The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points
The Contender
KeithKroeger91
Pro (for)
Losing
41 Points

The Following Argument(s) for the Existence of God are Valid - 1F

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,656 times Debate No: 8361
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (60)
Votes (14)

 

TheSkeptic

Con

Note: the "1E" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes.

[Definition - Existence]
http://dictionary.reference.com..................
1. the state or fact of existing; being.

*NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY.

[Definition - Valid]
http://dictionary.reference.com..................
1. sound; just; well-founded
2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

*NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters). Let's try to avoid semantics, and get a good hearty debate going.

Additionally, I require that my opponent argue for whatever deity they are proving with the intent of showing that it is PROBABLE/DEFINITE the deity exists (through their argument). Saying that something is possible does not necessarily mean it exists.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is how the debate will play out:

Round 1: This is my Round 1 for clarifications and guidelines. For PRO, he/she will either state that his following arguments will affirm a specific god from a currently known religion (i.e. Christian God, Muslim God, etc.) or a metaphysically supreme being. If my opponent chooses to affirm a metaphysically supreme being, then he/she need to define it's properties (otherwise they'll be nothing to debate). THEN, my opponent will LIST his/her ARGUMENTS with at least a brief EXPLANATION for both (I don't want just a line of titles). Try to not list too many, ranging from 1-3 is preferable.

Round 2 - 4: I will refute his/her arguments and it will go back and forth as such.

I hope we have a good debate!
KeithKroeger91

Pro

I will be arguing that the existence of God is highly likely/probable.

I will start by defining exactly what God is.

God is infinite- God never had a beginning nor will he have an end.

God is omnipotent- God is all powerful, nothing is higher then God.

God is omnipresent- He is everywhere at all times.

I believe that the earth was created through intelligent design, I think it is evident because the earth is so perfect for life if anything changed slightly about our perfect world human life could not exist. The earth is at a perfect distance from the sun, the earth has the right group of elements, the temperature is also great for supporting life on earth. The list goes on.

I like to compare the earth to a automobile. If the automobile was not so perfect then it wouldn't be able to run. Each little piece and part of the automobile all come together perfectly to get the hunk of metal moving. Similarly earth's perfect atmosphere,distance from sun, perfect elements and many other things all come together perfectly to support life on earth.
Now, with a car it would be illogical to assume that it was created through a random explosion, obviously you would conclude that there was a maker of the car, it is intelligent design why the car runs so great. It is the same logic behind the creation of earth. Our earth is far too perfect to be created through some random elements that wouldn't even exist without a creator. Something cannot be created from nothing.

Now I have just stated an argument showing that the likely hood of a God existing is probable, now I will show why the Christian God is the probable God that exists.

For evidence supporting the existence of a Christian God exists I like to look at a few things, the first thing is the dead sea scrolls. When archaeologists discovered the dead sea scrolls, scholars were amazed by the similitary of the text between the ancient finding and the modern day translations. This proves to me that the Christian God has preserved his holy word for thousands of years, keeping it from taint.

There is also scriptural/historical evidence backing up the existence of a Christian God.

Jeremiah 24:1-7 "After Jehoiachin [a] son of Jehoiakim king of Judah and the officials, the craftsmen and the artisans of Judah were carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, the LORD showed me two baskets of figs placed in front of the temple of the LORD. 2 One basket had very good figs, like those that ripen early; the other basket had very poor figs, so bad they could not be eaten.
3 Then the LORD asked me, "What do you see, Jeremiah?"
"Figs," I answered. "The good ones are very good, but the poor ones are so bad they cannot be eaten."

4 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 5 "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Like these good figs, I regard as good the exiles from Judah, whom I sent away from this place to the land of the Babylonians. [b] 6 My eyes will watch over them for their good, and I will bring them back to this land. I will build them up and not tear them down; I will plant them and not uproot them. 7 I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart."

According to Amos 9:14-15 in the old testament God promises to give the Israelites their home back after being years in exile.

"I will bring back my exiled [a] people Israel;
they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.
They will plant vineyards and drink their wine;
they will make gardens and eat their fruit.

15 I will plant Israel in their own land,
never again to be uprooted
from the land I have given them,"
says the LORD your God.

As of May 14th 1948 Israel was founded as the new nation for Jews all around the world.

In the passage Zechariah 12:6-8 it talks about Israel "consuming" all the surrounding people with fire but Israel shall remain intact. The verse also suggests that the Lord will protect Israel.

" 6 On that day I will make the leaders of Judah like a firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch among sheaves. They will consume right and left all the surrounding peoples, but Jerusalem will remain intact in her place.

7 The LORD will save the dwellings of Judah first, so that the honor of the house of David and of Jerusalem's inhabitants may not be greater than that of Judah. 8 On that day the LORD will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the Angel of the LORD going before them."

Israel is currently much more powerful then any other middle eastern neighbor.

