of ways. First, we, finite beings cannot judge if an infinite being has sufficient reasons for allowing evil. Next, I said that God simply allows evil for the existence of free will. If there is free will, it is completely possible for someone to commit a horrible dead. Some would even say it's certain that someone will. If God prevented evils, He would be taking away free will, which would be a far worse crime. We would be robots, only able to do what God wants us to do. That would be the definition of a totalitarian dictatorship. God allows evil so that we can have the great gift of freedom.

Finally I made the claim that evil actually proves God's existence! I listed the syllogism as such:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values exist
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore God exists

Objective moral values is a moral statement that something is truly good or truly evil. My opponent clearly affirms this by telling us how evil the holocaust was and how evil it would be for a deer to die in a forest fire. Con actually proves God's existence over and over.

Con does make a remark on how free will doesn't account for natural evils. However, my argument from evil does. I additionally said, "To use Con's example of lighting, in order to rid the world of lighting caused deaths, one would have to rid the world of lightning. But, in order to rid the world of lighting, then one would have to rid the world of clouds. To rid the world of clouds would to destroy the water cycle, and in effect, cause a planet wide drought that would kill off every living. To preserve planet wide life, seems to me at least, a good reason to allow a deer to die."

Afterwords, Con drops this argument entirely.

The Problem of Multiplicity

1) Different religions have different versions of God, or supernatural being(s) in general.
2) God (in a given religion) is looked to as the sole supernatural force of the universe.
3) Religions are contradictory. [1, 2]
4) Only one of these contradictory religions can be accepted, or none.

I actually agree with this argument! Only one religion can be true on my view, or none. Con then questions why Christianity and why everyone is not a Christian. I said and will continue to say that Christianity is the only religion that has positive evidence on its side along with positive evidence. No other religion can make a positive argument for its truth. If Christianity is proven, why is everyone not a Christian? Because a religion cannot be proven. Evidence can be given and shown that the religion is more probable, but one cannot prove a religion. In addition, not everyone basis their lives off syllogisms and evidence, so even if there was one million arguments for Christianity, there will always be someone who rejects the arguments!

Summery

Throughout the course of the debate, I encouraged you to vote based on who had the best case for their worldview. I made three arguments for the existence of God, an all objections to my arguments are at best irrelevant or at worse, bad logic. Both of my opponent's arguments fail to show atheism as true or even probable. Con even stops defending them! Thank you again Evanjfarrar for this exciting debate. I encourage you to vote for where ever the evidence goes, and in this case; the evidence is pointing powerfully to God.
evanjfarrar

Con

I thank my opponent for this eye-opening, thought-provoking debate. Again, my opponent has claimed that I have not sufficiently defended my arguments or attacked his. Although I believe this is blatantly false, as I have extensively refuted all of his arguments, it seems that my arguments have been swept under the rug.

I have shown the following responses to his arguments.


Overview of Rebuttal

To my opponent's argument from reason:

Opponent's Argument: Naturalism is self-contradictory due to the fact that it reduces reason to a cause and effect relationship, therefore God must exist because supernaturalism is true.

First Response: Firstly, I agree that naturalism reduces reason to a closed system. But this closed system encompasses the observable universe, one that we know we can learn from and develop our own knowledge of the world around us. It is completely irrational to say that this closed system somehow 'cannot account' for reason, and therefore, naturalism is a contradiction in itself; I would argue that reason has been developed through observation of the natural world. The human view of the universe is achieved and developed through understanding of nature's laws and natural occurrences.

Second Response: What my opponent infers is that basic reasoning is fixed, which may be correct. We have to have some basic understanding of the world around us to function. But advanced developments of reasoning and knowledge are made through observation of the world around us. A famous example is the apple dropping from the tree, which inspired Newton to formulate his theory on gravity. This is an advanced collection of reasoning based on observation of the world around us.

----------

To my opponent's use of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

Opponent's Argument: Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began, and therefore has a cause, inferring that there is a personal creator, God.

First Response: I am afraid, though, that there is a key flaw. By claiming that there is a separate entity from the universe, that accounted for the cause of the universe in the first place, supporters of this argument are only trapping themselves. To illustrate this, I have a quotation: "Claiming that God lies outside time, space and the universe does not advance the opposing argument. For even if we accept God into the picture, we can define a new totality, embracing God and everything that exists. That totality, again by definition, can have no cause or purpose, because there is nothing outside of it in time or space." (this refutes the premise that everything has a cause)

Second Response: The KCA consists of the claim that the universe had to have a fixed beginning with a cause. The purpose of this questioning was to provoke a thought- does everything really have to have a cause to exist? The answer to this is obviously no. We can already indirectly show through science that particles can pop into and out of existence without 'cause', shown through the Casimir Effect. Another basic refutation that I presented (and you seemingly ignored) was the fact that we cannot assign a cause to a totality. By the belief in the totality of the natural-supernatural complex, it is logically impossible to assign meaning or cause. We simply cannot claim that everything has a cause to exist...Unfortunately, that is also a complete cop-out. The conclusion that the universe has a cause, and therefore that proves the existence of God, is applicable to a fallacy known as God of the Gaps, which assigns a reason for an occurrence as to call for the existence of a supernatural being.

----------

To my opponent's argument of the resurrection:

Opponent's Argument: The resurrection happened, so therefore, Jesus's claim to Divinity is satisfied and God exists.

