The Instigator
Atheism_Debater
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
creationtruth
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

The Existence of God (Christian)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Atheism_Debater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,060 times Debate No: 70013
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Atheism_Debater

Con


In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist. I wish to take this debate seriously, anyone that can prove that God is real, should accept.

Definitions:

God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe.

Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods.

Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods.

Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future.

Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything.

Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Rules:

First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals.

A forfeit is an automatic loss.

My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round.

Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist.

Merriam Webster

creationtruth

Pro

Accepted. I am a biblical creationist and Christian. I of course believe that the God of the Bible exists and that He has made Himself known, apart from His inspired and preserved, written word, both through His creation and through the moral law written on our hearts (Romans 1:20, 2:14-15). Men are therefore without excuse for rejecting their Creator God.
Debate Round No. 1
Atheism_Debater

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate Pro, and I look forward to its outcome.

Arguments:

“As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him.”

Psalm 18:30

“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Matthew 5:48

“The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; “

Psalm 19:7

From this evidence we can conclude without a doubt that God is deemed perfect. Something is deemed ‘perfect’ when it fits completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better. Therefore a perfect thing will have no flaws, defects, lacks, weaknesses, disadvantages; it will not possess any negative feature or lack of a positive feature that pushes it away from the ideal perfection. Since God is perfect, it cannot create imperfect things thus losing its perfection.

Things that we call "perfect" are usually exaggerations of real things. For example, you might wonder what a "perfect friend" might be like, yet no one has a perfect friend in real life. Anyone who says that they do is probably exaggerating. The same goes for intimate partners, children, pets, parents, bosses and employees, teachers, students, schools, jobs, and so on. Perfection in any of these categories tends to be an idealization of real things, where the good aspects are preserved and perfected while the bad aspects are eliminated. We can infer something said to be "perfect" is unlikely to exist because perfect things tend to be nonexistent idealizations of real things. Since perfect things are unlikely to exist and God is a perfect thing, it follows that it is unlikely that God exists.

  • God is a perfect being that created the universe.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect before the creation of the universe.

  • God would not make the world worse in virtue of his moral perfection.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect during and after the creation of the universe.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect.

  • The world is imperfect.

  • Therefore, God does not exist.

Now onto my second point.

People seem to believe that God is the most moral being in the universe. Part of this belief is that God does not have certain kinds of feelings. Although God may have the feeling of anger, God does not have the feelings of lust or envy. Moreover, part of this ordinary concept of God is that God knows more than anyone else. In particular the ordinary man supposes that God knows (at least) all that men know. However these two beliefs, once correctly understood, are logically incompatible.

A person who knows lust and envy has at least had the feeling of lust or envy. Since God has all of men's knowledge and more, he must know lust and envy. But to say God has known lust and envy is to say that God has had the feelings of lust and envy. But this is incompatible with God's moral goodness. Hence God does not exist.

  • If God exists, God has not had the feelings of lust or envy therefore not intruding on his moral existence.

  • If God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows and more.

  • If God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows, God knows lust and envy.

  • If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy.

  • God does not exist.

Now onto my last point.

The Christian God is defined as a personal being that is all-knowing. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is choice. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, you can never know with entire certainty what the future holds since you have free-will.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Conclusion:

I would like to thank my opponent very much for accepting this debate. This is the end of my response as I have stated my three arguments. It is now time to hear my opponent’s arguments. I look forward to the next round and wish my opponent the best of luck.

Citations:

The Holy Bible

https://www.biblegateway.com...

creationtruth

Pro

Argument From Information

The cells of all organic life forms contain information in the form of genetic code. The chain of genetic code known as DNA harbors the amino acids which themselves contain no semantic meaning, but when placed in a linguistic sequence, can be readily utilized in forming every phenotype known to biology.


The living cell demonstrates a system of communication, particularly between DNA and proteins. DNA codes for proteins which go on to form every part of a creature, including the very DNA from which it was coded. DNA is a macro-molecule in the shape of a double-helix with a sugar-phosphate backbone.



The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.



DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix. The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder’s rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder.
DNA is a double helix formed by base pairs attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone.


An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...).


DNA serves as the blueprint for every creature's phenotype. Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information.


