The Existence of God
I know this is a popular topic, I know there are already a lot of debates regarding the existence of a God, but I haven't taken part in a good one yet, so deal with it.
For this debate, we will be referring to the Judeo-Christian God. And no, I am not talking about Jesus Christ.
I am not asserting God does not exist. I am denying the idea that one does exist - I disagree with people who claim God exists, as there is zero evidence or even rational reasoning to believe in one.
I guess it would make sense to say my point of view is the existence of God is highly improbable, whereas yours (pro) would be the existence of God is highly likely/probable or even just say flat out God does exist.
Not sure what else to say here, so first round can be whatever you want, feel free to present some arguments or just accept or clear up some rules or definitions.
Con has asserted, "there is zero evidence or even rational reasoning to believe in one". I have the burden of proof that there is evidence and/or rational reasoning to believe in the Christian God (not Jesus). Con has the burden of proof that the existence of God is highly improbable.
Let's say you are walking in the woods and see a beautiful log cabin. Do you reason, "How wonderful! The trees must have fallen in just the right way."? Of course not! How much more unlikely is it to say that the infinitely complex and orderly universe happened randomly by chance, without a creator? This is against many laws of science like the second law of thermodynamics which states entropy tends to increase. Entropy is the unavailability of thermal energy that is transformed into mechanical work. This is what we call order. But, according to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy tends to increase. If the availability of thermal energy is constantly decreasing, how can there ever be enough to even cause the Big Bang? And how could this explosion, which you feel happened randomly by chance without a creator, create such an orderly universe? Think about it. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules. What is even more surprising is that it abides by rules of mathematics! The universe doesn't have to behave this way. One could easily imagine a random universe with constant unpredictable conditions, and even things popping in and out of existence, coming from such a random explosion. However, this is not the case. Here are two interesting quotes to think about:
Thanks for a well thought out, well constructed argument. Almost all the time arguments for the existence of God are simple things like "well how can you explain how beautiful our Earth is?" So thanks for actually taking time to produce a good argument.
Most of the time I would dismiss the Bible as any type of reliable source as that's the only book that is pro-God, but I will work with you on this one, as from what I've read of your argument, the verses you've brought up aren't straight forward "yes, God exists" types of things, like Revelation 1:8 - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. So thanks.
I am not discussing the Big bang Theory, as I have my own separate views regarding this theory than most people. I believe (much like you probably believe about your God) that the Universe is infinite, with two possibilities; the universe expands then contracts into itself, creating a new Big Bang via quantum fluctuations , or simply the universe has always existed, and is neither expanding nor contracting, but simply changing - a theory called the Infinite Universe Theory . This theory also addresses your comment regarding the second law of Thermodynamics.
This however has little to do with the existence of the Christian God. I'm not talking about the origins of the universe, unless you can prove or give reasonable evidence or explanations as to how God created the universe over any other theory.
The 'log cabin' scenario is - I hate to say this - irrelevant. We have a complete understanding on the chance of logs falling (taking the law of physics into consideration) into a strategic pattern that most likely would not happen without intervention from an outside force. This does not mean that Earth or the universe has a creator because it has unique, fascinating, beautiful, seemingly "random" or "unlikely" events or elements. We have an understanding of physics on Earth and throughout most of the observable universe, but to relate that to what happened before the universe existed (if there even was a before), would be irrational, as we can't relate something we have a nearly perfect understanding of with something that we can't even determine existed - or didn't exist.
We can explain through science why most of our laws exist, and we don't just dismiss anything as a miracle if we can't currently come to a concrete conclusion or highly probable theory.
Isaiah/Cyrus - This is human error and human interaction. Nothing here shows either divine intervention or any type of actual prophecy. I could say "under thy Heavens lies our stone force; holding back the water rained upon us for years - thy Hoover Dam - will be no more; will crumble; will fall, with the might of a million tonnes, and the Great Flood will come onto us as it did to Noah and his people." ...And what if the Hoover Dam actually falls apart due to someone forgetting to open a drain? Would I be a prophet because I predicted this would happen? No, because it's a possibility that I predicted. If I were to say a meteorite the size of 1.23453km in diameter will strike Earth on the 12th Day of November at 3:33am, directly in Beijing, then that actually happened, I would consider it a lot more reasonable to consider that a prophecy, but even then... it's still possible.