Now you may disregard these verses as irrelevant because they prove the possibility of a Jewish God rather then a Christian God but here comes some more evidence/scripture.(God of the Jews/God of the Christians=one in the same.)

There is an entire list of prophecies that have come to pass with the birth of Jesus but the one that is most evidence supporting a Christian God is this verse.

According to Isaiah 11:10 The nations shall worship the lord.
"In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious."

Currently Christianity is worshiped all around the world and stands as the largest religion in the world.

Also, Isaiah42:1 suggests the same thing.

"Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him
and he will bring justice to the nations."

The wide spread of Christianity is evidence supporting a existence of a Christian God. History shows that the spread of Christianity was planned by a higher being. The faith of Christianity was born when Jesus was born sometime during the rule of the Roman empire. There is evidence that the Christians began to spread all around the Roman empire.
Letters/writings from Romans of the day suggests this.

Pliny the Younger as they call him recorded that "Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord's Supper."

Also from The Babylonian Talmud who in his writing speaks of the crucifixion taking place on the eve of Passover and talks about the accusations against Jesus of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish rebellion.

There is more evidence showing the existence of Jesus/Christians in the Roman empire.

Now that being said lets take a look at the spread of Christianity and history. The Roman empire spread throughout Europe and on into the Middle east and the Northern tip of Africa. Now knowing history you will see that Christians spread through out Europe and eventually became the majority of people living in Europe. Later you see the Roman empire fall creating and whole bunch of individual states in Europe. Around 1400 A.D. These states began to grow in power eventually creating an empire's that stretched around the Globe. As the Europeans conquered more and more nations around the world at the same time more and more missionaries began to teach God's love to these conquered people, and in the end Europe's imperialism is what spread the Christian faith.

The history speaks for its self, there was obviously a plan it is very unlikely that all of this happened by chance, there must be a higher power.

http://www.therefinersfire.org...
http://www.adherents.com...
http://mb-soft.com...
http://bibleforums.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.gotquestions.org...
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank PRO for accepting this debate challenge, and I hope this turns out to be fruitful.

I accept his definition of God, namely the Christian conception of God.

My opponent's opening round is quite long, but it can be separated into two main parts. The first argument is the argument from fine tuning, and it is intended to prove the existence of an infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent entity - or as my opponent states, God. The second argument is a collection of supposedly fulfilled prophecies and archeaological evidence that are an attempt to show that this infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent God is in fact the Christian God.

That said, I shall concern myself with only the first argument. If I can show that the argument from fine tuning is false or inadequate for proving the existence of an infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent God, then my opponent's foundations for proving the existence of the Christian God is swept away as well.

====================
Argument from FT presupposes human existence/earth is crucial or necessary for the universe
====================

The FT argument presupposes a major premise: that somehow human life is important to the existence of the universe. In other words, it assumes that the universe somehow can't exist or function without the existence of Homo Sapiens.

This is obviously false.

There is nothing in principle that my opponent has yet to demonstrate that the universe needs humans to exist, whether it be for a scientific reason or some "higher purpose" of the universe. There is no scientific law stating fundamental properties can't exist without prior human existence - to say this would be to liken oneself the insane. Likewise, the universe is not conscious, it's mindless. It has no wants or desires, so it can't be that humans have some special place.

Even IF we are to agree with my opponent's assertions that the physical constants of the universe are delicate in the relevant sense, this doesn't point to any "intelligent designer". From the perspective of the anthropic principle, the probability of this should be 1 out of 1. If there are certain physical constants needed for human existence, and we exist, then it should follow that these physical constants are as such! Remember, in place of humans there could very well have been different types of organisms on Earth. We could have brains that walk with three legs instead, or animals that can both fly, swim, and shoot poop out their fingers. Or there could just be no life to begin with!

The possibilities are endless and we are simply one of them. There is nothing scientifically or philosophically unique about our existence, so to say that there must have been a creator is erroneous.

Likewise, there is nothing unique about the existence of earth. Apply the same arguments I gave for the non-uniqueness of human existence: there is nothing special or necessary about the existence of Earth! Earth could be blown to bits and the universe would work just fine. Notice that I use the word "unique" only in the relevant sense that it somehow requires a designer. The occurrence of a life abundant planet may be improbable, and in that sense it's unique. But it's not unique in the sense that in principle there must have been something intelligent or conscious that led to it's existence.

====================
Properties of "God" are not necessary for creating earth
====================

My opponent's definition of God - just as a metaphysically supreme being - is that it is infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He argues that if the argument from FT is true, then it must follow that only God, as defined, can be the creator.

I argue this is completely wrong.

There is nothing in principle that my opponent has shown that creating the earth is the greatest feat of "power", whatever that vague term means. Why can't an entity that is only SLIGHTLY less than omnipotent create the earth? Why can't an entity that is NOT infinite create the earth? Why can't an entity that is NOT omnipresent create the earth?

