The Instigator
al1029384756
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
V5RED
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is theism rational?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 410 times Debate No: 81573
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

al1029384756

Pro

Hello.
I would like to challenge anyone on whether theism or atheism is more rational. This is an important subject and it has been a common thing on the Internet to say that faith in God is not rational.

I will be giving scientific and historical arguments for theism

1- Argument from the big bang
.Before the big bang there was no time, so there is no time for anything to cause the big bang in, except for a timeless being, who is God.
.The cause must be beyond space and time, because it created space and time; there was not the time, nor the time for it to exist so nothing could exist to cause the universe in (except for a timeless spaceless being)
.The cause must be uncaused, eternal, because an infinite number of past events is impossible.
.The cause must be immaterial because it created material things.
.God exists
Its not god the gaps:
. We know that the universe had a beginning
. We know that time and space had a beginning
. We know that material things had a beginning
. We know all of the above came from nothing

2- Argument from biological evolution
. We know that evolution by natural selection did occur.
But there's a problem with atheistic evolution:

consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires,"at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely.
Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (")200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion.

Also, in a book called the anthropic cosmological principal, 2 great scientists barrow and tippler calculate the probability of evolution occurring, they lay out ten steps that human evolution would need to have gone through in order to bring about modern man as we know him each of these steps are so improbable that even before it could ever possibly occur our sun would have burnt out and ceased to exist, and in the process it would obliterate our planet Earth. In fact, the number that Barrow and Tippler calculate the chance of atheistic, unguided evolution of ever occurring in the human genome to be somewhere between the values of:

4^-180^110 000 and 4^-380^110 000. (Barrow & Tippler, 1988: 566)

The odds of evolution occurring without a higher power is as crazy as to be fantastic

Evolution is irrelevant to the truth of Christian theism.
Saint Augustine, 300 Ad, on his commentary on genesis pointed at that the creation as mentioned in genesis don't have to be literal.
And that interpretation came 1500 years before the theory of Darwin.
Evolution is simply irrelevant to the truth of Christian theism

3- The third argument I'm going to use, is the argument from the resurrection of Jesus.
If we can prove that Jesus was raised from the death, we can know God exists. The resurrection implies miracle and miracle imply God.
Four minimal facts pass the historical test, by every reputable new testament historian, and I believe that the best explanation for these facts is the hypothesis "god raised Jesus from the death" and those historical facts are:
- Jesus was buried by Joseph of Armathia after his crucifixion
- Jesus tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers the Sunday after his crucifixion
- Multiple apparitions of Jesus alive after his death, not only to his disciples but to sceptics and even enemies.
- Jewish disciples came to genuinely believe in the resurrection despite having every disposition of it. (The Jewish theology prohibits a dying messiah, disciples were willing to get persecuted and go to hell)
There is no plausible naturalistic explanation for these historical facts.
The theories that Jesus wasn't really dead when he was buried, or that the disciples and Paul (who was an enemy) , or that people have stolen the empty tomb are rejected universally.
So the only plausible explanation is the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the death"

In order to say that atheism is more rational than theism, my opponent must refute my arguments and make up his own case.
V5RED

Con

I will start with my refutations and then make my case.

Argument 1:
"Before the big bang there was no time, so there is no time for anything to cause the big bang in, except for a timeless being, who is God." The idea of there not being time simply relates to the idea of time as a referent of change in matter. If you were a ghost with a ghostly stopwatch, you could still keep track of time without the universe. Additionally, you need to justify calling the cause a being.

We have seen that quantum fluctuations can lead to spontaneous formation of matter[1], but even barring that you are not justified in claiming that a being exists outside of space and time without evidence for it. A god may be sufficient to create a universe, but it is not necessary. Another possible, and sufficient but not necessary, explanation would be that the conditions of reality are such that over time universe making ability builds up and spits out universes that then dissipate after trillions of years and are used to recharge the process eternally.

The difference between physicists claiming that matter can come from nothing and your god guess is that they have evidence and can make predictions based on it. You may not call it god of the gaps, but that is what you are giving.

".The cause must be beyond space and time, because it created space and time; there was not the time, nor the time for it to exist so nothing could exist to cause the universe in (except for a timeless spaceless being)" Or timeless quantum fields that make up what we call empty space.

