The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The God Of The Bible Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,012 times Debate No: 85068
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (0)

 

MagicAintReal

Con

*No round rules
*No acceptance round; just start debating.


Resolution
The god of the bible exists.

Pro
Has 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that the god of the bible exists.

Con
Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to refute Pro's resolution that the god of the bible exists.

*Definitions can be changed, before the debate, in the comments section, as long as both Pro and Con agree to them.

Otherwise

*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.


Definitions

god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

bible - the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

exist - have objective reality or being.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

May the better argument win.
Jerry947

Pro

Lets get to it...

The Axiological Argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

My brief defense of this premise: Objective morals have to come from an objective source and that source can only be God. Nothing/nobody else could produce an objective moral code.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

My brief defense of this premise: Almost all people are aware that murder, lying, stealing, and etc...are wrong. it seems crazy to believe that every person just so happens to have the same subjective opinion on these basic moral principles. There must be some sort of universal moral law that exists.

3. Therefore, God exists.

That is the short version of the argument. Please tell me what problems you have with the argument and I will address them in the next round.

Common objections answered...
Only religion can give the most logical explanation for the origin of morality. Most people have an idea of what is right and wrong. Religious people, most of the time state that morality comes from God. This makes sense considering most people abide by an objective moral code that they expect everyone to know about. And the only way an objective moral code could exist is if a God created it. Objective morality can only come from an objective being (God). Now some people might argue that there is no such thing as objective morality or a real right and wrong. But the people that argue this always go back on their claim a moment later (C.S. Lewis). People try to argue that morality is created by societies. But we also understand that there are societies that have condoned evil practices when in fact people know that the society was wrong. For example, W. H. Auden, a famous 20th century poet, said that "there had to be a reason Hitler was utterly wrong." Auden said this famous quote after going to a theater that showed pictures of the Holocaust. These pictures sickened him and made him rethink his worldview. Before watching these pictures, Auden believed that it was up to the society to decide what was right and wrong. But during his time at the theater he realized that if societies decided what was right and wrong, and if morality is subjective, this would mean that Hitler was justified in everything he did. Well, at least according to that society. And who are we to tell them they are wrong if morality is purely subjective? Therefore, religion gives the best explanation for why there is an objective morality and why it exists.

Even though religion gives a great explanation for why morality exists, it also gives the only real reason people have to be moral. According to religion, people are moral to receive gifts or to avoid punishment from God. Others in religion believe they are moral to be more like their loving God. There is no other reason to be moral. Although people have no reason to be moral, people may have some objections. Some may argue that they are moral to benefit society. The problem with this response is that benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral. Another objection would be that morality is merely an instinct. The problem with this claim is that people have different instincts which would make morality subjective. And again, if morality is subjective, we could never tell people that they are doing something wrong. Another problem with this argument is that morality is usually that thing that decides between which instincts to follow. For example, if a person were to hear a gun shot and a cry for help, people would most likely have two instincts. One would be to run away from danger; another instinct would be to run to help the person. Morality might push a person to choose the weaker instinct, which is to choose to help the person instead of saving themselves. Therefore, religion gives the only reason to be moral. Without God, there is no reason to be moral. But religion tells people to be moral to please their God or to be more like him.

The Teleological argument:

The world is so complex that there must be a creator. According to Roger Penrose of Oxford University, he has calculated that the odds of that low-entropy state's (state in which the universe began) existing by chance alone is on the order of one chance out of 10^10(123). That number is inconceivable. The odds are so against a life permitting universe that it is like a criminal (representing the universe) is about to be executed by a firing squad (representing odds against life permitting universe) and then the members of the firing squad all miss. People claim that it happened by chance. Christians say that it is ludicrous to think it happened by chance. Why? Because something feels rigged. It is completely logical to believe that there is an intelligent designer especially since everything is so complex. On the other hand, it is crazy to call all of this simple chance.
Source: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu.........

The Cosmological argument:

The argument in a nutshell is as follows:
a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
b. The universe began to exist.
c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
d. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).
God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. If you have any objections to any of the premises in this argument, see source and see if your objection is listed there. The source gives good explanations to the objections it lists.
Source: https://carm.org.........

The Existence of Jesus:

Almost all scholars in our age believe that Jesus was a real person (http://www.is-there-a-god.info...). There are many ancient historians (http://www.gotquestions.org...) that have written about him and we even have writings from the people that knew Jesus (The New Testament). You should have no doubt that Jesus was a real person. The famous historian Josephus for example stated that "Jesus was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pontius Pilate" In other words, we also have proof that Jesus was crucified. The Bible affirms all of this and even explains why Jesus' body went missing from the empty tomb. More on that later...

Jesus claimed to be God and his friends and his brothers claimed that he was God. Josephus tells us that Jesus was a good teacher. But it is a mistake to believe that Jesus was only a good teacher. C.S. Lewis stated that "is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg R09; or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or something worse." People of the time period indicate that Jesus was a good person and a good teacher...but you can't be these things if you are insane.

Lets go back to the empty tomb. The historian Luke states (chapter 24) that the tomb was found empty by women. How did this happen? The best explanation(http://www.reasonablefaith.org...) is that Jesus was who he said he was and did in fact rise from the dead. People might claim that Jesus never died but this is silly considering that we know he was crucified and that he was buried. No one could survive that process. Others claim that the body never went missing which is ridiculous considering the Romans and the Jews could have merely shown Christians the body and then their faith would be destroyed. And on top of that, there are people such as the New Testament writers that claim they along with 500 other people saw Jesus after his death. Even the brothers of Jesus (who previously disbelieved in the deity of their brother) came to believe that Jesus was God. Think about that for a moment...what would it take for you to believe that your brother (if you have one) was God? Would it take a resurrection? Nevertheless they became Christians.
Sources: http://www.gotquestions.org...
Also used the Bible.

