The Instigator
fever1996
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Physik
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Is it advisable to believe in God

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 2 votes the winner is...
Physik
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,720 times Debate No: 20071
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

fever1996

Pro

Pro shall argue that belief in god is advisable, con will argue that one should not believe in god.

The four rounds will be used in the order and purpose of which follows;

Round 1) to set definitions for the vocabulary that will be used in the argument
Round 2) Main Argument
Round 3) Rebuttal
Round 4) Closing Argument
Definitions

God- a higher being or power which has created the Universe (to broaden our minds, it may be of any religion so long as it has an entity or entity similar to a heaven or paridise for those faithful to the religion)

Belief- The state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Religion- the belief in God(s) and the entities connected with them ( entities referring to Heaven and Heck. )

First round is simply acceptance, definitions, and setting of standards in the debate.

I now leave it to the negation to set any other definitions for the argument, and I wish him/her the best of luck.
Physik

Con

I accept, assuming the definition for religion is expanded to include the cultural practices associated with it.
Debate Round No. 1
fever1996

Pro

Before beginning the argument, I concede to the addition of the Negations definition

�� � The question of believing in a God has enticed arguments through the 21st century. Many people believe that God is imaginary and it would be illogical to follow a path of religion. I am here, on the Affirmative side, to tell you that that assumption would be wrong. A belief in God is highly logical and can be proved through many aspects of mathematics and science, as well as philosophical reasoning.

My first contention is that the idea of a god is logical, regardless of what other people may have said. My first point of evidence is a mathematical proof created by a man named Kurt G�del. This mathematical proof, called G�del's Ontological Proof (1), is most easily summed up by the statement below.

"God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist."

Further proof stems from the scientific field with the disproving of Abiogenisis. Abiogenesis is the theory that a collection of matter grouped together in a "biological soup" and that under the right conditions can come to form life (2). This theory has been proved wrong several time and each time the theory of biogenisis (the theory that life can only arise from life) is proved true again (3).

The Laws of Thermodynamics are also usable in the argument in the affirmation of God. A formal definition of the second law of thermodynamics is "In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (the entropy) increases." In other words, in any closed system, the amount of disorder always increases with time. Things progress naturally from order to disorder, or from an available energy state to one where energy is more unavailable. A way to imagine this is like a hot stove in a cool room, as heat is released, the heat is not lost, but simply expands into the cooler air, making the room jus that much warmer. As the air gets warmer, the stove will eventually become less and less needed until the room temperature and the stove temperature become the same.�Now consider the entire universe as one giant closed system. Stars are hot, just like the cup of coffee, and are cooling down, losing energy into space. The hot stars in cooler space represent a state of available energy, just like the hot coffee in the room. However, the second law of thermodynamics requires that this available energy is constantly changing to unavailable energy. In another analogy, the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable energy, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning! (I.e. someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by the second law of thermodynamics. Only the creator of the second law of thermodynamics could violate the second law of thermodynamics, and create energy in a state of availability in the first place (4).

Further scientific proof can arise from the laws of thermodynamics.

These pieces of evidence and more make up the debate that proves the existence of God, which in turn, makes it advisable to believe in God.

My second contention is that wether or not a God exists (despite the evidence given in the first contention), believing in a Religion would reasonable and logical for a person to partake in.

My first piece of evidence comes from a genius mathematician by the name of Blas� Pascal. Blas� created a benefit chart that showed the possible outcomes and your benifits (1). The benifits for a religious person if God existed would receive a ranking of 4, since they receive eternal bliss. Benifits for an atheist if god existed would receive a ranking of 1, since they would experience eternal pain. If God did not exist, atheist would receive a ranking of 3, since their beliefs were proven and religious people a ranking of 2 since nothing after death is better than hell. Through the logic of his benifits chart,�Pascal reasoned that a belief in God would be overall better for a person.

On the philisophical side, religion gives a person strngth and morals that they need in life. It helps guide people to make ethical decisions in life. It also gives people the strength to make the decisions that otherwise may have been tough for a person to make.

As seeing, per my debate, that religion is both logical and ethical, it would be in the best minds of eveyone to believe in some sort of Religion. I now turn the debate over to the negation and wish the negation the best of luck.