"The cause must be uncaused, eternal, because an infinite number of past events is impossible." Demonstrate that an infinite number of past events is impossible.

" We know that time and space had a beginning"We know that the space within our universe and the time we measure had a beginning, but the void could be eternal.

Argument 2:
"Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense." No, this is not what evolution is like. With evolution, whatever gives the best odds of reproduction stays and is passed on. If a mutation is of benefit, it propagates through the species and is, in a sense, locked into place. If it were just one being with the mutation, this idea might work, but it gets passed on if it is beneficial, so it then becomes a property of the members of the species. If members were then born with a mutation that removed this benefit, their fitness would be lower and they would not undo the advance.[2]

"The odds of evolution occurring without a higher power is as crazy as to be fantastic" Even if this were correct, which it is not as I showed above, you still need to demonstrate that not only is a higher power possible, but that it actually exists. So far you have just inserted it into places where you don't know the answer.

Argument 3:
"If we can prove that Jesus was raised from the death, we can know God exists. The resurrection implies miracle and miracle imply God." This is also incorrect. If I had the power to survive a crucifixion or even come back from death, that does not mean there is a god. It just means that I have that power. A god might be a sufficient to explain the resurrection, but it is not a necessary component of an explanation. If you are familiar with the TV series, The Highlander, there were immortals there who could "die" but would eventually revive as long as their heads were not destroyed or cut off. Jesus could as easily have been one of them as he could have been a god. I don't know that either is possible, but both are sufficient explanations.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://www.youtube.com... (the relevant part starts at 11:20 and runs until 16:40, I don't expect you to watch an hour video)

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Since I have not been provided evidence or an argument that shows me that a god is possible, let alone that a god exists, it is rational to not believe in gods. The question might arise as to why nonbelief is rational if you lack evidence. Evidence is that which shows that a proposition is true. Without it, you have no way to know if the proposition is true, so there is no logical reason to believe. Additionally, belief without evidence leads to contradictory beliefs and is not helpful in making decisions in your life that matter.
Debate Round No. 1
al1029384756

Pro

Thanks for accepting the challenge
My rebuttal:

1.The big bang:
According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, nothing in the Universe (i.e., matter or energy) can pop into existence from nothing (see"Miller, 2013)."All"of the scientific evidence points to that conclusion. So, the Universe could not have popped into existence before the alleged "big bang" (an event which we do not endorse). Therefore, God must have created the Universe
transcending the entire universe there exists a cause which brought the universe into being"ex nihilo Our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it. The cause is God by definition no matter what you call it, god is immaterial spacless timeless.
"Demonstrate that an infinite number of past events is impossible."
"In eternalist ontology, since all events are equally real, there can be no question that a beginningless temporal regress of events is composed of an actually infinite number of events. Since all events are equally real, the fact that they exist (tenselessly) at different times loses any significance. The question, then, is whether events" temporal distribution over the past on a presentist ontology precludes our saying that the number of events in a beginningless series of events is actually infinite.

Now we may take it as a datum that the presentist can accurately count things that have existed but no longer exist. He knows, for example, how many U.S. presidents there have been up through the present incumbent, what day of the month it is, how many weeks it has been since his last haircut, and so forth. He knows how old his children are and can reckon how many billion years have elapsed since the Big Bang. The non-existence of such things or events is no hindrance to their being enumerated. Indeed, any obstacle here is merely epistemic, for aside from considerations of vagueness there"must"be a certain number of such things. So in a beginningless series of past events of equal duration, the number of past events must be infinite, for it is larger than any natural number. But then the number of past events must be U01;0"(the first transfinite cardinal number), for W34; (signifying a potential infinite) is not a number but an ideal limit."
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite

2. Evolution :
You missed the point of my argument, notice what I said
"They lay out ten steps that human evolution WOULD NEED TO HAVE THROUGH in order to bring about modern man as we know him each of these steps are so improbable..."
The number we get is a huge one. So if evolution did occur it would literally be a miracle and therefore evidence for the existence of God.
What do you mean demonstrate that God exists? I can only give good arguments that he exists, this argument implies God, I don't need to demonstrate he exists