I thank my opponent for initiating the debate and I look forward to their response.
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Con

Word.
Thanks Pro for accepting the debate, though I must mention that Pro ultimately instigated this debate; I'm just the proximate instigator. Pro messaged me with the idea for this debate, so thank you Pro for that as well.

I reject the resolution that the god of the bible exists, because the universe wasn't created, in any fashion, and the bible and its ultimate author are not repositories for morality or moral actions.

For Pro to affirm that god exists, Pro has to show that god is 1) the creator of the universe, 2) the ruler of the universe, and 3) the source of ALL moral authority.
Pro has to show all three properties of god, because the agreed definition of god in this debate has AND between each of those properties, not OR.

1. *THE UNIVERSE*
All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Our universe has matter and space.
Matter distorts space and creates gravity.
http://www.einstein-online.info...

The way that particle physicists and cosmologists look at the total universe's energy is by the totality of visible matter (you, me, the planets and stars) and gravity (distortions of space).


https://en.wikipedia.org...

Matter, in this energy combination, acts as positive energy (+), because matter is doing the distorting.
Gravity, in this energy combination, acts as negative energy (-), because it's a result of the distorting.

So, what if we could see how curved space is throughout the entire observable universe given this (+)matter and (-)gravity interplay?
Well we can, and we have, using the WMAP, which is an anisotropy probe attached to a space shuttle that measures variations in the otherwise uniform Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, and gives us a massively accurate picture of the scale, shape, and size of the observable universe.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

We now know that our universe is flat, because the spacial curvature (the total effect of matter on space) of the universe is zero.
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org...

Therefore, all of the positive energy (+matter) is exactly being cancelled out by all of the negative energy (-gravity) in our universe, so that the total energy [+matter,-gravity] of the universe is in fact zero.

As a set, the universe's matter and gravity would look like [+matter, -gravity] = 0
So, we could imagine what the set might look like currently, given our massive universe of +matter and -gravity...[+10000000000000,-10000000000000] = 0.

But when there was no universe, matter and gravity were at [+0,-0] = 0
At [+0,-0], there is no matter or gravity to speak of and of course the total energy is 0.
In this zero energy state, there is/are no radiation/particles/wavelengths/matter/energy/space/time/gravity...nothing [+0,-0]= 0.

So, for this debate, I will be referring to "before the universe" as [+0,-0], when there was no universe.

2. *THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE*

The Big Bang-
With the right radio telescope, even you can see that the space between the stars above us isn't just black space, it's filled with microwave radiation.
http://science.nasa.gov...

All of this CMB radiation, which is a "black body" as it absorbs all intercepted electromagnetic radiation, is nearly a uniform glow between stars across the universe, and is a proven indicator of an expandable hot dense state such as the Big Bang being the cosmos' origin.
http://www.mpg.de...

The small variations in the microwave's uniformity, show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot dense state that has expanded to the current size of the universe; this is called inflation.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...

Yeah, that link is from Cambridge...I know, argument from authority...go to page 9 of the PDF which is page 2 of the preface.

These small variations have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of sub-nuclear particles, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today.

Quantum Fluctuations (QF)-
In our universe of space and matter, when you strip "something" of particles, radiation, and energy, you are left with nothing but empty space; this empty space is full of quantum fluctuations.

Quantum fluctuations are sub nuclear particles (not actually full particles, which is why some physicists call them "virtual" particles) existing and being annihilated by antiparticles, and the forces between these sub nuclear particles fluctuate along with this existence and annihilation.

I have to make this point perfectly clear.
These sub nuclear particles fluctuating in and out of existence are what nothing is, and this is always the case.
This is what nothing is.
http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com...

The article above refers to quantum fluctuations as vacuum fluctuations because, in our universe of space and matter, we've detected these fluctuations by using a vacuum that strips the basics of something from empty space.

But the sub nuclear particles in QF are something, right?
Nope.
They never statively exist; they exist and don't exist at the same instant, and it is this fluctuation that makes up nothing.
There is no "nothing" without these fluctuations, period.
What is nothing?
It is a state of fluctuating sub nuclear particles and their forces called quantum fluctuations.
https://www.youtube.com...

That video is short and explanatory of QF = nothing.

Quantum fluctuations are as real as microorganisms, and we've demonstrated and measured their effect, in current space, in detail.
http://physics.aps.org...

However, at [+0,-0], unlike our current universe, there was no space, and instead, like the forces between the sub nuclear particles, space and time fluctuated along with the sub nuclear particles.

Space is merely the position of matter or the distance between matter; matter dictates space.

At [+0,-0], in a quantum fluctuation, a sub-nuclear particle exists and is simultaneously annihilated by its antiparticle, and this pseudo moment allows for the fluctuated existence/nonexistence of space and time and the forces between the sub-nuclear particles; this was the condition at [+0,-0], which is a constant fluctuation of time/space/matter/energy/gravity thanks to QF.

These zero-energy quantum fluctuations, nothing, are such an unstable state that energy is guaranteed to be expressed from them; that expression is called the big bang and is the origin of our universe.

From nothing [+0,-0] to something [+1,-1] = The Big Bang.


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

3. *CREATION IS TEMPORAL*

creation - the process of bringing something into existence
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

In order for a process like "bringing something into existence" to occur, there needs to be stative time and the passage thereof to allow for a "bringer of something into existence" to exist, remain, and then bring that something into existence; creator-->created is contingent on stative time and the passage thereof.

Unfortunately for this resolution, at [+0,-0], there was no stative time, because there was no stative space in QF.
Space and time are part of a continuum, so we call it spacetime.
http://www.einstein-online.info...