Sources ��

The Paradox of God: The Science of Omniscence; Pickover,�
Clifford A.; Published in 2004

http://www.allaboutscience.org...

http://www.trueorigin.org...;

http://www.personal.psu.edu...
Physik

Con

I thank the affirmative for his post, and wish him the best of luck. Please note that I'm referring to ‘god' in the conventional Christian sense. However before continuing, I would like to advise the affirmative that his second source link appears to be broken, and there is a footnote for a fourth. Also, I was under the impression that it was frowned upon to copy entire blocks of text word for word. It is however my first debate, so forgive me if I am misinformed.

I will be arguing in the negation to the motion "It is advisable to believe in god."

My argument will revolve around the principle that it is illogical to place faith in one possibility when all evidence points towards an alternative. I will also contend that even if the prior logic was ignored, there would still be no benefit to blindly believing in god.


To begin, one should consider the immeasurable improbability of the existence of god. The simple fact is, there is no reliable evidence that supports the existence of a divine being that created the universe. To advise that one should believe in god is to advise that one should hold a belief without evidence. While this is never advisable, in the absence of evidence it is at the very least understandable. The issue is that evidence does exist, and to promote faith while denying the belief that all evidence supports is completely illogical.

Take for example, evolution as opposed to intelligent design.

While evolution is supported by an enormous amount of fossil, embryonic, genetic and various other forms of evidence, intelligent design is supported by a roughly two thousand year old book that endorses things like a virgin birth, resurrection and a ten-to-six thousand year old earth (not reliable evidence) [1].

Not only is it illogical to advise people to believe in god, if it were actually done, there is no benefit as opposed to leading a good life. This leads on to the following argument.


I'm going to move forward with the assumption that should a benevolent god exist they will reward any who live a good life regardless of the individual's faith. This is not a random claim. Imagine for a moment a ‘faithful' rapist and an atheist who has lived a good life and left behind a positive legacy stand before the gate of ‘heaven'. It isn't conceivable that a benevolent god would grant the rapist infinite happiness while sentencing the atheist to eternal torment based entirely off ones ‘faith', as opposed to their actions and virtues.

This reasoning leads off to the so called ‘Atheist's Wager' [2]. It reasons that as long as a person leads a good life, the outcome will be positive. The wager can be summarised in the following passage.

If a person does not believe in god, and a benevolent god exists, he will judge the person based on their actions and virtues. If a person does not believe in god, and no god exists, the person will be remembered fondly by those you leave behind due to the good life you have led. And if a person does not believe in god, and a non-benevolent god (one that judges a person based on their ‘faith') exists, then they not only leave behind a positive legacy, but will have the eternal satisfaction of knowing that they did not spend their life worshipping a hateful and vengeful being.

To put it another way [3], with the options of living a good/evil life and belief/non-belief in god coupled with the existence of a benevolent/no benevolent god, one will arrive at eight possible outcomes. They are:

* If you live a good life, believe in god, and a benevolent god exists, you will go to heaven: infinite gain
* If you live a good life, do not believe in god, and a benevolent god exists, you will go to heaven: infinite gain
* If you live an evil life, believe in god, and a benevolent god exists, you will go to hell: infinite loss
* If you live an evil life, do not believe in god, and a benevolent god exists, you will go to hell: infinite
* If you live a good life, believe in god, and no benevolent god exists, you leave a positive legacy: finite gain
* If you live a good life, do not believe in god, and no benevolent god exists, you leave a positive legacy: finite gain
* If you live an evil life, believe in god, and no benevolent god exists, you leave a negative legacy: finite loss
* If you live an evil life, do not believe in god, and no benevolent god exists, you leave a negative legacy: finite loss

These possibilities can be represented by the following tables [3].

A benevolent god exists

Belief in god (B)

No belief in god (¬B)

Good life (L)

+∞ (heaven)

+∞ (heaven)

Evil life (¬L)

-∞ (hell)

-∞ (hell)

No benevolent god exists

Belief in god (B)

No belief in god (¬B)

Good life (L)

+X (positive legacy)

+X (positive legacy)

Evil life (¬L)

-X (negative legacy)

-X (negative legacy)



It is clearly evident that from these possibilities, leading a good life will result in a positive outcome irrespective of belief.

As a belief in god is illogical, as well as lacking of any benefits, it can in no way be advisable.

[1] The God Delusion – By Richard Dawkins (Specifically Chapter 4)
[2] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager (Formatting refuses to recognise anything after the apostophe in 'Atheist's'. Since that is the link however, please insert 's_Wager on the end to get to the right place. (Tedious, but I can't see a way around it.)