3. The resurrection:
Jesus' s resurrection implies miracle and miracle implies God.
We're arguing if God exists, you're telling me to prove God exists when im giving arguments for God. (As you did in #2). This doesn't work
If jesus did rise from the death God necessarily exists. You don't see people rising from the death everyday. It happened once to one man who claimed to be the unique son of God.
If jesus did rise from the death, God exists and Christianity is true
You haven't addressed this argument and i'm willing to defend it.
V5RED

Con

Your source is simply mistaken about how physics works on a few levels. The "laws" did not necessarily even exist when the universe started, so there was nothing to violate[2] and the sum of the matter and energy in the universe is zero[1], so even if there was such a law it was not violated.

You still have yet to demonstrate that a god is possible or that it exists. Until you do that, calling it the cause is just an argument from ignorance fallacy.

"the Universe could not have popped into existence before the alleged "big bang" (an event which we do not endorse). Therefore, God must have created the Universe" Even if we knew nothing about the universe, you are not justified in claiming magic did it until you can demonstrate that magic is possible. I would postulate that magic universe creating pixies made the universe. That is actually a better explanation than yours since they only have the necessary powers whereas your god has many unnecessary ones.

"1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite." I reject this premise if by collection you mean the sum of possible past events. The most basic way I can explain why this is a bad premise is by postulating a magic pendulum that can swing forever. The series of swings could never be summed in a practical sense since it coes on forever, but it can be summed theoretically and the mathematical sum is infinite.

If that doesn't satisfy you, you can always go and learn calculus so you can see that we know how to sum infinite series.
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu...

"You missed the point of my argument, notice what I said
"They lay out ten steps that human evolution WOULD NEED TO HAVE THROUGH in order to bring about modern man as we know him each of these steps are so improbable..."
The number we get is a huge one" I got the point, you just don't get how evolution works. I explained how the number is not as big as you think and so did Richard Dawkins in his video.

"So if evolution did occur it would literally be a miracle and therefore evidence for the existence of God." Even if your argument was correct, which it is not, evolution would still only be evidence that a highly improbable event took place. Until you demonstrate that a god exists or is even possible you have no justification for saying that since X is improbable and X happened, god exists.

"What do you mean demonstrate that God exists? I can only give good arguments that he exists, this argument implies God, I don't need to demonstrate he exists" No, it does not imply God. You are using the idea of an all powerful magician that can do anything to explain away what you don't understand, but the problem with that is you cannot show that such a magician is even possible. These are not good arguments. These are god of the gaps, argument from ignorance fallacies. None of your arguments deal with whether god is even possible. You just stick him in places where you don't understand how something works.

I also do not see evolution as demonstrating that a god exists. If a god exists, he has no need for naturalistic mechanisms to create life. That we came about by mechanisms that can be understood and explained without a god is evidence against the idea of a creator no matter how unlikely you think evolution is.

"Jesus' s resurrection implies miracle and miracle implies God.
We're arguing if God exists, you're telling me to prove God exists when im giving arguments for God. (As you did in #2). This doesn't work
If jesus did rise from the death God necessarily exists. You don't see people rising from the death everyday. It happened once to one man who claimed to be the unique son of God.
If jesus did rise from the death, God exists and Christianity is true" Reread my objection. I addressed this on levels. I showed how one could imagine conditions where one could resurrect in a universe sans God. Proving that you can survive a crucifixion or come back from the dead only proves that you can survive a crucifixion or come back from the dead. Proving that god exists requires evidence of him existing, not evidence that other things can happen.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]https://www.quora.com...

I have some extra room here, so I will touch on some logical errors you have made in your arguments.

You wanted to avoid "god of the gaps". "God of the gaps" is when you stick god in as an explanation for something you do not yet understand. A proper argument for a God that is not a "god of the gaps" would either deal with his possible existence or his necessity. I gave examples other than god that you could also put in the gaps where you stuck god so you could see that although he was sufficient, he was not necessary.

X is necessary for Y to be true if Y cannot be true without X. X is sufficient for Y to be true if the truth of X means that Y is also true.