"To fully characterise the concept of information, five aspects must be considered"statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Information is represented (that is, formulated, transmitted, stored) as a language. From a stipulated alphabet, the individual symbols are assembled into words (code). From these words (each word having been assigned a meaning), sentences are formed according to the firmly defined rules of grammar (syntax). These sentences are the bearers of semantic information. Furthermore, the action intended/carried out (pragmatics) and the desired/achieved goal (apobetics) belong of necessity to the concept of information (http://creation.com...)."


Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator.


Argument From Irreducible Complexity

The complexity of the cell alone is not what points to an intelligent Creator but it is the study of cellular function itself. For example, consider the superbly efficient molecular motor ATP synthase, a tiny protein complex which makes an energy-rich compound ATP (adenosine triphosphate). ATP synthase manufactures ATP from two smaller chemicals, ADP and phosphate. ATP synthase is so small that it is able to manipulate these tiny molecules, one at a time. ATP synthase must convert some other form of energy into new ATPs. This energy is in the form of a hydrogen ion (H+) gradient, which is generated by a different whole protein system to ATP synthase. Hydrogen ions pour through ATP synthase like wind through a windmill. This comprises a positively charged electric current, in contrast to our electric motors, which use a negative current of electrons (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). These rotary motors in the membranes of mitochondria (the cell's power houses) turn in response to proton flow (a positive electric current). Rotation of the motor converts ADP molecules plus phosphate into the cell's fuel, ATP. When a stream of tiny hydrogen ions (protons) flows through the base and out the side of ATP synthase, passing across the membrane, they force the axle and base to spin. The stiff central axle pushes against the inside walls of the six head proteins, which alternately become slightly deformed and reformed. Each of your trillions of cells has many thousands of these machines spinning at over 9,000 rpm (http://www.mrc-mbu.cam.ac.uk...).



ATP synthase is made by processes which all require functioning sources of ATP such as the unwinding of the DNA helix with helicase to allow transcription and then translation of the coded information into the proteins that make up ATP synthase. Manufacture of the 100 enzymatic machines needed to achieve this require ATP as well! And making the membranes in which ATP synthase sits needs ATP, but without the membranes it would not function (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). Evolutionists imagine how the ATP synthase motor might have evolved, but these are just surmisings, no conclusive evidence has been brought forth. This example of ATP synthase exemplifies the common chicken-and-egg problem many molecular machines exhibit. Which came first the ATP synthase which requires ATP or ATP which requires ATP synthase? This is quite a vicious cycle for evolutionists to explain.



Let us also consider the marvelous macromolecule DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA's function is to store and transmit genetic information, but it can't work without many molecular machines already inplace. However, as the noted philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper commented, "What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But '. . .the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA.' Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics" (http://books.google.com...).



Richard H. Ebright and his team from Rutgers University have discovered more intricacies in the process of transcription (http://phys.org...), where information from the right-part of the DNA is copied onto a strand of messenger RNA (mRNA). It is this mRNA that is translated into proteins in the complex machines known as ribosomes. DNA is double stranded, so must first be unwound, so that the right strand can be copied onto mRNA, in a sense like a photographic negative. So one of these machines (ribosomes), called RNA polymerase (RNAP), first locks on to the start of the gene. The next stage is that the anchored RNAP then reels in the DNA which unwinds the double strand so that the messenger RNA copy can be formed off one of them (Roberts, J.W. "RNA Polymerase, a scrunching machine." Science 314(5802):11391143, 17 November 2006 ).



A problem arises for evolution in the following way: the instructions to build RNAP are themselves encoded in the DNA. But the DNA could not be transcribed into the mRNA without the elaborate machinery of RNAP. And this is also an example of irreducible complexity because it would not be able to perform its function unless every feature was fully functioning. There would be no use being able to dock onto the right spot of the gene and getting stuck there, or unwinding the DNA without being able to wind it back. Furthermore, RNAP uses ATP as an energy source to achieve its feats. And ATP is made by, of course, the ATP synthase which is also coded on the cell's DNA. Therefore, until RNAP is fully formed, coding for cellular instructions would not be possible as the process of transcription into mRNA requires RNAP.


With just these two simple examples of irreducible complexity, creationism is upheld as the most logical scientific position.

Debate Round No. 2
Atheism_Debater

Con


Rebuttal:


My opponent gives detailed descriptions of the topic of the arguments for quite a long while until the end where the argument comes in. Since the description of the topics is all facts proved by evidence, there is nothing to rebut, except the parts where my opponent uses it to prove God, this is the part to rebut.


“Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator.”


I agree. God “intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it” so using your logic then God has to have a creator, but that creator needs a creator, and that creator needs a creator, and so on. This argument seems sound at first, but as you dig deeper, you find the holes. This argument is a fallacy for God himself needs a creator by that logic, which as you continue proves to be false.


“A problem arises for evolution in the following way: the instructions to build RNAP are themselves encoded in the DNA. But the DNA could not be transcribed into the mRNA without the elaborate machinery of RNAP. And this is also an example of irreducible complexity because it would not be able to perform its function unless every feature was fully functioning. There would be no use being able to dock onto the right spot of the gene and getting stuck there, or unwinding the DNA without being able to wind it back. Furthermore, RNAP uses ATP as an energy source to achieve its feats. And ATP is made by, of course, the ATP synthase which is also coded on the cell's DNA. Therefore, until RNAP is fully formed, coding for cellular instructions would not be possible as the process of transcription into mRNA requires RNAP.”


I have never heard this argument before and it is a good one. Upon examination you notice that this argument does not prove God’s existence at all. It is a mystery that science has not uncovered yet, there are many mysteries that have not been solved yet. Just because there is a mystery, doesn’t mean God exists. This is a God-of-the-Gaps argument and does not prove God. This is exactly what the primitive people that invented religions did, why does it rain? Because the mighty God does it. It says so in the Bible. Then as history progresses and we discover the real reason of why this happens. As science progresses I am sure that this mystery will be solved as well, saying that “God did it!” is not a logical assumption given the track record of religion. So although I have not exactly defeated this argument it is at least neutralized.


“With just these two simple examples of irreducible complexity, creationism is upheld as the most logical scientific position.”


I don’t think the second argument was simple for my 13 year old brain lol. But I strongly disagree that this is the most logical position, I defeated the first argument, and neutralized the second.


Argument:


An omnipotent being is all-powerful and is able to do anything. Since an omnipotent being would be able to do anything, not being able to do everything would then make this being lose its omnipotence. If this being is not omnipotent, then it is not a god.



An omnipotent being would be able to do anything, be a married bachelor, wet and dry at the same time, hungry and full. It is impossible to be a married bachelor, since you cannot be a married bachelor, an omnipotent being can’t do anything thus losing omnipotence. God can’t exist, it’s impossible.


Conclusion:


My opponent has argued creationism, not the existence of God. I hope Pro will fix this later on in the debate. I have defeated the first argument and neutralized the second. I look forward to my opponent providing his rebuttals in their next response and look forward to the rest of the debate!


creationtruth

Pro

Rebuttal of Con's Opening Arguments

Con states, "Since God is perfect, it cannot create imperfect things thus losing its perfection." This is true, but one must determine whether created, sentient beings with free will are imperfect. The only standard one could compare them to in such a context is God Himself. If God is perfect and has free will, then it stands to reason that created, sentient beings with free will are also perfect. One must really define what he means by "perfect" as it can mean different things depending on context. I believe a better descriptive adjective to be used in this case is "good." God created all things very good according to Genesis 1. Humans were created in the image of God thus bearing His cognitive capacity for emotion, rational thought, and free will.

Con states, "We can infer something said to be 'perfect' is unlikely to exist because perfect things tend to be nonexistent idealizations of real things. Since perfect things are unlikely to exist and God is a perfect thing, it follows that it is unlikely that God exists." Con's designation of perfect "things" as non-existent idealizations of real things is arbitrary and unsupportive of his argument. By what measure do we accept that "perfect things" are unlikely to exist. Perfection is a qualitative claim rather than a measurably quantitative descriptor. Since it is qualitative, we must have some standard which to judge it by. If we judge it by any individual's opinionated standard, we can never be assured of a proper classification of perfection as individual's standards vary from person to person. The only logical way to judge the "perfection" of a thing would be to compare it to God's perfect and unchanging standard, as He is the Creator, Lord and Judge of all things. In either case, perfectionism is a poor defense of either theism or atheism.