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
fever1996

Pro

I thank the Negation

Now to combat the negations resolve that a belief in God is illogical and that God will grant heaven to those who are basically good.

Now, the notion that god allows all good men to enter heaven may be liked by all atheist in their battle on the religious field, but such a notion is false. If you read the scriptures of the bible (As my opponent said we will debate a god in the conventional Christian sense), you will see several areas in which a Baptism is necessary to enter the Christian Kingdom of Heaven.

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.(1)

John 3:3-8�Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."(1)
(born of water and spirit refers to baptism)

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(1)

Need I go on with this debate, proving to you all that the Atheist Gamble has no religious or logical standing. Seeing as we are debating over a Christian God's existence, we must rely on the Christian bible to give us the facts we need to see who goes to heaven or not, and the bible stands at the conclusion that baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Con: Please note that I'm referring to 'god' in the conventional Christian sense

Con: If... a non benevolent god exists, then they not only leave behind a positive legacy, but will have the eternal satisfaction of knowing that they did not spend their life worshipping a hateful and vengeful being

On the charge that only a vengeful and hateful being would deny a person to heaven based on non belief, that can also be proved wrong. To be unbaptized and unfaithful and still expecting to enter heaven is like crashing a party and do nothing but eat the food the entire day, except in this case, eternity. God gives his love to everyone, but only those that receive it (baptism) can be noted as true followers and may enter the kingdom of heaven. Evidence of this can be found in my previous quotes. (1)

Con: there is no reliable evidence that supports the existence of a divine god that created the universe.

If you had read my first argument you would realize that there is a logical argument of the existence of God that you are denying. Mathematicians, Scientists, and Philosophers have found reliable evidence to prove that a higher being exists. If you would open your mind and review the logic, a new side of truth you have not discovered would be evident.

Con: I was under the impression that it was frowned upon to copy entire blocks of text word for word

Ah, I see that you are referring to the Thermodynamics proof of God. On that charge I am guilty of copying, but it is the 2nd law of Thermodynamics and its explanation that I copied. Had I copied a text of another person sharing their exact beliefs towards the situation, that would have been wrong, but what I did allowed people to understand the science itself. Therefore I fell that the copying that I used was appropriate under the circumstances.

Con: It is illogical to place faith in one possibility when all evidence points toward an alternative.

May I once again convey you to read the first argument that I posted, seeing that it has evidence pointing toward the exact opposite of your argument. And not only that, but you forgotten the logic coming from proving a universal negative. You attempt to dispel the entire possibility of a god, but that would be proving a universal negate, and for anyone that has taken a class of high school physics, we know that such thing is impossible. Therefore, there either is a god, or we just haven't found him yet.

Con: A belief is god is illogical, as well as lacking any benefits

I will not reiterate my response for the first section, since it has been done well enough already. I do however believe that you are wrong on the charge that religion brings no benefits. We can argue that it bring non-tangible benefits like the friendship of those that surround you, mental health because the mind relieves itself of anxiety. Religion brings out the strong part in people, not strong physically, but morally strong by knowing what it is right and demanding that part of yourself to break whatever obstacles may face in life (2). My opponent only sees tangible benefits as worthwhile, but the brotherhood that we create among our fellow worshippers is something that can never be broken.

I now wish the negation the best of luck for his upcoming refutations.

Sources

http://www.blueletterbible.org... (simply go to the site and type in the biblical quotes that I provided)

http://www.articleclick.com...

PS(I have tested the 2nd link and have found no problem at all, but just in case I will provide the address again below)

http://www.allaboutscience.org...
Physik

Con


Firstly I would like to apologise for my comment regarding my opponent’s sources, to the extent that I mistakenly miscounted the number of sources, and confused the broken link of the third source with that of the second. My bad.


Secondly, I thank him for his post, and wish him continual good luck as we proceed.


This being the rebuttal round, I will refute all of my opponent’s principle arguments. They are;



  • The ontological argument.

  • Abiogenesis

  • The laws of thermodynamics

  • Pascal’s wager

  • The unfounded assumption that religion gives a person “strength and morals”.



The ontological argument is perhaps the most persuasive of those that my opponent presented. It does however have a variety of flaws that make it simply ridiculous.


The statement my opponent used to summarise the argument is as follows.


"God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist."