I reject the claim that the universe has a creator, god, because creation is a temporal process, contingent on time, and at [+0,-0] there was no stative time or the passage thereof, because there was no stative space; temporal processes like creation are nonsensical without time.

Therefore, god in this debate cannot be, because there is no creator of a universe that wasn't created.

4. *MORALITY*

From what I can gather, the god of the bible is the ultimate author of it, so what we find in the bible is morally approved by him.

According to the god of the bible in Exodus 21:20 - 21:21:
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
http://biblehub.com...
http://biblehub.com...

Ugh. This is ugly, and what's being approved of is immoral.
Objectively, slavery is immoral.
Objectively, allowing the unpunished beating of someone is immoral.
Objectively, owning another human as property is immoral.

Apologists typically throw out that the idea "slave" is being used to mean "servant" or "butler."
Ok, so god's cool with you beating a butler as long as you don't kill them BECAUSE they are your property?

If we're to believe that the author of these ideas is the source of all moral authority, then is it moral to own other humans as property?

Pro, do you believe that it is moral for humans to own other humans as property?

God also adds in Deuteronomy 22:13 - 22:21:
"If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity' [and]...the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing...by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."
https://www.biblegateway.com...

So, the alleged source of all moral authority, god, is not cool with women having sex before marriage, and commands all of the men of the town to stone her to death?

I'm speechless.
One would expect the source of all MORAL authority to be, I don't know...moral.

Pro, is this idea moral?
Jerry947

Pro

1. Here is the cosmological argument for the existence of God yet again:

The Cosmological argument:

The argument in a nutshell is as follows:
a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
b. The universe began to exist.
c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
d. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).
God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. If you have any objections to any of the premises in this argument, see source and see if your objection is listed there. The source gives good explanations to the objections it lists.
Source: https://carm.org............

My opponent responds to this by claiming that before the universe existed, there was no "radiation/particles/wavelengths/matter/energy/space/time/gravity...nothing [+0,-0]= 0." I completely agree with that statement. Then he goes on to explain that the Universe does have a origin. Notice how he agrees to the first three premises (letters a,b,c) in my argument? Lastly, he goes on defending the Big bang as the event that caused the universe. There are many problems with this.

He says this: "The article above refers to quantum fluctuations as vacuum fluctuations because, in our universe of space and matter, we've detected these fluctuations by using a vacuum that strips the basics of something from empty space.
But the sub nuclear particles in QF are something, right?"

No, the sub nuclear particles may not be something but the vacuum is something. That is where your argument falls apart. Therefore you haven't shown that something can come from nothing (that is impossible). By the way, even if something could come from nothing...wouldn't that be happening all of the time?

Lets move onto my forth premise of my argument. God is the best explanation of the Universe since the cause of the Universe has to "transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore it must be immaterial and nonphysical. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy" (William Lane Craig). That sounds a lot like God to me. The Big Bang theory affirms that the universe has a cause but it doesn't establish itself as the cause (at least not the all powerful, timeless, personal cause of the universe).

"I reject the claim that the universe has a creator, god, because creation is a temporal process, contingent on time, and at [+0,-0] there was no stative time or the passage thereof, because there was no stative space; temporal processes like creation are nonsensical without time."

I find this confusing since my opponent has already admitted that the universe has a cause and at the same time he admitted that time did not exist before the universe. So why does my opponent have a problem with an all powerful timeless being creating the universe (including time)? He believes that the big bang somehow created time so why couldn't a God do the same?

2. Lets take a look at my moral argument again.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

My brief defense of this premise: Objective morals have to come from an objective source and that source can only be God. Nothing/nobody else could produce an objective moral code.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

My brief defense of this premise: Almost all people are aware that murder, lying, stealing, and etc...are wrong. it seems crazy to believe that every person just so happens to have the same subjective opinion on these basic moral principles. There must be some sort of universal moral law that exists.

3. Therefore, God exists.

That is the short version of the argument. Please tell me what problems you have with the argument and I will address them in the next round.

My opponent responds to this by saying that objective morality does in fact exist (affirming my second premise). He says that "objectively, slavery is immoral." Therefore my opponent has acknowledged that a moral God exists by affirming my argument. Now all I have to do is to convince him that the God of the Bible is moral.

First lets start off by mentioning that God freed thousands of people from slavery in the book of exodus. And in Genesis 21:10, a woman tosses her servant (or slave) and her son into the wilderness and God takes care of them and promises them security. God certainly cares about slaves. Paul even says that in Jesus, there is no slave or free. All people (in a sense) are one in God's eyes.

As for the verse from Exodus, you just quoted a restriction God put on slave owners. God allowed slavery to happen so that people could have free will. God hates sin but does allow humans to make their own choices. God never does anything in the Bible to condone slavery. But he does restrict it (https://carm.org...), free slaves, and say they are all one in Christ Jesus. Sounds perfectly moral to me.

As for the stoning of non virgins...you must keep in mind that with the atheist worldview, morality is subjective. So you couldn't say whether something was immoral or not. But since you have already admitted that objective morality exists, I will address this. Women were not stoned for not being a virgin, but for the deception in trying to appear as one" (https://carm.org...). If you actually took time to read the whole chapter, you would see that Adultery was taken very seriously by cultures at that time and men and women were punished for their sins. If a man accused a women of not being a virgin when they married (which was a horrible offense 3,000 yrs ago) and was wrong, he would be whipped and would have to pay the women's parents a lot of cash. And he would have to provide for his wife forever. But if he was right in his accusation, the women would be put to death. Keep in mind that all people who committed adultery were put to death in those times. God declares adultery as immoral and that happened to be a commandment that had to be followed back then. Now a days, people can commit adultery whenever they want and seem to get away with it. It was a good thing that it was punished back then. Wouldn't you agree?

3. Teleological Argument

Why did you completely ignore this argument for God's existence?