A prophecy would be predicting the impossible, or predicting something with zero knowledge of that event.
But even then... someone predicted something would happen, and it happened. This does not prove God's existence. It proves someone was either intelligent or got lucky. Saying it's a prophecy and God was a part of it is a simple idea and doesn't prove anything related directly to God himself.
Jeremiah/Edomites - This is once again human action. Humans did something that someone else said would happen, and I may add the "prophecy" was rather vague.
Luke/Jerusalem - This is an even better example of a simple speculation. No exact dates or specifications were given in the "prophecy," basically just "Jerusalem will be attacked and the people will run for the hills." It makes sense that they did that when they were eventually attacked. This once again has nothing to do with God.
The main reason I usually dismiss the Bible is because it is supposedly the word of God, written by man. I can dismiss this by saying man invented God in order to unite groups of people, as there wasn't much common ground between groups other than their birth city in that time period. Jesus, Mohammad, and Buddha were all powerfully spiritual people who believed solely in love, peace and harmony. And what better way to spread that and unite the people than follow a belief system and encourage others to follow the same belief system? Before the Bible was written, people believed in their birth land, and that's about it. After the Bible was written, more people believed in that and it's teachings than materialistic possessions. At the time, it united cities upon cities, which was a great way to form alliances with others.
However; we now have developed our understanding and practice of science enough to dismiss an idea of any type of God from religion. The Bible is filled with metaphors, fictional stories, methods of peace, a good place to develop an understanding of moral values, and much more. But if it has so many metaphors, why decide what is and isn't fact? I'm sure most people can agree there wasn't a flood 4,500 years ago, or that Earth is more than 11,000 years old, or that a woman wasn't created from a man's rib, or that a snake talked, or that an angel didn't like God so he was cast into eternal fire for all of eternity, which by the way, is a great way to be a nice person, because if you're not you'll suffer forever after you die.
I'm not saying the belief in God or a God is necessarily a bad thing, or that if you follow a religion you're a bad person, I'm just asking people to think logically and rationally about it. Sure, it's a great way to be a nice person, but then again look at *ahem* GodHatesFags.com... The Westboro Baptist Church claims to believe strongly in God and religion, yet they act like complete... jerks... so MANY different groups of people - all in the name of God. The advancement of technology and our understanding of Earth and our universe and possible space exploration is hindered by religion; way too many people pass of the currently unexplainable by simply throwing God at it - "why do the planets orbit around the Sun? Well because that's the way God intended it."
I believe the "proof" of "no" God is simply the lack of evidence of a God. I agree that it is technically impossible to prove a God does not exist, and the only way to do so would be to examine every inch of the entire Universe at once, but by that logic, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, as well as rainbow coloured Unicorns, or Leprechauns, or anything else you can imagine, as it's technically impossible to prove it (or anything, for that matter) does not exist. But for someone to assert that God does exist, the burden of proof would rely on him, as he's the one making a claim, and I'm the one disputing it.
If some random guy comes up to you, and says you killed somebody, what would you say? You would most likely ask him to prove it. What would happen if the court says the burden of proof is shared 50/50, and you would get half a life sentence if you cannot disprove his claim? You would probably consider that ridiculous, right? You've got an alibi? Nope, they could be lying. You've got pictures of you time stamped sleeping at the time the guy said you killed someone? Nope, it's photoshopped. You have a recording of you playing PS4 during the time the guy said you killed someone? Nope, you simply set the clock back to make it seem like a different time. There's a 99.9999999% chance you won't be able to completely prove that you did not kill someone, just like there is a 99.999999% chance I cannot prove God does not exist. This is why the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. You claim God exists, I don't believe you. You have to prove it. Quoting speculations from the Bible does not prove the existence of God. Questioning my understanding of the creation or infinitude of the universe does not prove the existence of God.
If God exists, why is AIDS killing so many people? Why can't he stop it? Why won't he answer anyone's prayers pleading him to stop it? What about Cancer? Why do diseases like Ebola keep coming back and killing thousands of innocent people?