For example, it is necessary that a person be a man if he is a bachelor, but being a man is not sufficient to being a bachelor. There are no bachelors that are not men, but there are many men who are not bachelors.

On the flip side, being a bachelor is sufficient for one also being a man, but it is not necessary. There are no bachelors that are not men, but there are many men who are not bachelors. [4]

A god that wants to create the universe in the way our universe formed is certainly sufficient for it to exist, but the god is not necessary. If such a god exists, the universe exists, but the universe also exists on the premise that universe creating pixies exist. Since the god is merely sufficient, you cannot use the existence of the universe or the process of evolution as evidence that he exists. They can neither deny nor confirm the existence of a god who made them happen using naturalistic means.

That god is also sufficient to resurrect Jesus, but he is not necessary. Jesus could have been a Highlander-style immortal who lied with respect to God claims.[3] Of course I reject the idea that Jesus even existed, but the point is that even if he did rise from the dead, that does not prove god did it since other explanations are able to be postulated. What you could do is postulate that god did it if you had already proven god existed. You could do this because we would know a god could do it and we would not have any other demonstrable mechanisms for the resurrection. This would be akin to police work, but you need to start by proving that your solution is even possible. Until then it is as likely that god did it as it is that Jesus was just a lying immortal.

This leaves you with nothing demonstrating that a god must exist, and you never even attempted to demonstrate that a god is possible, so your arguments all add up to no evidence.

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
al1029384756

Pro

1.
"The laws of nature are eternal" http://www.bartleby.com...
Even stephen hawking who is an atheist believes that the universe will create itself from nothing because there are laws of nature.
"Because there's a law such as grivity the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
But I thought that gravity was a function of mass, as per Einstein. How can you have gravity before mass and therefore how can gravity explain mass?
I find it weird that you think the universe could pop out of existence of nothing..
You haven't addressed my argument about "why an infinite number of past events is impossible".

2-
Your rebuttal only work on the 200 component; about mutations m It doesn't work on barrow and tiplers's calculation on the ten steps that evolution would've needed to get modern man as we know him.
Each ten step is so improbable that if evolution did occur it would literally be a miracle and evidence for the existence of god.
Consider the chances of amino acies forming, this is not about mutations.
The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros The chances of getting all heads 100 times in a row is similar to the chance of getting 100 left-handed amino acids to form a biological protein. Proteins range in size from about 50 to over 30,000 amino acids. To get a small protein of 100 left-handed amino acids from an equal mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids, the probability would then be 1030"or 1 followed by 30 zeros (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). How believable (credulity factor) is it that this could happen by random chance? This number, 1030, only measures the possibility of getting all left-handed amino acids. It does not say anything about their order. In our example, we have a chain of 100 amino acids. Each position can be occupied by any 1 of 20 different amino acids common to living things, and these must be in a specific order to form a functional protein. What is the probability that the correct amino acid will be placed in position number 1 of the chain? It will be 1/20. What is the probability that the first two positions will be correct? This can be calculated by multiplying the two probabilities together (1/20 x 1/20 = 1/202). Therefore, the probability of getting all 100 amino acids in the correct position would be 1/20 multiplied by itself 100 times or 1/20100(this equates to 1/10130). This is 1 followed by 130 zeros.
So I don't think evolution is an evidence for atheism, quite the contrary

1"Darwin, F., ed (1888)"The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, London: John Murray, vol. 3, p. 18."
2"Shelley, Mary W. (1831)Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus, London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, Introduction, p. 9.
3"Huxley, Thomas H. (1870) "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis" in (1968)"Collected Essays of Thomas H. Huxley, vol. 8,"Discourses Biological and Gelogical, New York: Greenwood Press, p. 256.
4"Behe, Michael J. (1996)"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New York: Touchstone, pp. 262-268.
5"Denton, Michael (1986)Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, p. 263.
6"Johnson, Phillip E. (1993)"Darwin On Trial, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, p. 9.
7"Yockey, Hubert P. (1992)Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255, 257."
8"Dawkins, Richard (1996)"The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 146."
9"Dembski, William A. (1998)"The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5,209,210."