4. Jesus' existence

Why did you completely ignore what I said about the Resurrection of Jesus?

I thank my opponent for an interesting round and I will await his response.
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for that argument Pro.

I maintain that there is no creator of the universe, god, because the universe wasn't created.
Creation is a temporal process contingent on stative time and the passage thereof.

At [+0,-0], in quantum fluctuations, there was no stative time passing to allow for a temporal process like creation, which involves existing, remaining, and creating, so there was no creator or creation at [+0,-0].

I also maintain that the particular god of the bible is not a source of morality, because that god has rules for owning humans as property and viciously killing women for sexual promiscuity.

However, Pro has some contentions.

1. Objective Morality's Source

Pro asserts:
"If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist."

My response:
I reject the axiological argument's first premise.

Objective morals have nothing to do with the god of the bible.
Yes, I am completely fine with saying that there are objective morals, despite the lack of a creator of the universe. because there are objectively immoral sufferings.

There are stimuli that objectively induce suffering in all humans/conscious animals like being burned alive, having stones thrown at your face, being beaten severely, or being forced to do something without consent.

Actions that lead us further away from these types of objective sufferings of humans/conscious animals are objectively discernible from their moral counterparts, and this discerning requires no god, especially one who approves of severely beating humans because they are your property.

Therefore, objective morals can be perfectly explained by universal human interaction with suffering-inducing stimuli and actions that lead us away from this objective suffering.

Pro continues:
"And the only way an objective moral code could exist is if a God created it"

My response:
This is a bare assertion, and, as I've pointed out, morality exists in opposition to objectively suffering-inducing actions/stimuli.

Pro states:
"benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral."

My response:
Exactly.
Benefiting society takes us away from the objectively immoral sufferings, thus benefiting society is objectively moral, irrespective of a god.

Pro contradicts:
"Therefore, religion gives the only reason to be moral."

My response:
Um, you just said that "benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral" and now you're saying, "religion gives the ONLY reason to be moral."

Pro, how is it that benefiting society is a part of being moral, but it's not a reason to be moral?

2. The Teleological Argument

Pro claims:
"The world is so complex that there must be a creator...the odds of that low-entropy state's (state in which the universe began) existing by chance alone is on the order of one chance out of 10^10(123)."

My response:
A. Complexity does not always indicate a creator, because snowflakes are complex, ordered, and six-fold radially symmetrical, yet they have no creator, rather they are results of the water cycle; they seem designed by a creator, but they are not.
B. How were these odds calculated by Roger Penrose?
How can we verify if the numbers are correct or weren't just fabricated?
What does Queensborough Community College, the source Pro provided for these numbers, have to do with the origins of the universe?
C. Even if these numbers were true, they don't show a 0% chance, so they still allow for "existing by chance." The numbers do need to be clarified and explained HOW they were applied to the universe's origin.

3. The Cosmological Argument.

Pro claims:
"a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
b. The universe began to exist.
c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
d. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)."

My response:
Now, my favorite argument for god is in fact this one, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, because it was an attempt to take the infinite regress problem of "everything that exists has a cause" and change it so that god is exempt from the "exists, so has a cause" rule; this is a form of special pleading.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Before the Kalam argument, was the original cosmological argument that asserted that "everything that exists has a cause." This turns into an infinite regress, because if god exists, according to the assertion, then god must have a cause, and god's cause must have a cause, and god's cause's causes's cause must have a cause etc...

So, the Kalam takes an infinitive verb phrase "to begin to exist," applies it to "everything that exists has a cause," and changes the assertion to "everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause," which exempts god from being caused, because, thanks to special pleading, he's always existed and never BEGINS TO exist.

This argument is two-fold fallacious.
A. It uses circular reasoning, or it begs the question.
B. It special pleads god's exemption.

A. By saying that things "begin to exist," you automatically create a set of "things that don't begin to exist" and a set of "things that do begin to exist."

The problem is that the set of "things that don't begin to exist" ends up only having one thing in it, god, which makes separating "begin to exist things" and "not beginning to exist things" a way to smuggle in god's presumed exemption in the conclusion.

The assertion that god didn't begin to exist in the premise is simply repeated by saying that god is the only member of the "didn't begin to exist" set in the conclusion, which is begging the question.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

B. By asserting that everything began to exist, except for god, you are special pleading god's exemption to the assumed rule. Without an explanation of how god should be considered exempt from the category, exempting him is special pleading, thus it is flawed logic and we can reject your conclusions from such.

Pro, other than bare assertions, how is god exempt from the beginning to exist rule that you openly endorse?
Pro, could you explain the mechanism by which god accomplishes this exemption?

4. The Existence of Jesus.

Pro thinks this matters to the debate, and I really don't see it that way.
Jesus's existence is actually irrelevant to whether or not there is a creator of the universe; Pro's biblical evidence only talks about Jesus's resurrection and makes no indication of a creator of the universe or source of moral authority.

So, ok, the human named Jesus existed and 500 people 2,000 years ago claimed that they saw him alive after his death, and Pro knows this to be true because the bible tells him so.
Ok, what does Jesus's resurrection have to do with creating the universe or a proving a source of moral authority?

Either way, why should we consider what the bible says to be authoritative on matters of factual or moral truths?

5. Quantum Fluctuations = Nothing.

Pro understands:
"the sub nuclear particles may not be something but the vacuum is something."

My response:
Yeah, because in our current universe, in order to get to nothing by stripping empty space of positive energy, particle physicists have to use a vacuum to get there.

Well, at [+0,-0] quantum fluctuations, we mere humans are not required to produce nothingness with a vacuum; [+0,-0] is nothingness already.

Pro asks about quantum fluctuations:
"Wouldn't that be happening all of the time?"