Why is there famine? If Jesus could feed thousands of people with some fish and bread, wouldn't his father be able to feed everyone with something too? Wouldn't he send his son back to Earth to help the countries that are crying out to him? Wouldn't he answer the prayers of millions of people who are starving to death?
Why did God send an asteroid to Earth a few hundred million years ago and kill all the dinosaurs? Why did he allow innocent creatures to perish? Why did he not intervene and send the asteroid another direction?
Why has God not shown himself to people who pray to see him? I attended church for several years, and not once did a single thing happen that made me go "wow, I guess he does exist!" And believe me, I prayed and I did believe he truly did exist, but later on I could just tell by the lack of any type of evidence that he most likely does not, and if he does... well why doesn't he show himself to non-believers?
Thanks again for accepting, and for producing some decent arguments! Looking forward to the next round.
Kalam argument: Is the universe infinite?
(BEGINNING OF QUOTE) The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem2 shows that there is no way to get rid of a beginning to any universe that is characterized by cosmic expansion (Hav > 0). Since our universe is characterized by cosmic expansion, it must have had a beginning. So, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem eliminates the eternal inflation model, which is based upon an ever expanding multiverse. Cyclic universe models fail because the entropy of a collapsing and expanding universe would render all parts of the universe as thermally dead within a few cycles (obviously, an eternal number of cycles is more than a few!). The cosmic egg model fails because the egg could not have existed forever, since quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time. (END OF QUOTE)
2 Tim. 3:16, 17: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man ofGod may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”
Rev. 1:1: “A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place.”
2 Sam. 23:1, 2: “The utterance of David the son of Jesse . . . The spirit of Jehovah it was that spoke by me, and his word was upon my tongue.”
Isa. 22:15: “This is what the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, has said.”
We would expect God’s message to all mankind to be available around the globe. The Bible, the whole or in part, has been translated into some 1,800 languages. Its circulation totals in the billions. Says The World Book Encyclopedia: “The Bible is the most widely read book in history. It is probably also the most influential. More copies have been distributed of the Bible than of any other book. It has also been translated more times into more languages than any other book.”—(1984), Vol. 2, p. 219.
Bible prophecy explains the meaning of world conditions
Many world leaders acknowledge that mankind is on the brink of disaster. The Bible foretold these conditions long ago; it explains their meaning and what the outcome will be. (2 Tim. 3:1-5; Luke 21:25-31) It tells what we must do in order to survive the impending world destruction, with the opportunity to gain eternal life under righteous conditions here on earth.—Zeph. 2:3; John 17:3; Ps. 37:10, 11, 29.
The Bible enables us to understand the purpose of life
It answers such questions as: Where did life come from? (Acts 17:24-26) Why are we here? Is it just to live a few years, get what we can out of life, and then die?—Gen. 1:27, 28; Rom. 5:12; John 17:3; Ps. 37:11; Ps. 40:8.
The Bible shows how we can have the very things that lovers of righteousness desire most
It tells us where to find wholesome associates who truly love one another (John 13:35), what can give assurance that we will have sufficient food for ourselves and our families (Matt. 6:31-33; Prov. 19:15; Eph. 4:28), how we can be happy in spite of difficult conditions that surround us.—Ps. 1:1, 2; 34:8; Luke 11:28; Acts 20:35.
It explains that God’s Kingdom, his government, will remove the present wicked system (Dan. 2:44), and under its rule mankind will be able to enjoy perfect health and eternal life.—Rev. 21:3, 4; compare Isaiah 33:24.
Surely a book that claims to be from God, that explains both the meaning of world conditions and the purpose of life, and that shows how our problems will be solved is worthy of consideration. (END OF QUOTE)
Con does not think the Bible prophecies are valid evidence of God for two main reasons: the prophecies are vague and the prophecies could have been coincidences.
A theory is an idea. Mine are backed with studies and actual evidence that leads to a better possibility of these theories being true. What is your God backed by?
This argument asserts that something needs to have a cause to exist. By cause, it appears you are referring to God, or some type of divine creator? Because it would be just as plausible saying the cause was quantum fluctuations . The difference between spacetime on a quantum level, and God, is there have been studies and experiments testing and observing spacetime on the quantum level. The only thing that gives any type of "validity" to a 'God' argument is the idea that the Bible contains prophecies. Simply dismissing our lack of knowledge pertaining to pre-Big Bang and shoving "God did it" in there instead of attempting to find out other possibilities is not an argument.
