The Almighty God exists
Debate Rounds (3)
With the above given, I would hold that it is impossible to prove God exists, without some future miracle occurring that would be observable and repeatable. I make the above statement with some grain of salt due to the fact that as of yet, you have only loosely explained your concept of God. I would request a more precise definition before I argue that it is unreasonable to believe in God. I am assuming you're referring to an omnipresent, omniscient, Abrahamic God, but more detail would be greatly appreciated. Catholicism? Is the Old Testament still a binding covenant, in the eyes of the God you mention? Etc.
Secondly, as you have not provided evidence that God uses science to accomplish His will, other than a rhetorical question, I would ask that you do so. Your rhetorical question assumes that God is a rationally thinking being whose actions can be predicted. However, if you were to conduct an experiment, praying to God for an event to occur, then predicting whether or not God would answer your prayer, I do not believe you would find any statistically significant evidence that you are capable of predicting God's actions, assuming He exists. Since you cannot know God by observing His alleged actions, why He would or would not use evolution to enact what may be His will is purely conjecture, as it stands.
Additionally, while abiogenesis does not necessarily directly contradict the idea of God, the scientific method it is based on does not offer God any support. If you cannot provide evidence that, if God exists, He used abiogenesis and/or evolution for creation, other than the argument that abiogenesis and/or the theory of evolution are the best observable theories we have for life so He would surely use those, then how do you mean to defend the argument that He does indeed use those methods? If God is omnipotent, He could surely bend physics and laws of reality to His will, and would therefore have no reason to follow the rules for the universe He designed, would He? The Bible itself, if we are to believe its contents, even gives reference to several incidents where God chose to ignore the laws of physics. This directly contradicts the idea that God would choose to follow physics simply because He invented it. For instance the flood (apparent conservation of matter issue, as well as lack of geological evidence), the parting of the sea (numerous violations), and God stopping the Sun's relative movement for Joshua (major thermodynamics issue, as well as interesting meteorological implications).
So far well done on your argument. Comparing the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to a leprechaun and a Flying Spaghetti Monster, however, is a very childlike action. Unlike leprechauns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters, God is known because He spoke to the physical ancestors of the Jews today and raised up prophets who have performed and still do perform miracles today(yes, there are real life prophets today. I'll give you an example.. search for Prophet Tom Deckard. Contact him and tell him to prove to you that he's a real prophet. That's the only way you'll know if you don't take my word for it. He has prophesied even to the president). Now I don't know about leprechauns, but a Flying Spaghetti Monster does not have any witnesses or proof. There's no historical evidence for it either. Compare the number of people who believe in leprechauns or unicorns or Santa Claus with the people who believe in God. You'll find that the number of people who are Christian, Jew, or Muslim far outweigh the number of people who believe in other things.
You might bring up that many are "conditioned" into the religion through their upbringing; beware of generalizing. Not all Christians are brought up as a Christian. If you have an open mind, search online for Akiane Kramarik, Dr. Eben Alexander, George Rodonaia for examples. They were raised as atheists until something happened to them that completely changed their lives forever. And no, no one preached to them.
Concerning science, I did not say that God never breaks the laws of physics. He does create miracles like you said; I was emphasizing the point that natural phenomenon do not disprove God's existence, which I hear so many ignorant atheists try to argue, except for you since you are quite more logical than many of them.
If you are open, I do have some proof of His existence. The near-death experiences, healing miracles, and appearance of angels in bodily form(not the fake "did-you-see-that?" videos which are obviously edited) that you can find on Youtube.
Regarding the rest of Bible prophecy that have yet to occur in the future, I'd recommend you search for information on the Shemita, which is an event that has been observed to have affected many of the world's major events(this is the statistics you are looking for). It's very accurate: https://www.youtube.com...
And on the blood red moons: https://www.youtube.com...
Well there's some proof for you. No manipulation of words, just testimonies.
The basic idea behind reductio ad adsurdum is to take an argument (presumably from an opposing stance) and reduce the reasoning behind it from its context. In essence, if you are supporting your claim X with reasoning Y, then I would take reasoning Y, and use it to support an obviously absurd claim, Z. Since we can likely agree that claim Z is faulty, it implies there is a missing or defunct premise(s) within its supporting reasoning, Y. Since claims X and Z both use the same reasoning, Y, it follows that Y is insufficient to support X. In my argument I used the FSM for Z. By this I do not mean to draw a direct line between the FSM and God. What I do draw a line between is the argument you used to support God, and the argument that could hypothetically be used to support an absurd claim such as the FSM, those arguments being equivalent to each other.