If my opponent can't successfully answer these questions, then he comes to the problem of having an almost infinite amount of possible gods that can replace his definition of "God". If this is so, then his argument from FT is vacuous, in that it doesn't give a good clue as to whether or not God exists.

====================
Conclusion
====================

My arguments may change depending on how my opponent responds (I won't give it away, but if it happens I'll follow up as such).

I await my opponent's response.
KeithKroeger91

Pro

My opponent-
"Argument from FT presupposes human existence/earth is crucial or necessary for the universe"

No, my argument was simply that a car could not be built without intelligent design I think you are misunderstanding my argument.

My opponent-
"The FT argument presupposes a major premise: that somehow human life is important to the existence of the universe. In other words, it assumes that the universe somehow can't exist or function without the existence of Homo Sapiens."

Again you are misunderstanding the point. The point was, was that the car was created through intelligent design.
I never argued that the universe could not exist without humans I was arguing that the earth could not have been created without intelligent design. Understand my point?

"There is no scientific law stating fundamental properties can't exist without prior human existence - to say this would be to liken oneself the insane."

I never said that the universe could not have been created prior to human existence.

"Even IF we are to agree with my opponent's assertions that the physical constants of the universe are delicate in the relevant sense, this doesn't point to any "intelligent designer". "

Just answer me this question. Where did life on earth in your view come from?

"The occurrence of a life abundant planet may be improbable, and in that sense it's unique. But it's not unique in the sense that in principle there must have been something intelligent or conscious that led to it's existence."

Please answer my question above.

"My opponent's definition of God - just as a metaphysically supreme being - is that it is infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He argues that if the argument from FT is true, then it must follow that only God, as defined, can be the creator."

If you read my argument you would have read my statement stating that I have shown logic to try to convince the reader of the existence of a God. I never attempted to prove the existence of a Christian God with that first argument.
My second argument on the other hand which you straight up just ignored shows that the likely God to create our planet/universe was the Christian God.

Read My quote from my first argument in round 1.
"Now I have just stated an argument showing that the likely hood of a God existing is probable, now I will show why the Christian God is the probable God that exists."-Keithkroeger

As you can see I clearly typed that the argument shows the likely hood of "A God" is probable. My second argument gives reason to believe that the Christian God is the likely God to have created life as we know it, but since you failed to refute my points what is there to debate?

"If my opponent can't successfully answer these questions"

I do not need to answer you questions. My first arguments intent was not to prove the existence of a Christian God but just A God.

Since he has completely ignored my second argument I will add on to that argument showing more evidence of a Christian God.

Here is a verse from the Bible(God's holy word)
Isaiah 40:22
" is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

Please answer this question if the Bible is just a big fairy tail how in the heck did the Bible speak of the earth being a circle(round), literally thousands of years before the roundness of the earth was even proved?
I think this verse offers evidence suggesting that the Christian God is the the God that created our universe.

Another verse of amazing scientific accuracy.
Job 26:7
"He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing."

Hmm sounds like this verse is referring to space to me. Coincidence? I do not think so. The Bible is full of amazing scientific accuracies read all about them.

Here is some of my favorite verses out of the Bible.

Ecclesiastes 1:6-7

"The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again."

Amazingly accurate, how is it possible for the writer of Ecclesiastes to know such a thing? unless he was obviously inspired by God. Remember the Bible talks about this thousands and thousands of years before proven scientifically.

The existence of a Christian God who created a perfect Earth is much more likely then some random explosion creating life as we know it.

Thanks for the debate I do hope you learn more about the Bible and its scientific accuracies by the time this debate is finished.

On a side note I wish to provide evidence to all the athiests out there, that the Bible is indeed scientific the scripture speaks for its self. To believe in science does not mean that you do not believe in God. There is clearly a scientific parrallel between the Bible and science. I do not intend for my opponent to address my side note since it is kind of off topic so do not feel pressure into responding to this closing statement Skeptic.

I have enjoyed debating this with you. :D

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Con

I applaud my opponent for his fast response, but I'm sad to say that it is COMPLETELY misguided. It's clear from his response that he misunderstands my argument against FT - the anthropic principle. It seems that I have to reiterate it again, with more clarifications.

====================
Argument from FT presupposes human existence/earth is crucial or necessary for the universe
====================

My opponent responds to all my arguments saying "I never said this", or "I never said that". He is completely missing the point. I KNOW you didn't say that, but that's because it's a hidden premise in the FT argument (if you were to read my argument again, I clearly said this). He is jumping around, dodging my main argument and regurgitating his own.