Con states, "If God exists, then the world is perfect during and after the creation of the universe. If God exists, then the world is perfect. The world is imperfect. Therefore, God does not exist." Con's "logical" thought process fails to account for creates, sentient beings which have the capacity to will and thus of themselves become "imperfect" or better yet, lose their original "goodness." Therefore the claim that if God exists, the world should be perfect is flawed. I agree the world is "imperfect" but that is because I can compare it to God's holy and righteous, unchanging standard of perfection or "goodness." What standard, I wonder, can Con honestly judge the imperfection of the world by? The Bible answers the dilemma of imperfection or corruption in the world by recording the truth of the sin of all accountable men. Sin brings imperfection/corruption/bad things into the world, and it is an abstract entity originating in the mind of created, sentient beings who volionally choose to exercise their capacity to will in defiance of God and in disobedience to His holy standard/law. Therefore, the imperfect state of creation does not, by any means, rule out the existence of God.

Con states, "Since God has all of men's knowledge and more, he must know lust and envy. But to say God has known lust and envy is to say that God has had the feelings of lust and envy." Con's logic is flawed here in that one can have knowledge of a thing without partaking in that thing. Con seems to imply that knowledge of a thing must equate to partaking of a thing, yet he provides no substantial reason why this must be so. I can have knowledge that a person has desired to torture someone, for example, without ever having participated in such a heinous thought myself. Knowledge indeed does not necessitate participation. Therefore God's knowledge of the sins of man does not necessitate His participation, in any way, of said sins.

Con states, "A being who knows everything can have no 'state of uncertainty.' It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist." The fact that God knows His choices in advanced because He knows the future does not hinder His capacity for free will as He can make His decisions before hand and thus His "bondage" to the inability to avoid future choices becomes negligible as He has already decided on said choices. Thus, God's free will is unhampered by His foreknowledge as He has made decisions in advanced. This becomes a much more convoluted issue when one takes in to account the fact that God is eternal and has no beginning or end, according to scripture, and thus is in a sense outside of time. So His decision could really be considered eternal and outside of time, as His His choices would also be considered eternally willed.

Con's first two qualitative, standard-dependent arguments, though unsound, beg the question, as stated before, "by what standard does Con judge such things by?" In conceding to the possibility of perfect or imperfect, good or bad, Con has the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of a reliable standard by which to judge such qualitative designations. Since he has not, and surely cannot, apart from referring to God's standard which would negate his entire case, his arguments cannot be seriously considered.

Another issue to consider is that in order to make such logical statements as Con has, even if they were sound, one must truly concede to the existence of a reliable moral standard. Of course, unless they can identify it, their case does not hold up. Also, to make such an argument, one must maintain that God, for moral reasons, must follow His own standard. Why should He? What if God were deceitful and contradictory? How would this count as evidence against His existence? At best, one could only dismiss God based on a personal dislike of His qualities/actions. But this is not a truly substantial reason for accepting the non-existence of God. If I rejected evolution merely because I disliked the idea of sharing a common ancestor with apes, my rejection would be opinion-based, not rooted in evidential reason. If the resolution of this debate concerns the logical, rational, evidential "proof" of God, then Con's arguments are negligible since they are based on qualitative, standard-dependent claims.

By the way, I of course do not believe God is deceitful or contradictory and it is because I can judge even His actions by the very moral standard which He has established from eternity. If Con's arguments were sound, and stood up to rational scrutiny, then they would pose a problem for the trustworthiness of scripture. But in order for them to be taken seriously, again one must concede to a divine moral standard only works against someone who is attempting to disprove the existence of God.


Response to Con's Round 3 Rebuttals

Con seems to have completely dropped my argument concerning the information found in DNA, and he has instead opted to make a counter argument. Con states, "I agree. God 'intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it' so using your logic then God has to have a creator. . ." Con's argument fails to hold up as God is not a biological being whose physical existence depends on the information content of a genome. God is a spirit and therefore His existence does not require Him having been created.

In addressing my arguments based on the irreducible complexity of DNA, ATP synthase, and RNA polymerase, Con states that my arguments were "good" but then goes on to say ". . .this argument does not prove God’s existence at all." In what way did Con deem it good I wonder then? Regardless, Con has claimed that my arguments are a God-of-the-gaps explanation. Con is thus implying that my argument relies on what we do not know scientifically, but on the contrary, my argument rests on what we do know about cellular and genetic function. Con has again dropped my argument and has failed to realize that the very observational descriptions I provided about the function and processes of DNA, ATP synthase, and RNAP are critical in the support of my argument. What we can gather from actual scientific observations, not from a lack of knowledge, is that cells must have been created with all of their systems and individual parts functioning together from their inception.