Lack of knowledge is not a knowledge of God.
Please keep in mind that in the grand scheme of things, our society has hardly evolved enough to understand space and time and what happened before anything existed, if there even was a before, and what will happen if everything ceases to exist, and if there are parallel universes, or alternate realities, or life before and/or after death, etc. These are all things that we will get to understand by asking questions, hypothesising, theorising, testing, questioning, observing, and repeating. We will not make it anywhere in understanding the universe let alone our own galaxy if we assert that God created it all, and leave it at that.
As I believe I mentioned in round 1, I believe our universe is expanding, contracting, and expanding again, infinitely. It is possible to convert gravity into energy , , and this is "simply" done when the universe collapses in on itself. as gravity has no limit as to the amount of energy able to be drawn from it, and this gravitational energy has the ability to convert into matter and radiation.
This is a good theory, but there are multiple studies that - I don't want to say dismiss, but... dismiss it. This does not mean it is a bad theory, or an impossible event, it simply means there are other theories out there that have (possibly) more credibility than this one.
And remember, not knowing what happened before the Big Bang does not imply divine intervention.
Also, if you could provide a source to a website that isn't a religious one, but more of a purely scientific one, that agrees with godandscience.org, your argument would have a lot more credibility.
Probable existence of God
I provided (what I consider) valid evidence/reasoning as to how the universe can be eternal. I'm not asserting it is eternal, but Endless Universe  (referring to chapter seven/eight) gives more than valid reasons backed up with science and an understanding of particle physics, spacetime, and astronomy as to how it is possible that our universe is eternal.
Even if this book is completely wrong, and there has been 100% proven to be a beginning to the universe, asserting that God was at the beginning because we currently cannot explain what happened before or at the beginning is no where close to proof. It is a theory, but it's s much of a theory as saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster was at the beginning and created it all too. It's simply an unfalsifyable hypothesis - there's really no way to prove God doesn't exist, as it's currently an idea, unable to be tested or scientifically proven. For you to assert that God exists, or probably exists, you would be required to show some sort of scientific proof. Because according to your logic, since the theory of God makes sense, the theory of quantum fluctuations pre-Big Bang also makes sense. The main difference is that quantum fluctuations have actually been observed, tested, and are consistent with the laws of reality. God, on the other hand, is so far nothing more than a hypothesis, or maybe even a theory, but an untestable one.
The "proof" that he does not exist is simply the lack of proof that he does.
I consider the Christian God because Christianity is the main religion practiced worldwide, with about a third of the entire world's population believing. I also am not too familiar with Brahma, Allah, Kami, or really any other God or Religion, however from what I've read of their respective religious books, it's quite similar to Christianity.
I'm not denying that the Bible is an influential and powerful book. I've read it, and have somewhat based my perspective of my life and the world around it. Although I don't believe many of the stories or necessarily do what it tells me to do, such as worship Christ and God, it was still able to influence me. It didn't convince me of God's existence, mainly because it's simply a book filled with metaphors and stories and basically gives people with little hope actual hope, or moral values or love. I can see damn well why people follow the bible - for the most part, it spreads love and teaches us not to harm other people. However we don't need to rely on the Bible to teach us that anymore, considering how far we've come with technology and intelligence.
Because the Bible says God is real doesn't make him real.
Meaning of world conditions
This passage is explaining how to be a good person and how to take command and step up and represent our communities as overseers and deacons. This is not a prophecy, this is (much like I stated before) how to be a decent person.
This passage explains natural galactic events. As nothing regarding the Sun or Moon has really happened that has affected us recently (other than that huge solar flare a couple centuries ago, but once again... natural galactic event), this can not be taken as a prophecy. Also, it is incredibly vague, basically saying something bad will happen. I'm sure the next big solar flare will mean this was a true prophecy and the Lord hath shown himself among his children!
No offense, but this is nothing. It's just saying to seek out the Lord and you'll be safe. Seek out me and you'll also be safe.
Once again, this is nothing. It's like saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so.
Same thing. It's saying be a good person and believe in God and you will prosper. This neither proves or gives reasonable explanations for God's existence, nor is a prophecy.