Let me explain again: the FT argument presupposes that human existence is somehow necessary for the universe. Obviously, whether or not humans exist is of no concern to the universe - the current physical constants of the universe can very well have been different! Perhaps gravity can be 3x stronger than it is, or maybe light will be half the speed it is now. All these constants can be different, and there is nothing in principle preventing them from being otherwise (in regards to when they were first formed). So take Earth. Instead of humans existing on it, there could very well just have been an alien species. Or no life at all! In fact, it's completely plausible that the universe could be TOTALLY BARREN.

So why is the universe is how it is right now? Simply because this is one of the possible choices; there is nothing unique about it's present state. Think about this in the terms of the anthropic principle. The number of possibilities may seem totally enormous for us, but given the fact that HUMANS ALREADY EXIST, the probability that the physical constants are just right is 100%.

For example, if someone where to go up to you and ask why sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns, you'd slap them for asking the wrong question. Sausages weren't made how they are for modern hotdog buns - the BUNS were made/adapted for the hotdog! Similarly, the universe isn't fine-tuned for the benefits of humans, it's the humans who were adapted or a product of the universe!

====================
Properties of "God" are not necessary for creating earth
====================

"If you read my argument you would have read my statement stating that I have shown logic to try to convince the reader of the existence of a God. I never attempted to prove the existence of a Christian God with that first argument."
----> And if you were to actually read MY argument, you would realize that when I referred to "God", I specifically meant the one you defined. The properties you stated -- which I included in my argument -- was that it's infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Really, my opponent attempts to weasel himself out of his rebuttal. I never stated that this was a counterargument against the Christian God, but the initial definition my opponent used. Since he not only didn't refute my argument but actually ignored it, I won't be reiterating this point.

"I do not need to answer you questions. My first arguments intent was not to prove the existence of a Christian God but just A God."
----> Seriously, just read these sentences. How can my opponent make such a recurring mistake?! I never stated, nor implied, that my arguments against FT was against the existence of a Christian God. They were ALL AGAINST your initial definition of a "God". I suggest that you slow down you speed at responding, and give substantive rebuttals.

====================
Refuting Bible verses pointing to the Christian God
====================

My opponent states that I completely ignored his second argument. If he were to read my argument, which he doesn't seem fond of doing, he would see exactly why. However, to quench any further complaints, I'll refute the ones he offers here.

1. Shape of the Earth

And what part of the passage would demonstrate that the Bible purports the Earth to be circular (actually more like a sphere)? It stated that "he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth", but NOT that the Earth is a circle. Just look at the phrasing; why would one say the circle of the Earth? That's akin to me saying you are sitting on the squareness of my bed. I argue that this phrasing would suggest that this verse is referring to something else that is circular.

And as long as we are on the subject of Earth's properties, what about the Bible verses that CLEARLY state the Earth is flat! There are tons of verses littered in the Bible saying Earth is flat; hell, the Flat Earth Society is practically based upon Christians. For example, take a gander at Daniel 4:10-11. It stated that Daniel (I think) "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." If Earth was flat, this would be possible - but since it's spherical this is NOT possible at all.

2. Space

Referring to space? Or how about metaphorical lingo? These verses are so vague that it could mean a myriad of things - you just conveniently tie it with a scientific fact.

3. Wind and Sea

Is my opponent really saying that people back then had no clue of how rivers and the wind worked? Of course, they might not understand the complex physical processes involved, but to say they don't know that smaller bodies of water (rivers) run into larger bodies of water is a far stretch. Or to say that they have no knowledge concerning the wind. Sure, they may not know how wind was created or where it comes from, but I'd say it's pretty common sense to know that the wind can blow FORWARD and BACKWARDS respective towards you.

====================
Conclusion
====================

My opponent's argument consist of a complete misunderstanding of the anthropic principle and a litter of vague Bible verse. I hope my arguments demonstrate why they are erroneous reasons to believe that God, as my opponent defines, exists.
KeithKroeger91

Pro

Argument from FT presupposes human existence/earth is crucial or necessary for the universe"

I will tell you what I meant by my argument I was talking about the idea of intelligent design. The car takes intelligent design to be created same with the Earth please DO NOT put words into my mouth but since it seems your so insistent on trying to tell me what I meant why dont you tell me why my argument presupposes human life is necessary for the universe to exist.

"My opponent responds to all my arguments saying "I never said this", or "I never said that""

I did never say that the human are necessary for the existence of the universe. I find it funny how you keep trying to tell me what my argument meant.

"He is jumping around"

I am not jumping around I stated a fact, now you do not know how to deal with it.

"Instead of humans existing on it, there could very well just have been an alien species. Or no life at all! In fact, it's completely plausible that the universe could be TOTALLY BARREN."

Okay, where did the aliens come from? If there was no life where did life come from?

"The number of possibilities may seem totally enormous for us, but given the fact that HUMANS ALREADY EXIST, the probability that the physical constants are just right is 100%."