Con states, "This is exactly what the primitive people that invented religions did, why does it rain? Because the mighty God does it." Con provides no substantial reason why we should accept this claim beyond his own personal speculation. Nor does he seem to realize that, if the God of the Bible does exist, then He is the one who brings rain and is control of all weather systems on Earth. Con goes on to say, ". . .as history progresses and we discover the real reason of why this happens." The fact that, through scientific inquiry, we can explain meteorological processes does not in any way negate the potential existence for God as He would be the one who sets in to motion the physical laws of nature which such processes must follow.

Con states, "As science progresses I am sure that this mystery will be solved as well, saying that 'God did it!' is not a logical assumption given the track record of religion." Again, Con fails to realize that my argument is not contingent upon the "mystery" of how such cellular components may have came to be but rather it is based on scientific observations of how they function. My argument is not based on the assumption that God must have done it since it is currently inexplicable by means of natural processes. Scientific observations and experimentation have demonstrated that cells cannot exist apart from their constituent parts and the vital functions they perform.

Since I am out of space, a quick answer to Con's argument concerning omnipotence is that the Bible never says God will do that which is contrary to His nature.

Debate Round No. 3
Atheism_Debater

Con


Rebuttal:


“This is true, but one must determine whether created, sentient beings with free will are imperfect.”


Free-will creates imperfection, therefore free-will is imperfect. A perfect God creating imperfections is impossible thus God is impossible.


“If God is perfect and has free will, then it stands to reason that created, sentient beings with free will are also perfect.”


Pro states that humans are perfect. On my math test this week, I got two questions wrong, I am a human, so humans aren’t perfect.


“Con's ‘logical’ thought process fails to account for creates, sentient beings which have the capacity to will and thus of themselves become ‘imperfect’ or better yet, lose their original "goodness.’ ”


Beings that have the capacity to do imperfections aren’t perfect beings.


“I agree the world is ‘imperfect’ but that is because I can compare it to God's holy and righteous, unchanging standard of perfection or "goodness.’ ”


CONTRADICTION ALERT! At the end of this sentence you say God is perfect, at the beginning you say the world is imperfect. If God created the world then the world can’t imperfect lol.


“What standard, I wonder, can Con honestly judge the imperfection of the world by?”


The standard I judge imperfection by is perfection. (lol)


“Sin brings imperfection/corruption/bad things into the world, and it is an abstract entity originating in the mind of created, sentient beings who volionally choose to exercise their capacity to will in defiance of God and in disobedience to His holy standard/law. Therefore, the imperfect state of creation does not, by any means, rule out the existence of God.”


But God gave them the ability to do that, that is a flaw/imperfection that does rule out the existence of God.


“Con's logic is flawed here in that one can have knowledge of a thing without partaking in that thing. Con seems to imply that knowledge of a thing must equate to partaking of a thing, yet he provides no substantial reason why this must be so. I can have knowledge that a person has desired to torture someone, for example, without ever having participated in such a heinous thought myself. Knowledge indeed does not necessitate participation. Therefore God's knowledge of the sins of man does not necessitate His participation, in any way, of said sins.”


Knowledge and experience are two different things. I could describe to you what bungee jumping is like, but that is just a description, you can’t completely, truly know what it is like to bungee jump without actually doing it. God could be told what lust and envy are, and what they are like, but He will never truly know what is like until experiencing it. Since He can’t experience it without breaking his moral perfection, he cannot experience everything man can, rendering him not omnipotent. Something has to give; moral perfection or omnipotence. If one of them gives, then the being is not a god; God is impossible.


“The fact that God knows His choices in advanced because He knows the future does not hinder His capacity for free will as He can make His decisions before hand and thus His "bondage" to the inability to avoid future choices becomes negligible as He has already decided on said choices.”


If God knows what will happen in the future, then the future is already decided, fixed. God cannot change his decision because he already knows what his decision will be.


“This becomes a much more convoluted issue when one takes in to account the fact that God is eternal and has no beginning or end, according to scripture, and thus is in a sense outside of time.”