The philosopher Bertrand Russell, responded by stating; “The real question is; is there anything we can think of that by the mere fact that we can think of it is shown to exist outside our thought… If yes is the right answer, then there is a bridge from pure thought to things. If not, not. [1]”


To put it in perspective, if I were to think of a giant bi-pedal robotic shark equipped with lasers and hydrogen bombs, does that mean it exists? The answer is a resounding no. What this argument proposes is that if because we can think of something, it can exist. While it is certainly possible, it becomes as likely as Russell’s Teapot [4].


To make my point clearer, I present the ‘Ontological proof that god does not exist' (put forward by Douglas Gasking).


1 – Creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.


2 - The merit of such an achievement is the product of its quality and the creator's ability.


3 – The greater the disability or handicap of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.


4 – The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.


5 - Therefore, if the universe is the product of an existent creator, we could conceive of a greater being - one which does not exist.


6 – Therefore a non-existent creator is greater than one which exists.


7 – Therefore god does not exist.


While obviously satirical, the point is that you cannot point out the flaws in this argument without conceding the flaws of the other.



Abiogenesis is quite simply irrelevant. Yes it is extremely improbable that it will occur, but how can it be proposed that it is more unlikely than god? The universe is big. It is very, very big. In all of this space, how is it inconceivable to suppose that the required ‘biological soup’ appeared? And I would argue that biogenesis is not a theory; it’s a process whereby living things are created by living things. To prove it true does not prove abiogenesis false. And for that matter abiogenesis has not at all been disproved. If one presumes that life exists, and then reasons that it has not always existed, there has to be a point of beginning. The two main contenders to explain these are creation and abiogenesis, and creation has such a ridiculous number of flaws, imperfections and irrationalities that it makes abiogenesis seem inevitable.



Now for thermodynamics. I think it’s important to understand that the ‘formal’ part of the article sourced is from a book entitled ‘In Six Days - Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation’. I would like to direct you to http://www.gate.net... [2]. I just hope this highlights how much they were scrapping the bottom of the proverbial barrel to get this book written.


Regardless, the point that my opponent has made is that since the laws of the universe do not allow something to come from nothing, something must exist outside these laws for existence to have been created. He proposes that something be god. What he has stipulated is a regress, where by an event causes an event, which causes an event and so on to infinity. He puts god in this as the terminator to the regress.


To quote Richard Dawkins; “The problem is they make the entirely unwarranted assumption that god himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to gift that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to god.” [1]


What Dawkins is saying that we needed an answer to an infinite regress, and produced god. We then made a ridiculous amount of assumptions to make him fit in with conventional religious beliefs like omniscience, intent, etc.



Moving on to Pascal’s Wager. The argument is flawed to its very core, as it defines belief as something that can be wilfully turned on and off. That is ridiculous. Oh, you can be all means say that you believe in god, but would not an omnipotent being be capable of seeing through such deception?


Another principle issue with the wager is that it for some reason places faith as the only entry requirements for heaven/hell. I already outlined this in my main argument, but is it inconceivable to propose that a god would judge based on other, far more important virtues. The only evidence the contrary is the Bible, which as I outlined previously, cannot be considered a legitimate form of evidence. You cannot claim the bible must be taken literally, as then we are urged to commit a wide variety of atrocities. The issue then arises that it should be taken symbolically, and as such is ambiguous, and therefore open to an infinite amount of different interpretation. This coupled with the fact that it was written down many hundreds of years after the events it describes, and that it contains a tremendous amount of contradictions simply renders it irrelevant to logical discussion.



And finally, the statement that religion gives people “strength and morals”. To attack each of the claims individually;


Strength – I do not deny this at all, religion can certainly give people the strength to act outside the realms of reason and, ironically, morals. One only has to look at the actions of a number of Islamic fundamentalists or Christians in the crusades.


Morals – The bible teaches a wealth of good morals, like the act of murder is wrong. It also frequently displays that it is perfectly acceptable to break these morals for the sake of religion. For example, the bible repeatedly teaches that women are objects, and that rape is perfectly acceptable. It is through reason, rational discussion, and an underlying sense of human morality that we know this to be false [3].


It is clear that, unlike my opponent claims, his arguments do not prove the existence of god. And since his other reasons are simply not adequate or rational, he provides no logical reason that supports the notion that “It is advisable to believe in god”.


Sources


The God Delusion – By Richard Dawkins


http://www.gate.net...


The Bible – By various members of random desert tribes


http://russellsteapot.com...


I pass over to the affirmative, good luck!