It just happens to be 100% right? that's convenient. So under your argument is it possible for life to exist on Venus? (I am just wondering)

"if someone where to go up to you and ask why sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns, you'd slap them for asking the wrong question. Sausages weren't made how they are for modern hotdog buns - the BUNS were made/adapted for the hotdog! Similarly, the universe isn't fine-tuned for the benefits of humans, it's the humans who were adapted or a product of the universe!"

If somebody asked me why sausages were made long and narrow so they could fit into modern hotdog buns, I would say that that is how some guy designed them. I understand the hotdog buns were made afterwards but your argument doesn't do anything but strengthen my own argument. As you can see both the hotdog and the hotdog bun were created with intelligent design. Thanks for proving my point.

"And if you were to actually read MY argument, you would realize that when I referred to "God", I specifically meant the one you defined. The properties you stated -- which I included in my argument -- was that it's infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent."

Yes, the Christian God is infinite,omnipotent, and omnipresent but in my first argument I was arguing for a God in general not the Christian God. My second argument explains why the Christian God is the probable God to have created it. I feel like I am repeating myself since you do not seem to understand.

" They were ALL AGAINST your initial definition of a "God""

I am arguing for the existence the a Christian God. The definitions are just some of the properties of God. If you don't disprove the Christian God you cannot disprove its properties.

"And what part of the passage would demonstrate that the Bible purports the Earth to be circular (actually more like a sphere)? It stated that "he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth", but NOT that the Earth is a circle..."

My opponent does not seem to be using common sense here but I will address the argument anyways.
He says that the earth is more of a sphere then it is circular, well here is one of the definitions of circle.

1.Circle-a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

2.Circle- something in the form of a circle or section of a circle: as a: diadem b: an instrument of astronomical observation the graduated limb of which consists of an entire circle c: a balcony or tier of seats in a theater d: a circle formed on the surface of a sphere by the intersection of a plane that passes through it e: rotary 2
4: an area of action or influence http://www.merriam-webster.com...

"..."he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth", but NOT that the Earth is a circle..."

Really? What do you possibly think this verse is talking about?

"Just look at the phrasing; why would one say the circle of the Earth?"

Please explain what else this verse means.

" It stated that Daniel (I think) "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." If Earth was flat, this would be possible - but since it's spherical this is NOT possible at all."

The term earth has many different meanings for the word earth. For example it used to be very common for people to use the term earth meaning land or area or nation. You took that verse out of context also different translations of the bible says land instead of earth even though in the context of the verse land and earth means the same thing.

Some other definitions of earth.

Earth-: areas of land as distinguished from sea and air
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2.Earth-Archaic. a land or country.

Daniel 4:4-10
"I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at home in my palace, contented and prosperous. 5 I had a dream that made me afraid. As I was lying in my bed, the images and visions that passed through my mind terrified me. 6 So I commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be brought before me to interpret the dream for me. 7 When the magicians, enchanters, astrologers [a] and diviners came, I told them the dream, but they could not interpret it for me. 8 Finally, Daniel came into my presence and I told him the dream. (He is called Belteshazzar, after the name of my god, and the spirit of the holy gods is in him.)
9 I said, "Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you, and no mystery is too difficult for you. Here is my dream; interpret it for me. 10 These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous."

Notice how in this translation it says in the middle of the "LAND".

"Referring to space? Or how about metaphorical lingo? These verses are so vague that it could mean a myriad of things - you just conveniently tie it with a scientific fact"

Please explain to me how this verse is metaphorical lingo. Also what else can this verse possibly be talking about? "HE HANGS THE EARTH ON NOTHING."

"Is my opponent really saying that people back then had no clue of how rivers and the wind worked? Of course, they might not understand the complex physical processes involved, but to say they don't know that smaller bodies of water (rivers) run into larger bodies of water is a far stretch."

I am sorry to disappoint you but the ancients did not know how the rivers or the wind ran.

"Sure, they may not know how wind was created or where it comes from, but I'd say it's pretty common sense to know that the wind can blow FORWARD and BACKWARDS respective towards you."

Again the verse didn't simply say that the winds goes forward and backwards it was very specific.

Ecclesiastes 1:6-7
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

As you can see this is very specific and very accurate you are just unwilling to admit it.

You simply just like to disregard it as "vague" but as you can this verse is very straightforward.
Debate Round No. 3
TheSkeptic

Con

It seems as if my opponent once again does nothing to attack the meat of my argument - the anthropic principle (to be precise, it's more like anthropic reasoning). It is his inadequate understanding of this principle that forces me to repeat my arguments. Since this is the last round, I will attempt to really clarify my arguments. But if he consistently doesn't even come to UNDERSTAND my argument, let alone effectively refute it, then the vote is obviously CON.

====================
Argument from FT - Anthropic Principle/Reasoning
====================

I can easily tell from my opponent's response that he has no clue as to what I am doing - whether it be my argumentation procedure or the actual argument. Not only does his round have more words from my arguments than his (perhaps a hint to the veracity of his actual arguments), but they are either strawmen or misunderstandings.