First Response: The third argument my opponent brings up is not very plausible either. Until we all have been presented with tangible proof (which is impossible, I can guarantee it), I am not prepared to accept that someone has risen from the dead, and neither should any rational person. I cannot say anymore in response to warped logic, such as using a clearly unnatural, unseen and unproven occurrence like resurrection to prove the existence of God.

Second Response: I am shocked at the lack of logic in your claim of evidence for resurrection. Great, several eyewitnesses wrote down that a man returned from the dead and that he could even be touched, eat and talk! I present Shakespeare's Othello: "Villain, be sure thou prove my love a whore / Be sure of it. Give me the ocular proof." (III.iii.369-370). Again, you have no tangible evidence, and I doubt anyone can find any for something so naturally impossible.

I apologize for the lack of ability to show me 'the ocular proof' of the resurrection. Your argument unfortunately rests as illogical and irrational.

----------

Summary

So, I don't really know where the accusation of my lack of response and counterargument came from, it has been quite clearly shown that my opponent's arguments are flawed and refuted in their entirety.

----------

Overview of My Arguments

The Problem of Evil:

1) God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
2) If God were real, God would prevent all unjustified evil. [From 1]
3) There is unjustified evil in the world.
4) God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. [From 2, 3]

This argument has not been refuted sufficiently by my opponent. He has claimed God's intention to grant free will to the populace as a reason to allow unjustified evil, however, this does not account for the unjustified evils that nature has imposed, my example being a deer burning to death in a thicket set alight by lightning.

In my opponent's second rebuttal, my opponent utilized a complete logical fallacy: "Natural evils are permitted because without them, natural goods could not exist. To use Con's example of lighting, in order to rid the world of lighting caused deaths, one would have to rid the world of lightning." Obviously, to rid the world of lightning-caused death, lightning would not have to be eliminated in whole. With God's supposed omnipotent power, I imagine that God could easily prevent death by lightning. This shows that the belief in God's omnipotent power is not only illogical, but completely irrational by my arguments.

----------

The Problem of Multiplicity:

1) Different religions have different versions of God, or supernatural being(s) in general.
2) God (in a given religion) is looked to as the sole supernatural force of the universe.
3) Religions are contradictory. [1, 2]
4) Only one of these contradictory religions can be accepted, or none.

This argument has also not been sufficiently refuted. In my opponent's first response, my opponent claimed that this is just like ice cream, with there being multiple flavors and multiple people having different flavors. But that obviously does not address my point, which is that different religions are contradictory. People can have other flavors besides their favorite without compromising their favorite flavor, however, it is logically impossible to believe in multiple versions of a supposed universal truth: God.

Even more shockingly, my opponent said that God revealing himself to the world would be "inefficient", however, I severely doubt that a God that has supposedly created the entire universe and has unchecked control over it would find it inefficient to reveal himself to a single species on a single planet in a single galaxy.

My opponent said in his second argument that "we can, show a high probability of [Christianity being true]." I doubt that we can support Christianity's proof with your arguments, as it seems that the only argument that you have proposed specifically supporting the Christian view is your resurrection argument, which is invalid for reasons I have already stated. And second, even if there is a high level of evidence for Christianity, there are still people that believe in other religions, and believe that their religion is true. So all of these people are believing falsely? Why hasn't omnipotent, omniscient God stepped forward and revealed himself, as this is clearly not inefficient? I see no reason for this lack of action except that God cannot exist.

----------

Conclusion

I will try to author the last of my statements without presenting any new arguments, but presenting an illustration of my points.

Take a coin. It has a heads side, and a tails side. I ask all theists out there to pray your hearts out, and ask for 1000 flips of the coin, consecutively, all to land on heads. Then try it. I can guarantee that it will not happen. Take the most adamant believers in God, and this principle will not change. Take all people, all across the world, and this will not change. Free will? I think not. I think this is a simple illustration that God cannot exist.

I have continued to argue against the existence of God as we see him portrayed in our religious texts. If unjustified evils still occur to this day, how can there be an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, as portrayed? If there are a multitude of religions that all believe in a different God, there is evidently only one true religion, as my opponent has conceded. No evidence specifically for Christianity (as my opponent evidently believes is the true religion) has been presented by opponent, and I continue to doubt the existence of any credible, tangible evidence for this. And even if there is evidence, why can't an omnipotent God that has supposedly created the universe step in and reveal his own existence? If he has created the entire universe, I fail to recognize the inefficiency of revealing himself, as my opponent has claimed the reason for this is.

I have had a fantastic debate. I wholeheartedly thank my opponent for it, and I respect his claims to God's existence, however much I disagree with his reasoning. I thank the voters in advance. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MaskedSpartan 1 year ago
MaskedSpartan
Is anybody going to vote?
Posted by MaskedSpartan 1 year ago
MaskedSpartan
Same sources as last time with the addition of, http://www.reasonablefaith.org....
Posted by MaskedSpartan 1 year ago
MaskedSpartan
Not really, the definition of faith is: holding on to something that your reason once accepted in spite of changing moods. What you are thinking of is blind faith. Faith and evidence are completely compatible.
Posted by MegaBeast 1 year ago
MegaBeast
I don't get it. If you believe in God you have faith and faith is belief without evidence. So if you think there is evidence for God's existence then you don't have faith.
Posted by MaskedSpartan 1 year ago
MaskedSpartan
Sources for Opening Argument: Reasonable Faith (Third Edition) by William Lane Craig, pages 111-156, Miracles by CS Lewis (Second Edition), pages 23-31, Case for Christ, pages 21-45 and pages 95-121.
No votes have been placed for this debate.