Debate Round No. 3
fever1996

Pro

I thank the negation and wish him luck in his final argument

Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent's only argument against my religious stance is the atheist's wager, which I will begin to attack in a moment. He takes pride that his argument is to only slander the bible since he is so blind to the interpretive side of the bible. His attacks on my side of the argument are half baked and in some cases irrelevant to what is being said. With this last argument I hope to illuminate whom it may concern on my argument and in what the oppositon may say.

Con: The Laws of Thermodynamics scraped the bottom of the barrel, here's the source proving it!http://www.gate.net...

I would actually suggest you to look at your own source, now if you read or even skim over the article, you will see that it is referring to Biologists and Geologists! Now i may be a litttle rusty on my sciences, but last i checked the Laws of Thermodynamics were classified under the Physics Department. Your source does literally nothing to shake my side of the argument, therefore it continues to be valid. Also, it only referred to creationist Biologist and Geologist. But there is a larger group of scientis who believe in both evolution and non-creationism ideas(such as me) and in a God, up to 40% of scientists and mathematicians, and other polls that play down the polls shown have been biased towards non-belief(1). So no, my scientific, mathematic, and philisophical proof is sound, more than I can say for the arguments my opponent presents.

Con: abiogenisis is irrelevant

I would like to point out to my predecessorthat abiogenisis is provably impossible. Yes, they try to teach in college courses that abiogenisis exist, but only because those who experimented early on, who tried over and over to find a worthwhile outcome, placed the molecules needed for the creation of amino aicds in the atmosphere of the test, making the experiment work so their hypothesis was right, which is the exact opposite of what science should be.(2) Now the quesiton is, how is it possible to create life if you cannot create life out of nothing, simple, somekind of intervention from a power we do not know of, fitting the definition of God as previously created.

Con: Ontilogical proof that god does not exist

In opposition to this argument, there is Alvin Plantigna to provide another modal logic proof of god (3)

1.A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2.A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3.It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4.Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5.Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6.Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Alexander R. Pruss comes also to provide further evidence with logic as well

if something is impossible, we cannot have a perception (even a non-veridical one) that it is the case. It follows that if we have a perception that p, then even though it might not be the case that p, it is at least the case that possibly p. If mystics in fact perceive the existence of a maximally great being, it follows that the existence of a maximally great being is at least possible.

Now if my opponent even tries to negate these, he only becomes hypocritical to his "logical" approach by deny logic even further.

Con: Pascal's Wager

In this argument, I will concede that it leaves out some much needed variables, but the observation of the bible can provide these variables that are missing. If we are too look towards flaws in the benefit chart i have provided, the negation must concede those that are provided.

Con: Does not provide the right strength and morals

I would rather tackle these individually

"religion can certainly give people the strength to act outside the realms of reason and, ironically, morals. One only has to look at the actions of a number of Islamic fundamentalists or Christians in the crusades."

If you are too look at the Catholic Church at the time and those leading Islamic Fundamentalists (I think you spelled extremist wrong), You see that these actions are not guided by Religion, but by corrupted people who believe that the religion is only leverage to gain power and wealth. (4)(5) Religion gives people the strength to get through the hard times, moral and philisophical strength, rather than social and corruptive strength that my opponent ignores in his claims.

Morals: It does not display we break the morals in the pursuit of religious advancement, but in the case of good and evil. Now let us say that you are in 1930 and you (theoretically) knew what Hitler was going to do, and that you knew there was no way to change his mind (Hitler was extremely stubborn if you look at how athouratative he was.) would you think that it was best if he was killed, of course you would! Good and Evil is the main base of religion, and exceptions under the right situations apply. Women have also been gaining more rights in religion (6) so the argument of the objectivity is undeniaby being proven false. As for the rape in the bible, I do not know of where that is explicitly said and encourage the negation to provide the evidence. Logic and Reason are present both in religion of the past, today, and likely tommorow.