Since the same reasoning you granted in round 1 could just as easily support something as obviously absurd (which is not to say God is absurd even though I contend he does not exist) as leprechauns, it demands that your reasoning be change or altered so as to support God, but not leprechauns (as it seems you have attempted to do here in round 2); stay with the reasoning, and then additionally argue that indeed anything from the reasoning, even the given, supposedly absurd example is justified (a rarely taken path); or back off the reasoning entirely, and insert a new reasoning for the initial conclusion.
I once again apologize. Now, onto my refutations.
Near death experiences cannot be independently verified, and those experiences are interpretable. I feel those grounds alone are enough to dismiss the topic. Consider further though, the near-death experiences of individuals of other religions, if we hold those as evidence, things get rather sticky for you, since your God claims to be the only one out there.
Upon entering Tom Deckard into Google the results are rather off-putting. Sites, plural, which come up before the "prophet" - yes, for those reading, Tom claims he is a prophet - are dedicated to debunking him. My favorites were freedomfromthelaw.com and prophettomdeckard.com. I did press forward though until I watched three of his videos. Upon cursory research, I have come to understand that Tom claims amongst other things, to have cured people of AIDS. Incidentally, he provides no proof of this and none of the allegedly cured have talked about it as far as I can tell. I don"t think I need say more on the subject of Tom; if he is your best example and evidence for miracles, I dare say you have just as much evidence of miracles as Tom does: none.
Your next argument, that more people believe God than Santa, is argumentum ad populum. This is a logical fallacy. Simply because a large number of people believe something does not make it true. Consider: Most people happily believe bananas grow on trees, but technically you would find the "banana tree" to botanically be an herb! Moreover, however, I am not trying to prove Santa, but disprove God. If the difference is merely the number of followers, and argumentum ad populum is a fallacy in this case, which it is, what reason remains for me to believe in God any more than in Santa? Since your amended argument is still fallacious, I would contend my initial statements about other explanations, mythical or secular in nature, still hold.
Next, you seek to cut off an argument I did not intend on making. The people you cited are all well and good, but this is evidence of the existence of your God no more than converts away are evidence that He does not exist, or converts to Roman Gods thousands of years ago are evidence that those gods existed.
As far as "proof" of healing miracles and angels on YouTube, I am unsure of which you are counting as obviously fake or not, so if you could provide these proofs, that would be appreciated. I did watch two on these subjects from Tom, since you seem to support him, and he does not back up any of his claims or even provide video of the miracles, as far as I saw.
Your videos on the Shemita and blood moons both suffer from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, as well as fail to provide causal links. If I were to graph, over time, the percentage of world populous that are pirates, and the average global temperature, I would find a positive correlative relationship. This does not mean that we should tell our children to drop out of school and live a life on the high seas, so as to combat global warming.
So far these have all been refutations; to disprove God, I would propose a logic system. Since, a null state cannot be proven false with observation (effectively, just because something didn't happen in an experiment doesn't mean it couldn't happen), I seek to show that God is a logical impossibility as you portray Him. As you know, there are many parts of the Bible which speak to His perfection, omnipotence, etc. Many paradoxical arguments spew from them, that lead to arguments on man"s interpretation of the Bible, etymology failures, and definitions (See omnipotence paradox, Epicurean paradox). Since this debate has only a small number of rounds I will focus only on one with the least possibility in devolving into semantics.
First, as we know God is without sin and certain emotions like lust and envy are sins, so we can generate the premise that by extension God has not lusted or sinned.
Second, if God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows. (And much more, but this is irrelevant to my argument)
Third, if premise 2 is true, God must know the feelings of lust and envy.
Fourth, to know these emotions is synonymous to experiencing them, so God has felt lustful and envious.
So, given that God exists, as you have explained Him, God has had and has not had the feelings of lust and envy. (As shown by the four previous premises) This is paradoxical, and therefore God cannot exist as you define him; He is impossible by His very own definition.
letyoureyesbeopened forfeited this round.
Thank you for the debate, and I am sorry I did not get a response. Feel free to contact me to continue later, if you wish.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Please see comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.