For example, I've made it pretty clearly that the argument from FT pressuposses human existence/earth is crucial or necessary for the universe, but my opponent somehow finds it "funny". Is he not familiar with the logical procedure of examining an argument and showing the hidden premise's? Of course he never stated that the argument from FT presupposes this - I am arguing it's a HIDDEN PREMISE. And by showing this hidden premise is false, I will have successfully undermined his argument. So disregard several of his "rebuttals" to my claims - they are simply misdirected.

That being said, he does have at least 2 counterarguments. The first is the example of a car being made out of an explosion - this is supposed to demonstrate the infeasible randomness of our own existence. The second is against the idea that given such physical constants, our existence is a 1 out of 1. I will refute both, and demonstrate why my opponent's position is vacuous.

====================
Argument from FT - Anthropic Principle/Reasoning - Car Analogy/100% probability Rebuttal
====================

First up is his analogy with the car. There are numerous flaws with this analogy, and this demonstrates his misunderstanding of both my argument and of evolution/abiogenesis:

1. Life started in a much different manner from a "random explosion". There are competing theories, but some popular ones are the iron-sulfur world theory and the RNA world hypothesis, both which are vastly different from a "random explosion."

2. Once early life was formed, evolution took it's role. A car is quite intricate, as is human life. Therefore, the long gradual process to this stage started from much more simple organisms, which from generations to generations came to us. Who did all of this? The natural process of EVOLUTION, not a sudden event.

The second thing to point out is that my opponent found flaw with my claim that given we already exist, the physical constants must be right. My argument stated that human life DOES NOT NEED TO EXIST. It just happens to be that the current physical constants, which were put into place closely after the Big Bang, allowed for us to exist. If it was slightly different, then we wouldn't exist - as you would agree to. However, the problem is that you are committing selection bias[1], in the sense that you are looking at the results and distorting how it came to be. The argument from FT is revering cause and effect; we are simply an effect. It could very well have been different, but we just happened to be.

It's not like when someone rolls a die, and it turns out to be both 6, they go "OH WHAT ARE THE CHANCES!". Even though getting both 6's is somewhat rare, everyone understands that the result could have been perfectly different (1 and 1, 1 and 2, etc.). The current state of the universe is the same. If gravity was 3 times larger and made the Milky Way vacant of life, then oh well that's a possibility! If the sun was 10x times closer to Earth, thus eradicating all life there, then oh well that's a possibility!

====================
Properties of "God" are not necessary for creating earth
====================

AGAIN, no response to this argument. Voters, take note of this.

"Yes, the Christian God is infinite,omnipotent, and omnipresent but in my first argument I was arguing for a God in general not the Christian God...I feel like I am repeating myself since you do not seem to understand."
----> I feel like I am repeating myself BECAUSE I EXPLAINED THAT THIS ARGUMENT WAS MEANT FOR THE INITIAL DEFINITION/PROPERTIES OF GOD. I never stated this was directed towards the Christian God (though it's equally valid).

"I am arguing for the existence the a Christian God. The definitions are just some of the properties of God. If you don't disprove the Christian God you cannot disprove its properties."
----> First of all, why did you make a dichotomy between "God" and a "Christian God"? It just makes it confusing. Secondly, it's absurd to say that if you can't disprove the properties of the Christian God if you cannot disprove its properties. Disproving it's properties IS A METHOD of disproving the Christian God!

My opponent does make a reply to my hot dog analogy, but it's once again a strawman. He says it bolsters intelligent design, but he doesn't even realize that the analogy was not even meant to address that point. It was meant to address the relationship between cause and effect; how the effect will turn out to be depending on the nature of the cause. Because hot dogs are long and slender, buns became suited/adapted to it's shape. In the same respect, because the physical constants are what they happen to be, humans because the effect/product.

====================
Refuting Bible verses pointing to the Christian God
====================

A. Shape of the Earth

"He says that the earth is more of a sphere then it is circular, well here is one of the definitions of circle."
----> This was not my main refutation of the verse, so I can very well drop it or don't care about it. I mean't to say it's an ellipsoid, but does this even matter? We should focus on my main argument, not bicker about petty mistakes.

1. He responds to my inquiries concerning the meaning of the verse by asking "what do you think", but gives no response! What kind of rebuttal is that supposed to be - why should it matter whether I know the actual meaning, it's just the fact that there are many viable possible alternatives that matters. However, let's assume it does refer to a spherical earth. Big whoop, this fact was known since Aristotle's' time[2], in at least 300 B.C.
2. He says the verse is taken out of context, but he doesn't show WHY THAT IS SO. Isn't it convenient that earth has different meanings, and my verse was wrong but yours was correct? Yes, the prior verses say the tree was in the middle of the land, but that doesn't contort the definition of "earth". Why would they use two different words that mean the same thing?