My response:
Yeah, check my articles, on a quantum level, quantum fields fluctuating in and out of existence are ubiquitous and are always fluctuating.
http://physics.aps.org...

6. The Explanation of the Universe

My explanation is that as an expression of the unstable state of nothingness, QF at [+0,-0], the universe originated with [+1,-1] matter and gravity.

Pro's explanation is:
"God is the best explanation of the Universe since the cause of the Universe has to transcend space and time, since it created space and time."

My response:
Pro doesn't fully grasp the idea of a temporal process.
Causation, like creation, requires stative time and the passage thereof.
Since time originated at the big bang, the universe wasn't caused; there is no stative time in [+0,-0] quantum fluctuations, so causation is nonsensical here.

Pro is confused:
"I find this confusing since my opponent has already admitted that the universe has a cause and at the same time he admitted that time did not exist before the universe."

My response:
Nope.
I said that the universe has an origin, not a causation or creation.
An origin is a point, while a creation or causation is a process CONTINGENT on the passage of stative time.
So origin and causation are not the same.

origin - the point or place where something begins
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

causation - the action or process of causing something
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

The origin of time, is the origin of the universe, therefore no temporal processes or actions could have occurred without the universe.

7. Is god or the bible moral?

I asked Pro if the stoning of non-virgins was moral, and Pro said:
"Women were not stoned for not being a virgin, but for the deception in trying to appear as one."

My response:
Oh, in that case, the stoning is justified...wait WHAT??? Why is that ok?

Pro how does a punishment of stoning match the crime of lying to your dad/husband about being a virgin?

If Pro is going to make the argument that god is the source of moral authority, then why shouldn't we stone some teenage girls?

Pro adds:
"It was a good thing that it was punished back then"

My response:
Uch. Disgusting.

Pro is owning another human as property moral or not?

You can claim god freed slaves, but he made rules for slavery,

You know what my first rule of slavery would be if I were god and peopole were sinning and enslaving others as their property?

Rule #1 No slavery


Jerry947

Pro

The Axiological Argument:

So it appears that my opponent rejects the first premise of the argument.

First he says, "yes, I am completely fine with saying that there are objective morals, despite the lack of a creator of the universe. because there are objectively immoral sufferings." My question for my opponent is as follows: Since you claim to have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard from since an objective standard is one that is not based on your opinion or your experience? And what proof does my opponent have that there are objective immoral sufferings? If there is no God, my opponent has no right to say that murder or that slavery is objectively wrong. Why not? Because without God there is no universal standard of morality. And if there is no universal standard, he would only have his opinions on what is moral/immoral (which would have no affect on any person). Now, he claims that there is a universal standard and that it could exist without a God. I now again ask my opponent to state where this objective standard came from?

Then he states that there are "stimuli that objectively induce suffering in all humans/conscious animals like being burned alive, having stones thrown at your face, being beaten severely, or being forced to do something without consent." But why are these things objectively wrong? You have shared your opinion about these things being wrong. Other people might tell you that murder is okay. What makes you right? What objective standard are you referring to? You realize that without an objective reference point, you could never say that Hitler was wrong?

Then it was stated that "actions that lead us further away from these types of objective sufferings of humans/conscious animals are objectively discernible from their moral counterparts, and this discerning requires no god." Before responding, lets review what objective morality is. William Lane Craig states that "to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so." Hitler believes that what he was doing was right. How can my opponent objectively state that he was wrong if God doesn't exist? My opponent has claimed to be able to objectively state what is right/wrong. But another person like Hitler could easily dismiss what my opponent says and claim that they know what is truly moral. My opponent couldn't objectively say that Hitler was wrong since he has no justification in saying that his morality is objective.

Next it was said that "this is a bare assertion (objective morality can only come from God), and, as I've pointed out, morality exists in opposition to objectively suffering-inducing actions/stimuli." But again, what justification does my opponent have for claiming that there is a real right and wrong? He seems to think that since he sees murder and slavery as wrong then that makes it universally wrong. But this isn't the case. Suffering may convince my opponent that certain things are wrong but on the other side we have people that cause suffering and sometimes they say that what they do is moral. How can my opponent objectively say they are wrong if God does not exist?

Lastly I was accused of contradicting myself and it was stated that "Pro, how is it that benefiting society is a part of being moral, but it's not a reason to be moral?" My answer is that being moral and benefiting society are the same thing. Asking someone "why be moral" and "why benefit society" are the same question. So you can not say that you are moral to benefit society because benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral. It would be like asking someone why they play football and then they say "to score points." They wouldn't actually be telling you why they play football but instead would be telling you what football is. That is exactly what you are doing...you are just telling us what morality is but are not actually speaking the reason you have to be moral.

The Teleological Argument:

First it is said that "complexity does not always indicate a creator, because snowflakes are complex, ordered, and six-fold radially symmetrical, yet they have no creator, rather they are results of the water cycle." But the water still had to come from somewhere. I mean...my opponent's argument could be used to say that ice cubes weren't created by God since humans are the ones that freeze the water in their freezers. But the water still came from somewhere and the complexity seems to indicate that there is a God.

Second it is asked "how were these odds calculated by Roger Penrose?" My answer is that he did it by analyzing the universe's low entropy conditions. You are curious if the numbers are fabricated...the man is an atheist for whatever that is worth. But he is an honest atheist that recognizes that the universe is fine-tuned.