Con: Attacks of literal definitions of the bible

This is where many atheist have become as bad as the mis-informed religious people. The Bible was not meant to be a completely literal work of literature, rather, it is a mix of both literal and philisophical, as well as interperative parts. Examples are parts such as the VIRGIN Mary. Atheist have attacked that part of the bible and put it at the front of the non-religious campaign. The true identity of that was to be interperative, that instead of being an actual virgin, she had the purity of spirit that a virgin possess. Intelligent Design also has its interperative meanings. The bible should not always be taken at face value, but sometimes different that what it may seem

That is the end of my argument, but rather than spending 1000 letters trying to convince others, i would like to share my own interperative view of god

Creationism of the universe:False
God is infinite, and if his being also created the universe then the universe is also infinite

Evolution:True
Evidence tells us the truth, and Atheist slander the bible on the (interperative) use of intelligent design

I truly do thank the Negaiton for entering this argument, he has been a worthy opponent and I am glad we could share this debate, I wish him the best of luck in his final argument

Sources

http://www.nytimes.com...

http://www.studytoanswer.net...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://thirdmill.org...

http://www.islamawareness.net...

http://bic.org...
Physik

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate, and wish him the best of luck in voting.

I would like to begin by saying that I feel entirely justified with my closing argument being principally a rebuttal of my opponents, as his was principally a rebuttal of my rebuttal. I also feel justified in attacking his beliefs and stance on a personal level, as he himself brought himself into the debate with his closing argument.


“my opponent's only argument against my religious stance is the atheist's wager

Firstly, I would like to point out that my opponent has yet to adequately refute said argument (“the bible says so” does not count). Second I would like to remind him of my other principle argument, which is that common sense dictates that the side with evidence is a more likely occurrence than the side without, and as such it is not advisable to believe in god.

“I would actually suggest you to look at your own source, now if you read or even skim over the article, you will see that it is referring to Biologists and Geologists! Now i may be a litttle rusty on my sciences, but last i checked the Laws of Thermodynamics were classified under the Physics Department.

I thought it was obvious that I placed that source to highlight the absurdity of ‘accredited’ scientists believing in creation. I would also like to point out that a large number of the scientists that wrote the book are geologists and biologists. And finally, you completely failed to address my argument against the laws of thermodynamics being used as evidence of god. I would advise my opponent to actually read the paragraphs in question, and see that my argument is not related to this source or the humorous origins of his.

“But there is a larger group of scientis who believe in both evolution and non-creationism ideas(such as me) and in a God, up to 40% of scientists and mathematicians

I would remind my opponent that that source is 14 years old, and that the statistic refers to people who believe in a higher being. I would also advise him that a couple of paragraphs under that statistic, it is mentioned that only 10% of top scientists hold similar beliefs.

“So no, my scientific, mathematic, and philisophical proof is sound, more than I can say for the arguments my opponent presents.

First of all, it’s a very big claim to call it proof when you lack evidence, especially when said proof is not sound. Second, you have not adequately refuted any of my arguments.

“I would like to point out to my predecessorthat abiogenisis is provably impossible.

Nothing is provably impossible; need I refer you again to Russell’s Teapot? To quote Thomas Edison – “I haven’t failed, I’ve just found 10,000 ways that don’t work.”

“1.A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2.A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3.It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4.Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5.Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6.Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Alexander R. Pruss comes also to provide further evidence with logic as well; if something is impossible, we cannot have a perception (even a non-veridical one) that it is the case. It follows that if we have a perception that p, then even though it might not be the case that p, it is at least the case that possibly p. If mystics in fact perceive the existence of a maximally great being, it follows that the existence of a maximally great being is at least possible.

Now if my opponent even tries to negate these, he only becomes hypocritical to his "logical" approach by deny logic even further.

Now this is the one that infuriates me. I would like you to imagine me speaking very loudly when I say this: The whole damn point of my “logical” proof was to say that you cannot poke holes in it without conceding flaws in your original ontological “proof”. Of course my version was satirical, because that whole train of thought is so immensely absurd. How dare you accuse me of hypocrisy without reading what I clearly wrote.

“While obviously satirical, the point is that you cannot point out the flaws in this argument without conceding the flaws of the other.” - Physik

The point is, of course my ‘logical’ approach is not logical; because it’s based on your original flawed logic. I would advise my opponent to learn the meaning of the word “satirical”, so next time he sees it he understands the context.

"If we are too look towards flaws in the benefit chart i have provided, the negation must concede those that are provided.

Why on earth must I concede? Once again you have failed to address my argument, in this case against Pascal’s Wager. Once again, the bible is not legitimate evidence, as I have explained previously.

“If you are too look at the Catholic Church at the time and those leading Islamic Fundamentalists (I think you spelled extremist wrong), You see that these actions are not guided by Religion, but by corrupted people who believe that the religion is only leverage to gain power and wealth. (4)(5) Religion gives people the strength to get through the hard times, moral and philisophical strength, rather than social and corruptive strength that my opponent ignores in his claims.