B. Earth hanging on space

"Please explain to me how this verse is metaphorical lingo...what else can this verse possibly be talking about?"
----> Because first of all, space isn't just nothing and because what else can people back then have thought of? Hanging on nothing would seem to be evident, since they cant' conceive of anything else.

C. Direction of water/wind

"I am sorry to disappoint you but the ancients did not know how the rivers or the wind ran."
----> Ipse dixit. The verse uses complicated language, but all ti states is that the wind goes south then north over and over again. A very OBVIOUS observation that does not need scientific tools.

====================
Conclusion
====================

I am quite disappointed. Instead of refuting my argument, anthropic reasoning, my opponent has completely evaded it. My opponent will obviously disagree with this, but I'm sure the conclusion is different with the voters. I am interested in seeing what the response is.

Thanks for the debate.
KeithKroeger91

Pro

seems as if my opponent once again does nothing to attack the meat of my argument "

As far as I see the only thing you really seem to attack me on is my car analogy claiming that it states that humans are necessary for the existence of the universe. Yet, you never once told me how my argument implies that humans need to exist for the universe to exist.
I even asked you to tell me how my car analogy implies this and you simply say its HIDDEN. Thats hardly a answer if you ask me. Thats like me saying that your argument makes no sense, you then ask me how. I say its HIDDEN!
Same concept.

"his round have more words from my arguments than his"

Completely irrelevant it doesn't matter if I refute your argument with 10 words or 100 words I still successfully argued against each one of your points, you on the other hand did not.

" Life started in a much different manner from a "random explosion". There are competing theories, but some popular ones are the iron-sulfur world theory and the RNA world hypothesis, both which are vastly different from a "random explosion."

Okay, this does not hurt my car analogy in any way. The existence of a Supreme being is more likely then random elements and events that supposedly created our earth. Where did the volcanoes come from that life according to the sulfur theory come from? Again something can never come from nothing. Every finite thing has at some point had a beginning where does it begin? The RNA world hypothesis meaning no evidence backing it up therefore irrelevant.(Though one can argue that the big bang and the sulfur theory has no evidence to support them either.)

". Once early life was formed, evolution took it's role. A car is quite intricate, as is human life. Therefore, the long gradual process to this stage started from much more simple organisms, which from generations to generations came to us. Who did all of this? The natural process of EVOLUTION, not a sudden event."

Did evolution create planet earth? We are arguing the creation of EARTH/universe not the creation of organisms.
Evolution does not refute religion since God could have simply used evolution to create life on earth.(Though I do not believe this.)

"the Big Bang, allowed for us to exist"

What allowed for the big bang to exist? Obviously it came from something. Again I do not believe in the big bang but the big bang does not refute the likelihood of a God creating the Universe.

"It's not like when someone rolls a die, and it turns out to be both 6, they go "OH WHAT ARE THE CHANCES!". Even though getting both 6's is somewhat rare, everyone understands that the result could have been perfectly different"

But it takes somebody to roll the dice, the universe obviously did not create itself. Science is yet to explain the creation of the universe.(which it never will) The only possible explanation for the existence of the universe if you go back far enough is GOD.

"Properties of "God" are not necessary for creating earth
AGAIN, no response to this argument. Voters, take note of this"

I never once argued that the properties of God were necessary for the existence of the earth. That is something you just told me I said or what I meant.

I defined what God was never said that God used those specific properties to create the earth. The only property that applies to the creation of the earth is omnipotence. It takes an all powerful God to create a perfect world.
You never once refuted any of my points in my R1 showing evidence of the existence of the Christian God.

"I feel like I am repeating myself BECAUSE I EXPLAINED THAT THIS ARGUMENT WAS MEANT FOR THE INITIAL DEFINITION/PROPERTIES OF GOD."

...My car argument does not need to show evidence of properties of God just the intelligent design behind God's earth. No matter which God it is. My argument states only that the probability of the earth creating its self from random processes is the same chance a car would be created through another set of random processes. Even scientists admit that the probability of the creation of earth through their "Random elements" that just happened to come together perfectly that just happened to create the earth, that just happened to put the planet at the perfect distance of the sun, that just happened to create the perfect life sustaining atmosphere, that just happened to have the perfect amount of oxygen in the air and many other things that just happened to come together O so perfectly. Is very very very low.

If you ask me I would say you take more faith believing in that, then somebody who believes that God created the universe.

" First of all, why did you make a dichotomy between "God" and a "Christian God"? "

Because as stated in my round 1 I am showing evidence supporting the probability of the Christian God. Also, as stated in my round 1 the car analogy was meant to show the existence of a God in general. THE REST of my R1 approx. 70% of my arguments you ignored.