Purpose of life
"God did it" is neither a prophecy or any kind of rational, logical way to prove his existence.
If we are here to rule the world, then we have done a good job at it, as we're basically at the top of the food chain, considering our technology and thought processes. However this is nothing even close to a prophecy. It would be like if I said "go forth, my children, spread your seeds throughout thy galaxy, throughout thy universe, and rule over thy cosmos." ...And then a thousand or so years later, we have colonies set up on planets and moons in Andromeda. Would I be a prophet? No, I would have predicted a possible event. Just like a couple thousand years ago, the knowledge of human dominance over most of nature was prevalent and well known. If the Bible had been described by cavemen before they even really knew how to form words, or if an outside force had shown that we would some day be where we are now, it would have a lot more credibility.
However I do agree this is a good reason to exist - to advance our species and race and our well-being.
This once again isn't anything, it's talking about eternal life. This does not validate the existence of God.
Once again, like I've said before, the Bible is a great way to be a good person and respect everyone.
As far as I remember, Psalm talks about being a generous, respectful person, and in return, God will reward you with prosperity and a good life. However this does not validate the existence of God.
Conclusion to Passages
I won't comment on the last section, as I'm running out of space here, and wish to respond to your next arguments, but almost everything you've quoted has been ways to be nice people, take care of your land, be a good leader, and "explanations" of minor galactic events. This is not a bad thing, but it does not provide valid reason or evidence for God's existence. I consider it as much as I consider the laws put in place by a system of justice - they're beneficial, but that's about it.
Did Isaiah give an exact date? The leaders in global domination come and go. Whoever is on top, will most likely be attacked. And that happened. Maybe not so "vague," but entirely possible. It would be like if I suggested USA will eventually crumble. There's a possibility. A prophecy is not something that is most likely to happen being predicted.
You can pass of any failed prophecy as symbolic. The Bible is full of metaphors. You're cherry-picking what you want to pass as a prophecy or not, and it's currently just what has actually happened and works in favour of God.
Ezekiel 28:24; "And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor any grieving thorn of all that are round about them, that despised them" ....And we all know how loved Israel is now, right?
I could list more failed prophecies, but I've run out of space.
I have provided many rational and reasonable explanations and theories for the beginning of the universe, backed with scientific studies and experiments. You have stated that if I cannot prove anything was before the Big Bang, then God was there. I will address this more in my third round if you wish.
Lack of knowledge is not a knowledge of God.
Thanks! Looking forward to a great third round.
Con claims his eternal universe idea is backed up by evidence, unlike my God. However, briefly after he admits, "there are multiple studies that [...] dismiss it." Here is the "evidence" Con talks about:
The Kalam argument does not assert that something needs to have a cause to exist. It asserts that everything with a beginning has a cause. Evidence shows the universe had a beginning; therefore, it must have a cause. And that cause is God. And the universe’s fine tuning shows the universe must have had an intelligent mind as its cause. The Bible passages I used in my previous round were not evidence that the Bible is from God. But, "surely a book that claims to be from God, that explains both the meaning of world conditions and the purpose of life, and that shows how our problems will be solved (and the most widely read and distributed book in history, as would be expected from the book of God) is worthy of consideration". The Bible prophecies give us more conviction that it is, indeed, from God. Polytheistic religions believe unnecessarily in many Gods, so Occam's Razor eliminates Hinduism and Shinto as possibilities. In addition, Hinduism says religions are different paths to God, although it does not give evidence that God agrees with this. Something Hinduism, Islam, and apostate Christianity have in common is that they have been responsible for the deaths of millions that do not share their beliefs and even of their own brothers and sisters in faith but from other countries in wars: "In her was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth.” (Revelation 18:24)". God does not like the attrocities of false religion which is why he warns us, “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.” (Revelation 18:4, 5). Are Jehovah's Witnesses any different? Yes. http://www.jw.org... And Islam believes in Quran because they think the Bible was changed although they can't give any valid evidence supporting their claim, and they ignore plenty of evidence that shows otherwise. There is no book as well attested as the Bible with its thousands of ancient manuscripts in the original language that show the Bible has been the same in almost 2,000 years of copying! They also claim their Quran was perfectly preserved by Allah despite the many hadith (sayings and acts of the prophet himself and his followers) showing this is simply not true.