Lastly it was asked "even if these numbers were true, they don't show a 0% chance, so they still allow for "existing by chance." I understand what my opponent is saying. Let us look at an analogy to help explain things. If there is a lottery, someone must win. I think that is what my opponent is trying to say. The odds are a million to one...but someone still must win. But the problem is that not only does our universe win this lottery and therefore exists, but our universe is also life permitting. For example, if there was a lottery in which "billions and billions of white ping-pong balls were mixed together with just one black ball...and that if it's black you'll be allowed to live; if it's white, you'll be shot" (William Lane Craig). But you have to get the black ball five times in a row (putting the ball back each time) in order to win. Getting the black ball is no more probable then getting the white ball. But it is way more probable that you would get a white ball instead of a black one. So if the black ball is the first picked...and it happens five times in a row, something would feel rigged about it. That is why there must be a God.

The Cosmological Argument:

First it is said that the argument "exempts god from being caused, because, thanks to special pleading, he's always existed and never BEGINS TO exist." It is not special pleading. Since the God of the Bible is eternal (and also all powerful) he would not have a cause. He exists necessarily. I don't know why my opponent has a problem with this.

Then it is stated that "the assertion that god didn't begin to exist in the premise is simply repeated by saying that god is the only member of the didn't begin to exist set in the conclusion, which is begging the question." This is not begging the question. It is perfectly logical to say that God did not have a cause since he would be the cause of time itself. And the cause of the universe has to be timeless (since it created time). Therefore it is completely logical to say that God did not have a cause.

Then it is said that "Pro, could you explain the mechanism by which god accomplishes this exemption?" I kind of just did but I will summarize. The creator of time has to be eternal and therefore it is logical to say that God does not have a cause.

The Existence of Jesus:

First my opponent says that "Jesus's existence is actually irrelevant to whether or not there is a creator of the universe." I disagree. My opponent is debating me on whether or not the God of the Bible exists. So naturally I have to talk about Jesus.

Then he asks "Ok, what does Jesus's resurrection have to do with creating the universe or a proving a source of moral authority?" Well, it establishes that there is proof for the Resurrection of Jesus and that he is the God of the Bible. As I recall, the debate is not just about proving that someone created the universe or that someone is the source of moral authority. The debate is also about the existence of the God of the Bible (like the title of the debate says). I mean...how can you not talk about Jesus when he is the God of the Bible? You ignored all of my arguments on this point. But do what you want.

Quantum Fluctuations:

He says "Yeah, because in our current universe, in order to get to nothing by stripping empty space of positive energy, particle physicists have to use a vacuum to get there." But my opponent also said earlier that the universe came out of nothing. But this is not true since the vacuum is not nothing. So my opponents argument fails.

Then it is said that "we mere humans are not required to produce nothingness with a vacuum." What does that statement have to do with anything being discussed?

Then it is said "Yeah, check my articles, on a quantum level, quantum fields fluctuating in and out of existence are ubiquitous and are always fluctuating." But again, the particles do come from something (the vacuum). They do not come from nothing like my opponent keeps asserting. They may be nothing but they still come from something.

Then it is said that "Pro doesn't fully grasp the idea of a temporal process." That is not the problem. The problem is that my opponent makes the assumption that the creation of the universe was a temporal process. Talk about begging the question...

Then the most ridiculous thing happens. My opponent says that "the universe has an origin, not a causation or creation. An origin is a point, while a creation or causation is a process CONTINGENT on the passage of stative time." The problem here is that my opponent is redefining the word creation. Creation is defined as the "the action or process of bringing something into existence" (https://www.google.com...). Nothing about the definition indicates that the process is contingent on time.

Rest of my response: http://www.debate.org...

Sorry for that but I wanted to get those last few words in.
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Con

Pro has done very little to show:
1. that the god of the bible created the universe,
2. that this god rules the universe,
3. doubt that creation is a temporal process contingent on stative time that wasn't there at [+0,-0] in QF,
4. doubt that the big bang, as I've explained in Round 2, is a valid explanation of our universe's origin,
5. reason to accept god's stance on morality given the stoning of deceitful non-virgins and owning of humans as property that god openly endorses,
6. reason to consider this god the source of all moral authority given that the universe wasn't created and the owning of humans as property is OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL, as my opponent, Pro, agrees!

So, let's get to it.

1. Objective Morality

Pro asks:
"My question for my opponent is as follows: Since you claim to have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard from since an objective standard is one that is not based on your opinion or your experience?"

My response:
Objective immoral sufferings. Actions that lead away from objectively immoral sufferings of humans/conscious animals are objectively moral; as Pro puts it these actions are "benefiting society."

Pro reasonably asks:
"What proof does my opponent have that there are objective immoral sufferings?"

My response:
According to the NIST, 111°F is the temperature at which human skin begins to feel pain.
At 140°F, human skin becomes numb from being burned so badly.
At 162°F, human skin is instantly destroyed.
http://www.nist.gov...

Objectively, when human skin reaches 162°F and above, it causes severe suffering in ALL HUMANS; we objectively suffer without our skin. Actions that lead away from letting human skin reach this temperature are objectively moral, because the suffering is actually objective.

Objectively, broken bones from rocks being thrown at a human's face causes a human to suffer.
With "as little as 25 pounds of pressure applied to one of your small bones will cause a fracture."
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu...

Objectively, 25 psi from a blunt force will break human bone, and objectively this will cause suffering. Actions that lead us away from 25 or more psi by way of blunt force on a human's bone would be objectively moral.

So, there are objective stimuli that objectively cause suffering, irrespective of my opinion/experience, and there are actions that objectively lead to these objective stimuli on humans.

The actions that lead toward these objective stimuli-->suffering are immoral.
The actions that lead away from these objective stimuli-->suffering are moral.
Actions that lead away from these objective stimuli benefit society; they are moral.

The Pro says:
"William Lane Craig states that "to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so."

My response:
Right, like objective stimuli that cause objective suffering...this is the case whether anybody believes it to be so...human skin is destroyed at 162°F whether you believe it or not.

Then Pro leaps:
Hitler believes that what he was doing was right. How can my opponent objectively state that he was wrong if God doesn't exist?"