Infinity is impossible. Imagine I had infinity amount of Hershey’s chocolate bars, and then I ate five of them, how many do I have left?


“Con's first two qualitative, standard-dependent arguments, though unsound, beg the question, as stated before, "by what standard does Con judge such things by?" In conceding to the possibility of perfect or imperfect, good or bad, Con has the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of a reliable standard by which to judge such qualitative designations.Since he has not, and surely cannot, apart from referring to God's standard which would negate his entire case, his arguments cannot be seriously considered.”


The standard I judge things by is your God, that is what we are debating in case you didn’t notice. I don’t understand how this negates my entire case, Pro never explained.


“Also, to make such an argument, one must maintain that God, for moral reasons, must follow His own standard. Why should He? What if God were deceitful and contradictory? How would this count as evidence against His existence?”


Because God has to be morally perfect, if He is deceitful and contradictory then he is not morally perfect.


“Con seems to have completely dropped my argument concerning the information found in DNA, and he has instead opted to make a counter argument.”


Are you serious? I wrote a full paragraph engaging your argument about DNA!


“Con's argument fails to hold up as God is not a biological being whose physical existence depends on the information content of a genome.”


I never said that God has to be a biological being, you said that any kind of intelligence depends on an original act of intelligence to construct it. If God was the original act of intelligence for us and DNA then who was the original act of intelligence for us? All I did was follow your logic.


“In what way did Con deem it good I wonder then?”


I thought it was good because I had never heard it before, but then I realized that you just got it from a creationist website for almost all of your citations and links were to some kind of creationist website, so it turns out it was not original at all.


“Con has claimed that my arguments are a God-of-the-gaps explanation. Con is thus implying that my argument relies on what we do not know scientifically, but on the contrary, my argument rests on what we do know about cellular and genetic function.”


I’m sorry but I found your second argument very confusing. I assumed that since RNAP can’t be built without the DNA and the DNA can’t be built without the RNAP so therefore God must have made both at the same time since evolution couldn’t have done it. I apologize if I interpreted it wrong, my bad. But according to what I thought, that was a God of the Gaps argument. If my assumption was wrong then I’m sorry, I made the wrong rebuttal.


“Con has again dropped my argument and has failed to realize that the very observational descriptions I provided about the function and processes of DNA, ATP synthase, and RNAP are critical in the support of my argument.”


How is it impossible to drop an argument twice in one response?


“Con provides no substantial reason why we should accept this claim beyond his own personal speculation.”


Yes, I suppose this is my own personal speculation, because as you look at all of the old religions they all answer questions that humans did not know the answers do, this is an observable theory. It is not fact, it is just a supported theory.


“Nor does he seem to realize that, if the God of the Bible does exist, then He is the one who brings rain and is control of all weather systems on Earth.”


Nor does he seem to realize that if Zeus does exist, then he is the one who brings rain and is control of all weather systems on Earth.


The fact that, through scientific inquiry, we can explain meteorological processes does not in any way negate the potential existence for God as He would be the one who sets in to motion the physical laws of nature which such processes must follow.”


Pro provides no substantial reason to why we should accept this claim beyond his own personal speculation.


“Again, Con fails to realize that my argument is not contingent upon the "mystery" of how such cellular components may have came to be but rather it is based on scientific observations of how they function. My argument is not based on the assumption that God must have done it since it is currently inexplicable by means of natural processes. Scientific observations and experimentation have demonstrated that cells cannot exist apart from their constituent parts and the vital functions they perform.”


See I thought that my interpretation of your argument was wrong, but now I am confused again, please explain how your argument proved God’s existence that isn’t how I interpreted it.


“a quick answer to Con's argument concerning omnipotence is that the Bible never says God will do that which is contrary to His nature.”


But if God does not do what is contradictory to his nature then He is not omnipotent lol.


Conclusion:


I believe I have rebutted all of my opponent’s points and I look forward to the next round, good luck!


http://www.quantumtemporaldynamics.com...


creationtruth

Pro

creationtruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by creationtruth 1 year ago
creationtruth
I thought my final round response went through. Idk what happened. I had like 10 mins left but oh well, I guess that's what I get for waiting till the last minute.
Posted by Atheism_Debater 1 year ago
Atheism_Debater
Crap, I didn't realize that was the last round, stupid me!
Posted by debate_power 1 year ago
debate_power
I hope you win, Con! Best of luck!
Posted by creationtruth 1 year ago
creationtruth
Undeniablereality - The article I provided you is not a parody but a basic summary of Dr. Werner Gitt's theory concerning information. His explaination is under the heading "The five levels of universal information. It is too long for me to post here. This article provides much more information and clarification of Gitt's view and the issue of defining information in general: http://creation.com...