"Secondly, it's absurd to say that if you can't disprove the properties of the Christian God if you cannot disprove its properties"

I did not say that you cannot disprove the properties of the Christian God if you cannot disprove its properties.
I said you cannot disprove the Christian Gods properties if you cannot disprove the existence of Him.

"Disproving it's properties IS A METHOD of disproving the Christian God!"

You have not disproved the Christian Gods properties. You have not shown Why God is not infinite nor omnipotent nor omnipresent.

"My opponent does make a reply to my hot dog analogy, but it's once again a strawman. He says it bolsters intelligent design, but he doesn't even realize that the analogy was not even meant to address that point."

You have not shown how the hotdog bun could have adapted itself without the help of intelligent design. Therefore this argument does nothing but hurt your case.

My opponent has conceded that the Bible has accurately stated that the earth is round.

". He responds to my inquiries concerning the meaning of the verse by asking "what do you think", but gives no response!"

I simply asked you what you thought those verses meant to try to kick in your common senses it is pretty clear what these verses mean and you just do not want to answer the questions because you KNOW that these verses could only mean one thing.

According to my opponent the Greeks knew that the earth was round since 300 B.C.
Even if this is so scholars say that Isaiah was probably written around 700 B.C. some say 1,000 B.C.
That is a 500 to 800 year difference in time. How could this writer have known the earth was round? I will remind the voters that the belief in flat earth was the majority opinion until explorers of the 1400-1500s set the record straight.

" He says the verse is taken out of context, but he doesn't show WHY THAT IS SO."

I did show how the verse was taken out of context if you read the entire verse it is pretty clear he is speaking of the nation rather then the planet.

"Isn't it convenient that earth has different meanings, and my verse was wrong but yours was correct?"

Neither were wrong both were correct usage of the words.

Many different words in the English language has different meanings. For example the word fly

Def. 1 :fly-to move through the air using wings.
Def. 2 : fly-a. the horizontal dimension of a flag as flown from a vertical staff.

As you can see two very different meanings yet still the same word. I guess that's convenient to then.

" Why would they use two different words that mean the same thing?"

Two different translations.

" Hanging on nothing would seem to be evident"
First he says the verse is vague and could mean a myriad of things. Now all of a sudden its evident?

"A very OBVIOUS observation"

The wind going south to the equator swirling around and going back north is not OBVIOUS.
I will let the voters decide
Debate Round No. 4
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
I assume you voted for him correct?
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
What was your rationale for voting for skeptic?
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
I'd like the people who voted for KeithKroeger91 to give some sort of rationale.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Nags:

When I'm searching for my debates, it would be a mess if they all had the same title (even if I have a convenient menu to look through my own debates).
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
TheSkeptic-

Would you mind explaining "Note: the "1E" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes."? I've noticed you do that a few times before.

I don't get it. Why would you search for your own debate? You can just click on "Debates" in "My Personal Menu".
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Yeah I hate the character limits. I had a few more things to say but before I knew it my characters were at 0. I was like =0.

Thanks for the debate skeptic I think it was a good one.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
My references:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry, the character limits still hate me.
Posted by JohnGotti 7 years ago
JohnGotti
i dont understand how anybody could counter an argument using the "Dead Sea Scrolls."
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
You totally missed the point.

If you look at the history and see almost every nation that became widely Christian became extremely powerful and they used there power to conquer other nations. The European nations didn't conquer nations to convert these nations to Christ it was an after effect. Missionaries came after these countries were conquered. Yes, the European nations did do bad things to people that they conquered but so does every country that gets powerful its human nature. Do you really believe that all these Europeans became extremely powerful by chance? In fact if you look at the only major country in Africa that was never conquered during the prime of the European imperialism (1800s-early 1900s) was Ethiopia during that time Ethiopia was a Christian nation. The Italians attempted to conquer this land but they failed. After that all the other European powers were to afraid to try and conquer Ethiopia so they just let it be.
Posted by Mr_smith 7 years ago
Mr_smith
Pro: How was European imperialism a good thing? I would much rather be a 'pagan' than get massacred by some greedy conquistadores in the name of 'Christ'. Coincidentally, Christ is the man who preached peace and a separation from material items.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
TheSkepticKeithKroeger91Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Voltar143 6 years ago
Voltar143
TheSkepticKeithKroeger91Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
TheSkepticKeithKroeger91Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by numbany 7 years ago
numbany
TheSkepticKeithKroeger91Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Floid 7 years ago
Floid
TheSkepticKeithKroeger91Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by DictatorIsaac 7 years ago
DictatorIsaac
TheSkepticKeithKroeger91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
TheSkepticKeithKroeger91Tied
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 
Vote Placed by abromwell 7 years ago
abromwell
TheSkepticKeithKroeger91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Cyan_Caze 7 years ago
Cyan_Caze
TheSkepticKeithKroeger91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Fhqwhgads 7 years ago
Fhqwhgads
TheSkepticKeithKroeger91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70