Isaiah perhaps did not give an exact date. However, for your "USA will crumble" prophecy to be anything like Isaiah's prophecy, you would also have to give a specific name of the conqueror, and specific details about how this person would conquer USA. Isaiah did more than this. He predicted the destruction and eternal desolation of the city, (many have tried to rebuild it, but it is still ruins today) and he even predicted the most powerful city in the world would be destroyed without a fight. Vague? No. Unlikely? Very. But it fulfilled because it was a prophecy from God.
Ezekiel 28:24 is not symbolic, but it is not a failed prophecy either.
(BEGINNING OF QUOTE) The pronouncements, the visions, and the promises that Jehovah gave to Ezekiel were all faithfully related to the Jews in exile. While many scoffed at and ridiculed the prophet, some did believe. These benefited greatly. They were strengthened by the promises of restoration. Unlike other nations taken into captivity, they preserved their national identity, and Jehovah restored a remnant, as he foretold, in 537 B.C.E. (Ezek. 28:25, 26; 39:21-28; Ezra 2:1; 3:1) They rebuilt the house of Jehovah and renewed true worship there. (END OF QUOTE) ("All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial" 1990)
Rather than a failed prophecy, it is a prophecy about the restoration of Israel that fulfilled in a time that the Israelites were still God's people.
I do not cherry pick what is symbolic or not. I simply consider the context. Lack of Bible knowledge is not evidence against it.
"Lack of knowledge is not a knowledge of God."
(BEGINNING OF QUOTE) "God of the gaps" refers to the perception that all arguments for the existence of God are the result of gaps in our scientific knowledge. [...] Many skeptics believe that all arguments for the existence of God fall into the God of the gaps variety. According to this premise, one would expect these arguments to become fewer in number as scientists make more discoveries and learn more about our world. In reality, evidence continues to accumulate suggesting that the universe was designed by an intelligent agent. The evidence suggesting that the universe and its physical laws were designed continues to accumulate at a rapid rate. Although we are not certain about the degree to which the earth and solar systemare specially designed, evidence to-date suggests that earth-like planets are rare in the universe.
Ten years ago, it was thought that neo-Darwinian evolution had eliminated all suggestion that living organisms were designed by an intelligent agent. However, recent studies in molecular biology and genetics have eliminated much of the supposed evidence that life exhibits numerous examples of poor design, including the presence of "junk DNA" (which does not exist) and pseudogenes. New genetic evidence suggests that mammalian DNA is optimally coded to reduce DNA size through overlapping transcripts. This encoding presents special problems to current Darwinian evolutionary models, since these mechanisms would be unable to produce these kinds of sequences through mutation and natural selection.
Origin of life studies continue to run into problems with uncooperative chemistry, and planetary science discoveries about the nature of early earth environments. Replicator-first models fail to establish mechanisms to produce even the basic chemical building blocks for an "RNA World", including a failure to produce homochiral sugars and amino acids. Beyond these problems, the assembly of rudimentary biological membranes under early earth environments is virtually impossible. (END OF QUOTE)
Well sorry for the late response.
Before I present my rebuttals, I just want to say something.
Dismissing or even disproving a scientific theory regarding the creation of the universe does not prove a faith-based one is more true. That would be like me saying "The colour of an apple is not purple, therefore it is blue." There are endless possibilities as to how the universe formed, or was created, considering a "possibility" is simply someone's idea, whether it's widely believed by billions of people, such as Christianity, or a few thousand, like Scientology, or a single person, like that guy down the block who believes invisible garden gnomes on unicorns created cosmic sparks that erupted into flowers that grew suns as pistils, planets as petals, and pollen as moons and space dust.
I'm disappointed that I've only got half an hour now to form my last rounds response, but I'll do what I can!
You're implying I need to prove, or provide reliable evidence of an infinite universe... or God exists. This does not make sense. Like I said before, "and apple is not purple, therefore it must be blue" is not an argument. There are many theories as to how the universe came into existence, whether or not it's infinite or finite really doesn't have much of a difference. I know your argument is if it started from one point, what caused it to start? This means you're asserting that God exists because the universe came from something... you're just throwing God in there because you don't know exactly what happened before, and because... well not really anybody knows for sure either. This does not mean "God did it."