My opponent is essentially trying to justify the phrase “Ignorance is bliss.” In response to his criticism of the word Fundamentalist, perhaps extremist would be a better choice. However, I would remind you that I have not listed all of your spelling mistakes, and there are a lot of them.

“Morals: It does not display we break the morals in the pursuit of religious advancement, but in the case of good and evil. Now let us say that you are in 1930 and you (theoretically) knew what Hitler was going to do, and that you knew there was no way to change his mind (Hitler was extremely stubborn if you look at how athouratative he was.) would you think that it was best if he was killed, of course you would! Good and Evil is the main base of religion, and exceptions under the right situations apply. Women have also been gaining more rights in religion (6) so the argument of the objectivity is undeniaby being proven false. As for the rape in the bible, I do not know of where that is explicitly said and encourage the negation to provide the evidence. Logic and Reason are present both in religion of the past, today, and likely tommorow.

Your argument of morals is absurd. I turn your attention to Deuteronomy 7:1-4, which clearly endorses genocide for religious advancement. And I would remind my opponent that the Roman Catholic Church endorsed Hitler. Also, here is the requested evidence of rape: http://www.evilbible.com...


“This is where many atheist have become as bad as the mis-informed religious people. The Bible was not meant to be a completely literal work of literature, rather, it is a mix of both literal and philisophical, as well as interperative parts."

I’m against the bible because it endorses numerous atrocities, has numerous contradictions, and has very little historical accuracy. Your right in saying the bible was not ment to be a literal work (I agreed with that previously), it is ment to aid in indoctrination through fear.

"
Atheist slander the bible on the (interperative) use of intelligent design"

The bible uses creationism, not intelligent design (a subtle difference, yet important). Also, slander implies that I'm making things up. Read the old testament, and look at evidence.

In closing, I think it’s very clear that as he failed to refute any of my arguments, accused me of false hypocrisy and barely read my post that he does not deserve a win.

I thank my opponent for this debate, and wish him the best of luck!



Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Physik 5 years ago
Physik
But I didn't refer to an argument elsewhere. My argument was that the bible contained rape, I then linked to bible sources which contain rape.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
If I wade thru this and come up with an RFD, which might take an hour, I won't be penalizing anyone points for referring to arguments elsewhere. I'll just ignore those arguments.
Posted by Physik 5 years ago
Physik
To clarify; Saying the bible contains instances rape, then linking to that source is no different from saying that according to evolution man evolved from primates, and linking to supporting evidence.

Only thing that's questionable is me not providing it in sources at the bottom of the page, and if I lose a point somewhere for that, so be it.
Posted by Physik 5 years ago
Physik
The link isn't argument, it's a response to his request for a place in the bible that contains rape.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
The debate wandered, and is hard to read. It's not orderly. So I don't have a vote yet.

But I'll respond to the posting of a link as part of an argument: That's objectionable. You have a limited number of characters to write your own argument. You can't offer a link and say, in effect, "My argument is somewhere on the linked page."
Posted by fever1996 5 years ago
fever1996
I did read that part of that post, but I hoped to add additional proof to combat your resolve that the logic had holes while allowing your own modal logic to fall flat, solidifying the position I had against both the modal logic that had allegedly had holes in it and the attack from the opposing modal logic itself.
Posted by Physik 5 years ago
Physik
Well, what you said with the ontological proof indicates that you didn't.
Posted by fever1996 5 years ago
fever1996
It would be fair if i didn't but i did, so no.
Posted by Physik 5 years ago
Physik
Um, I don't want to be mean, but would you consider it fair for me to accuse you of barely reading my post? Because what I've got written down right now is pretty brutal.
Posted by fever1996 5 years ago
fever1996
no doubt, my parents took away my computers for the day and I was forced to do housework when I woke up so this had to come down to the seconds to be a good debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
fever1996PhysikTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm giving Conduct to Pro since he was votebombed against... but he also had some very good arguments.
Vote Placed by ThePixeledWarrior 5 years ago
ThePixeledWarrior
fever1996PhysikTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: In the end I agree with the Con's surmising statement that describes the Pro's last few rebuttals as simply an attack on his character. I don't think a lot of the substance from the debate got extended in later speeches and from the Pro's last rebuttal I have no idea why it is advisable to believe in God, if anything its all reasons why some beliefs of Christians are good but not why they are the most beneficial.