3- You haven't addressed the argument from the resurrection. To me its the most important one.
I'll demonstrate to the readers why there is no naturalistic explanation for it.
When we have historical evidence, we look at the evidence itself.
We have discovered that Jesus was buried by joseph of armathia, his tomb was found empty by a group of women, multiple individuals have experienced appearances of jesus alive after his death, and that the disciples genuinely came to believe in the resurrection despite having every disposition of it.
Historical evidence demonstrates the"Gospel"of Mark was written before 37 A.D which would be about"four years or less after Jesus" crucifixion and scholars further note the"language, grammar and style used by Mark in his account of Jesus" crucifixion and resurrection (including the empty tomb) indicates Mark received the narrative from an earlier source. As noted by Oxford historian A.N. Sherwin-White, it is unprecedented anywhere in history for a legend to have arisen that fast so as to distort the account in the gospels of the resurrection.
Mark's Passion source didn't end with Jesus' burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial account verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John rely on independent sources about the empty tomb. Jesus' empty tomb is also mentioned in the early sermons independently preserved in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36), and it's implied by the very old tradition handed on by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have multiple, early attestation of the fact of the empty tomb in at least four independent sources. Same thing with the multiple attestations

why the body couldn't have been stolen:
.The guards stationed at the tomb would have prevented anyone from stealing Jesus" body.
.No one stealing the body would have had a reason to leave the grave clothes behind or take time to fold the burial head cloth.
.The initial reactions of the disciples when they found out the tomb was empty were inconsistent with them stealing Jesus" body.
(When the women reported they had seen Jesus alive, the disciples initial reaction was to think the women were talking nonsense (Luke 24:10-12). Some of the disciples did not believe Jesus had bee resurrected until after they personally witnessed the resurrected Jesus with their own eyes (John 20:25). Thomas didn't believe Jesus had been resurrected even though the other ten apostles told him Jesus had appeared to them (John 20:19-25)
. The resurrection of man the messiah was completely unexpected on judaism, jewish theology prohibits a dying messiah, the invention of that would lead the inventors to get persecuted and go to hell
. Jewish propaganda presupposes empty tomb, they even paid for those who have seen it to lie
.The explanation someone stole the body doesn't explain the eyewitness testimony of Jesus" post crucifixion and burial appearances

.Hallucinations usually happen only once, except to the insane."This one returned many times, to ordinary people (Jn"20:19-21:14;"Acts 1:3)
.Hallucinations come from within, from what we already know, at least unconsciously."This one said and did surprising and unexpected things (Acts 1:4,9)"like a real person and unlike a dream.
.Not only did the disciples not expect this, they didn't even believe it at first.Neither Peter, nor the women, nor Thomas, nor the eleven believed. They thought he was a ghost; he had to eat something to prove he was not (Lk"24:36-43)
. Hallucinations do not eat."Yet the resurrected Christ did, on at least two occasions (Lk"24:42-43;"Jn 21:1-14)
. Paul was persecuting early Christians until he saw jesus and came to genuinely believe in the resurrection, he hadn't met jesus before nor did he love him, no reason for hallucinations
.The disciples touched him"(Mt 28:9;"Lk24:39;"Jn"20:27).
.They also spoke with him, and he spoke back."Figments of your imagination do not hold profound, extended conversations with you, unless you have the kind of mental disorder that isolates you. But this "hallucination" conversed with at least eleven people at once, for forty days (Acts 1:3)
.The apostles could not have believed in the "hallucination" if Jesus' corpse had still been in the tomb."This is a very simple and telling point; for if it was a hallucination, where was the corpse? They would have checked for it; if it was there, they could not have believed.

All the other theories like jesus wasn't really dead when he was buried etc are rejected universally. There is no plausible naturalistic explanation.
The only plausible explanation is the hypothesis "god raised jesus from the dead as accordance to the scripture.

Thanks for your time.
V5RED

Con

So, pro did not rebut the major objections I raised. He rebutted some things I wrote and a lot of things I never wrote.