There's no proof of God either. The chance that the universe is eternal is possible, as we've observed the possibility of larger quantum fluctuations. I have an idea that the universe has always existed, and one day blew up, aka the Big bang. Who knows what happened? But that's a theory. Even if you disprove it, and disprove every theory I throw at you, it has nothing to do with God, or proving his existence. Even if you can prove that the Universe is expanding, and most likely came from one point (which I also agree with to an extent), this does not mean God made it expand or blow up. This just means we know it came from one point. What caused it to blow up? Well, like I've said several times, possibly quantum fluctuations, as maybe energy has always existed?
Considering I don't have much time, and I don't want bring up extra arguments, I've explained what religion is for previously: a good way to bring people together who believe in the same thing, worship the same set of morals, and have a reason to not be afraid of death, as if they're good, they go to Heaven. This is a great set of ideas, and does not mean God truly exists, it just means this is a great way of living (to a degree).
So far you've cited the Bible and apparent "prophecies," that have been vague and are highly likely to happen to begin with, and "disproved" (not entirely) a couple theories regarding the existence of the Universe. You have not proved God exists. Quoting scripture does not prove God created scripture.
You've only quoted godandscience.org, and pretty much copy-pasted half your arguments, but hey, even if a creator is needed to have made the universe, you still need to prove it's the Chrstian "creator." Even if I agreed with you that a creator exists, and a conscience diety created everything, you would need to show it's yours.
I'm sorry but almost all "your" arguments have been direct quotes from godandscience.org, and I'm basically arguing against someone's site.
And again I am really sorry for such a short, poorly put together final response, but I've ran out of time.
Just remember, you've given reasons as to how an infinite universe is possibly unlikely, and how an expanding univer is likely, but you have not shown anything that proves God exists other than scripture that you claim to have predicted the future.
Thanks for a great argument, I hope we both got a lot out of this!
Have a good one.
"I guess it would make sense to say my point of view is the existence of God is highly improbable, whereas yours (pro) would be the existence of God is highly likely/probable or even just say flat out God does exist."
How have I demonstrated the existence of God is highly likely/probable?
1) The Bible prophecies are evidence of the Christian God (not Jesus) because they are a demonstration of His power.
Con says, "you've cited [...]apparent 'prophecies', that have been vague and are highly likely to happen to begin with." However, this contradicts what he said in round 3, "Maybe not so vague, but entirely possible. It would be like if I suggested USA will eventually crumble. There's a possibility. A prophecy is not something that is most likely to happen being predicted."
The vague prophecies argument is not valid since Con himself had previously admitted there are prophecies in the Bible that are not vague. But a prophecy is not something that is most likely to happen being predicted. Concerning Con's "USA will crumble" prophecy, I said,
(BEGINNING OF QUOTE) for your "USA will crumble" prophecy to be anything like Isaiah's prophecy, you would also have to give a specific name of the conqueror, and specific details about how this person would conquer USA. Isaiah did more than this. He [gave specific details like that the city would dry up and] predicted the destruction and eternal desolation of the city, (many have tried to rebuild it, but it is still ruins today), and he even predicted the most powerful city in the world would be destroyed without a fight. Vague? No. Unlikely? Very. But it fulfilled because it was a prophecy from God. (END OF QUOTE)
2) I gave evidence dismissing the eternal universe theory and supporting that the universe is highly likely/probable to have a beginning. If the universe has a beginning, it has a cause; and that cause is God.
The fine-tuning of the universe is evidence of intelligent design, and the Bible prophecies are evidence that the intelligent creator is highly likely/probably the Christian God (not Jesus).
3) God does exist!
We have seen an intelligent creator most likely exists. But God does exist, atleast as a thought. And evidence of this is all the holy books there are, which are not nearly as extraordinary as the Bible is, (Hindu and other polytheistic scriptures are eliminated because of Occam's Razor and the Quran was not perfectly preserved, like the Muslims claim) and the fact that we are had this debate.
Thank you, Mister_Man, for such a wonderful debate. Consider studying the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses (it's free and once a week. Or you can email me), and see for yourself there is no book like it.
|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:||3||0|
|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:||2||3|