My response:
Did Hitler's actions lead toward objective human suffering or away from objective human suffering?
I can objectively state that Hitler was morally wrong, without there being a god, because Hitler's actions lead toward human skin becoming 162°F, for the purpose of destroying human skin; this is immoral.

Then Pro contradicts himself by saying:
1. "Benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral."
2. "Being moral and benefiting society are the same thing."

My response:
#1 implies that benefiting society is just one of the things you have to do to be moral, and there are other things you must also do.
#2 implies that benefiting society is the ONLY thing you have to do to be moral.
Which is it Pro, is benefiting society a part of being moral or is it the whole of being moral?

Also, it seems like Pro's claim that morality = benefiting society shows morality's contingency on society, not god.

I had asked Pro, "How is it that benefiting society is a part of being moral, but it's not a reason to be moral?" and Pro responded:
"[That question is] like asking someone why they play football and then they say "to score points." They wouldn't actually be telling you why they play football but instead would be telling you what football is."

My response:
Wrong!
In fact, by someone telling you that they chose to play football to score points, they are giving you a reason that they play football.

For example, this person could have refused to play baseball, because you don't score points in baseball, you score runs.
It could be that given the choice between playing baseball and playing football, this person chose to play football, because they want to score points, not runs.

So, one could say that they are moral to benefit society, because being moral leads you to the goal of benefiting society, much like playing football leads you to the goal of scoring points.

But perhaps the biggest slip by Pro occurs last round.

I had asked, "Pro, is owning another human as property moral or not?"

Pro's response:
"No, that is not moral."

My response:
According to the god of the bible in Exodus 21:20 - 21:21:
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, SINCE THE SLAVE IS THEIR PROPERTY."
http://biblehub.com...
http://biblehub.com...

Pro is in direct contradiction with the very "source of all moral authority" he claims exists.
Pro, how do you reconcile that your god commands the mistreatment of humans on the grounds that they are other humans' property while you claim "no that's not moral?"

How can you tell that owning another human as property is not moral from god saying, "the slave is their property?"
Come on Pro...the god of the bible endorses much immorality, and even you can't agree with it.

Pro's source of morality is clearly not the god of the bible if Pro thinks that owning humans as property is immoral; god says it's moral and endorses it.

2. Complexity and Probability

I had mentioned that snowflake's six-fold radial symmetry appears designed because of how complex it looks, but snowflakes are a result of the water cycle.

Pro responds:
"But the water still came from somewhere and the complexity seems to indicate that there is a God."

My response:
The arranging of the six-fold radially symmetrical snowflake naturally occurs through the water cycle and temperature fluctuation, so we don't need to assume an arranger when observing the complexity of the frozen crystallized water, regardless of the water's origin.

Similarly, the universe looks complex and arranged, but natural concepts like QF, gravity, the big bang, and inflation can all account for complexity in the universe without an arranger.

Pro provided numbers from Roger Penrose for how likely the universe originated by chance.

So I asked:
"How were these odds calculated by Roger Penrose?"

Pro responded:
"He did it by analyzing the universe's low entropy conditions...the man is an atheist...that recognizes that the universe is fine-tuned."

My response:
Wow, that didn't explain anything.
Really, Pro?
You think that by simply answering "analyzing the universe's low entropy" explains the how Penrose's numbers were calculated or how we can verify these calculations or what relative meaning these numbers have?

Pro, you have no idea how these odds were calculated, you just saw low odds and ran with it...shame on you Pro for not being able to understand your own teleological argument's statistics.

Oh yeah, and the fact that he's an atheist who thinks that the universe is finely tuned is as irrelevant as a person who is not a horse breeder who thinks that snowflakes are finely tuned; the numbers are bogus without some reference point for these numbers or an explanation, regardless of his beliefs on god/the universe.

I maintain that even if these numbers were true, they don't show a 0% chance of the universe "arising by chance," because it's after the fact; the universe has already originated, so claiming odds of probability above 0% doesn't indicate it couldn't have happened in any useful way.

Pro says:
"For example, billions and billions of white ping-pong balls were mixed together with just one black ball...and that if it's black you'll be allowed to live; if it's white, you'll be shot...so if the black ball is the first picked...and it happens five times in a row, something would feel rigged about it. That is why there must be a God."

My response:
Why is a life permitting universe equivalent to picking one black ball five times in a row out of billions and billions of white pong-pong balls?
Pro, you haven't shown us any explanation of the naturally originating universe's odds...you've just asserted, with a source that links to Queensborough Community College, that the odds are way low...your analogy therefore kinda blows.

3. Cosmological Argument

Pro claims:
"Since the God of the Bible is eternal (and also all powerful) he would not have a cause. He exists necessarily."

My response:
Why is it that Pro thinks he can just assert things and they're true?
You have provided no reason to believe that "he exists necessarily" or is eternal.

Pro adds:
"It is perfectly logical to say that God did not have a cause since he would be the cause of time itself."

My response:
Saying that there was a cause of time is not logical, because CAUSATION REQUIRES TIME.

4. Jesus

Pro says:
"As I recall, the debate is not just about proving that someone created the universe or that someone is the source of moral authority."

My response:
Nope, that's basically the whole debate's resolution.

5. Creation

Pro:
"Nothing about the definition indicates that the process is contingent on time."

My response:
PROCESSES HAPPEN OVER TIME! Pro said creation = process.
Jerry947

Pro

The Moral Argument:

"Objectively, when human skin reaches 162"F and above, it causes severe suffering in ALL HUMANS; we objectively suffer without our skin. Actions that lead away from letting human skin reach this temperature are objectively moral, because the suffering is actually objective."

My opponent has listed something that is considered suffering but I would hardly call it objectively unethical/immoral. It is something that is bad for the body and something that helps us get away from that suffering may be good. But nothing about this is moral/immoral.