I did not say that the laws did not always exist, I just pointed out that it has been postulated that they were created with the universe. That was not my major objection to his first argument. My major objection was that he was unjustified in postulating that a being caused the big bang because he never gave evidence that such a being exists or is even possible. That a thing would be sufficient to cause something is not evidence that it exists. An older brother punching me to cause the bruise I have on my thigh would be sufficient. Does that tell you anything about whether I actually have an older brother? No. There are many ways to get a bruise, but it makes no sense to suggest that someone caused my bruise if you don't know if that person even exists. Pro did not demonstrate that a god exists, so postulating it as a cause makes no sense.

Let me put this another way. Pro would have had to demonstrate that a god was necessary as a cause of the big bang in order to sensibly argue that a god caused the big bang in the absence of any direct evidence that the god really exists. He failed at doing that because I was able to postulate other sufficient causes. Since there are many sufficient causes available, it is clear that mere sufficiency does not get you to necessity. To refute this pro would have had to attack my proposed sufficient examples of causes of a big bang. He did not do that.

Additionally, I refuted pro's claim that the universe from nothing violates the 1st law by giving evidence that the universe is a net zero energy/matter system so when you sum all the matter and forces(like gravity) you come to zero. Pro never addressed this.

On his argument about infinite series, I gave an example of how one could have infinite events and I even pointed out that it is possible to sum an infinite series because of the advances in mathematics. Pro ignored this rebuttal.

To his evolution argument, I pointed out with sources that his model to show how unlikely evolution is is incorrect, but I also pointed out that this was irrelevant. The major objection is to his unjustified proposal that a magic being did it. Pro is proposing a cause that he cannot demonstrate is even possible. His argument is based on sufficiency, not necessity. If the odds were 1E9999999999 to 1 against evolution giving rise to man by naturalistic means, naturalism is still a better explanation than god because there is no evidence that the god exists or is even possible. It makes no sense to consider the odds of something happening given a condition that cannot be shown to even be possible. Evolution causing pixies are another sufficient explanation, but that they are sufficient to cause evolution is not evidence that they exist.

Let's take the assumption that a mind control fairy exists who has the power to make me type all of the things I have written in this debate and has no choice but to use that power. Under the fairy assumption, the odds of me having typed these specific things are 100% whereas the odds that I would choose those exact words as a free agent are infinitesimally small. Using the reasoning Pro has used in his evolution argument, you would be forced to conclude that the fairy exists, but that is absurd. You have no reason to believe that a fairy like that is possible just like Pro gave no reason to believe that a god is even possible.

My point about evolution being evidence against god seems to have been misunderstood. If a god created everything, then he is not bound by natural laws and it makes no sense that he would need to go through this 14 billion year process to create an entire universe just so that humans would eventually exist. It seems bizarre that a god would choose such an inconvenient method to create life when, if he existed, he could just pop like into being.

Pro didn't ever address my rebuttal to his Jesus argument. I proposed a sufficient non theistic supernatural explanation for Jesus' resurrection, namely the idea that Jesus was a Highlander style immortal. The point of that was to show that if the resurrection happened, it is only proof that Jesus could resurrect, not proof that a god caused him to resurrect. Pro's historical sources are irrelevant since even if the resurrection story is true, it does not prove or even imply that a god exists.

Pro seems to be stuck in a mindset where he is unable to imagine supernatural things that are not his god. It is not a cheat for me to use supernatural examples because I was not claiming that they exist nor did I accept that the things Pro tried to attribute to a god could not have a naturalistic explanation. I only used supernatural examples to show that Pro's methods can be used to "prove" that an infinite number of potentially contradictory supernatural being exist.

He also seems to have a script for his arguments and when I don't give the rebuttal he has been taught to prepare for, he can't contend with it so he ignores it.

I think pro for his time in the argument and hope that he takes a closer look at the arguments given. I did my best to make it clear why he has included unjustified premises and/or reached conclusions that his arguments do not support.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: logical-master123// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 2 points to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better arguments in this debate. I felt that Pro's arguments were harder to rebut. However Con had more sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) A voter must examine the arguments given and explain why that side had better arguments, not merely state that that's the case. (2) Merely having more sources is not a basis for providing source points to one side. There has to be a clear, articulated reason why one side's sources were absolutely dominant over the other.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
if rational is unresonable
Posted by vasarta 1 year ago
vasarta
nope
No votes have been placed for this debate.