Gitt's five levels of information begin with statistics which Gitt claims Shannon's definition is developed upon, implying it goes no further: "In considering a book, a computer program or the genome of a human being we can ask the following questions: How many letters, numbers and words does the entire text consist of? How many individual letters of the alphabet (e.g. a, b, c " z for the Roman alphabet, or G, C, A and T for the DNA alphabet) are utilized? What is the frequency of occurrence of certain letters and words? To answer such questions it is irrelevant whether the text contains anything meaningful, is pure nonsense, or just randomly ordered sequences of symbols or words. Such investigations do not concern themselves with the content; they involve purely statistical aspects. All of this belongs to the first and thus bottom level of information: the level of statistics. The statistics level can be seen as the bridge between the material and the non-material world. (This is the level on which Claude E. Shannon developed his well-known mathematical concept of information)."
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
In that blog post, or article, or whatever it is, I see no precise definition of information. Ideally, there should be a mathematical definition, but I failed to find even a useful verbal definition. Can you point me to where it is, or copy it here?

And how is this new kind of information quantified? In the usual sense of Shannon entropy?

Also, I must disagree that Gitt's definition builds upon Shannon's definition for the reasons I gave earlier.

I hope these questions are not annoying. I actually am looking forward to this debate because you've actually put some thought into this. But I'm finding your first argument rather vague, as some central concepts have not been precisely defined.

I also don't understand the webpage you sent me. Is it some kind of parody?
Posted by creationtruth 1 year ago
creationtruth
I will stick with Gitt's definition. I admit the article I gave is brief but he succinctly defines information in a system of communication where the meaning behind the language code is used to convey messages which must be received by an intelligence or system designed by an intelligent mind. His explaination is based on logic and reasoning from what we observe concerning information. Gitt's definition builds upon Shannon's but it notably different. Here is the correct link: http://creation.com...
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
That link gave me a 404 error. I have never heard of Gitt's information. I did look it up, and according to Gitt, he is attempting to form an extension to Shannon's information, although his new definition of information contradict's Shannon's. If we ignore the contradiction, or assume it has been overcome somehow, then it seems what we actually get is a restricted version of Shannon's information (restricted to symbols with semantic content, whereas Shannon's information is generalized to the point that the existence of semantic content is no longer even relevant).

After reviewing some of Gitt's work (albeit briefly), it seems clear that it is merely pseudoscience. Also, he doesn't seem to know what 'theorem' means.

So, can you either define what you mean by 'information' more specifically, or would you like to go with one of the scientific definitions (Shannon's or Kolmogorov's)?
Posted by creationtruth 1 year ago
creationtruth
UndeniableReality - Gitt's (http://creation.com...).
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
Which definition of 'information' is being used here? It does not seem to be used in the Shannon or Kolmogorov sense.
Posted by Atheism_Debater 1 year ago
Atheism_Debater
I can't plagiarize myself, I created a new account.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
Atheism_DebatercreationtruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I am forced to vote Con due to the rules. However I had Pro a long way ahead going into the last round. He could probably have waived his last round and he would have revceived my vote.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Atheism_DebatercreationtruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The rules stated "a forfeit is an automatic loss", Pro loses.
Vote Placed by SlovakiaKentros 1 year ago
SlovakiaKentros
Atheism_DebatercreationtruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: I saw this one coming straight from the sources that i came across when i first looked over the debate. The creationism side sourced from a biased base material (ie; Creation.com) . The pro could have easily sourced a much more generic source so that it would be believable. The scientific arguments seemed much more strengthened by the authenticity of the facts. The bible was not a credible source of information for the most part. CreationTruth used better grammar and didn't resort to using internet slang terms near the end. What he/she did forget is that giving up at the end shows that you didn't have a strong enough argument to continue the debate. Conduct was a tie, as you can see by the formal structure of the two arguments. I agreed with Con before and after because creationtruth failed to sway my opinions for the duration of the debate. Overall:Atheism_Debater won.