"Objectively, 25 psi from a blunt force will break human bone, and objectively this will cause suffering. Actions that lead us away from 25 or more psi by way of blunt force on a human's bone would be objectively moral."

Again, my opponent makes the mistake of assuming something is immoral merely because something is bad for the human body.

"Objectively, broken bones from rocks being thrown at a human's face causes a human to suffer.
With "as little as 25 pounds of pressure applied to one of your small bones will cause a fracture."

And again...this may be bad for the human body but it doesn't establish that the act is objectively immoral. My opponent seems to think that just because something is bad for his body, that makes the action objectively immoral. Bad news for my opponent, but his opinion does not make something objective.

"The actions that lead toward these objective stimuli-->suffering are immoral."

Thanks for asserting that but you have offered no evidence that something is objectively immoral. You have only provided examples of objective suffering.

"The actions that lead away from these objective stimuli-->suffering are moral."

Another assertion...you have not explained why you believe that the action that causes the suffering is objectively immoral. You have only asserted your subjective opinion.

Earlier I said this "William Lane Craig states that "to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so."

Con's response:
Right, like objective stimuli that cause objective suffering...this is the case whether anybody believes it to be so...human skin is destroyed at 162"F whether you believe it or not.

My Response: Wrong. You have established an objective suffering but have not established why things that cause suffering are objectively immoral. You merely say they are objective immoral without offering any explanation.

"Did Hitler's actions lead toward objective human suffering or away from objective human suffering?
I can objectively state that Hitler was morally wrong, without there being a god, because Hitler's actions lead toward human skin becoming 162"F, for the purpose of destroying human skin; this is immoral."

No...you can only subjectively state that Hitler was wrong because in your subjective opinion, actions that lead to suffering are immoral. But your opinion does not make something objective.

Then I get accused of contradicting myself...
1. "Benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral."
2. "Being moral and benefiting society are the same thing."

Yes! Benefiting society is what it means to be moral. I have not contradicted myself. Benefiting society is not a reason for being moral (like my opponent mistakenly believes) because it is a part of what it means to be moral. It isn't the only thing you have to do to be moral but it sure isn't a reason for being moral like my opponent originally claimed. I don't understand why my opponent is still confused.

"In fact, by someone telling you that they chose to play football to score points, they are giving you a reason that they play football. For example, this person could have refused to play baseball, because you don't score points in baseball, you score runs. It could be that given the choice between playing baseball and playing football, this person chose to play football, because they want to score points, not runs."

Wrong. If a parent went up to a football player and asked them the reason for why they played football and the player responded "to score points" they would only be telling the parent what football is. My opponent makes this ridiculous response to the question by saying that someone would rather play football because they want to score points. No person would ever respond like that because it isn't an actual reason why people play football. I can give another analogy if this one doesn't sink in.

"Pro is in direct contradiction with the very "source of all moral authority" he claims exists.
Pro, how do you reconcile that your god commands the mistreatment of humans on the grounds that they are other humans' property while you claim "no that's not moral?"

To be honest, I am disappointed that my opponent has ignored our entire discussion on slavery on a forum. But nevertheless, lets again address these issues.

Yes, I said that owing a human being as property is immoral. But God never condones slavery in the Bible and my opponent has not provided a single verse where God condones it. The verse he provided from Exodus was one I told him in the forums because he made the false claim that God does not restrict the beating of a slave. Now he is trying to use the same verse to falsely demonstrate that God supports slavery. But that verse only says that since people have slaves (known as their property), they must know that their mistreatment of slaves will be punished. And for the record, the slaves we are discussing were ones that sold themselves into slavery to pay off debts. They had to be freed after six years (Deut 15:12), they were considered members of the family (Lev 22:11), and etc...Slavery was not always the way that people think it was.

And again, why does my opponent ignore the facts about God freeing thousands of slaves (the kind he is thinking about) in Exodus (the same book he claims where God condones slavery)?

"The arranging of the six-fold radially symmetrical snowflake naturally occurs through the water cycle and temperature fluctuation, so we don't need to assume an arranger when observing the complexity of the frozen crystallized water, regardless of the water's origin."

Yes...but the complexity of the water cycle and the complexity of the universe indicates that there is a God. Although, I have just done a little more research on snow flakes (http://www.its.caltech.edu...) and the process of a snow flake forming is just amazing. The process is complex and it varies from snow flake to snow flake. I find it hard to believe that there wasn't a designer.

"Pro, you have no idea how these odds were calculated, you just saw low odds and ran with it...shame on you Pro for not being able to understand your own teleological argument's statistics."

I have never once heard of the odds of our existence being high. I would challenge my opponent to try and find any such statistic that would support that idea. Since I am not a physicist, and since I have never met Penrose, I do not know every detail about how he came up with those odds. Penrose even stated that a "number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job" (http://godevidence.com...). The point is the odds are incredible.

By the way, I brought up the fact that he was an atheist since you asked if the odds were somehow rigged. I thought that the fact that the man is highly esteemed and the fact that he doesn't believe in God might give you a hint that the odds were not rigged.

"Pro, you haven't shown us any explanation of the naturally originating universe's odds...you've just asserted, with a source that links to Queensborough Community College, that the odds are way low...your analogy therefore kinda blows."

I have given you the odds by citing something that Penrose said (included that in my opening argument). Nothing I have said is just asserted. But
here is a video of Roger Penrose defending fine tuning if you are still skeptical for some reason: http://www.evolutionnews.org...

The Cosmological Argument:

"You have provided no reason to believe that "he exists necessarily" or is eternal."

Yes I have. You just ignore what I say. The cause of the universe (including time) would have to be eternal.

"Saying that there was a cause of time is not logical, because CAUSATION REQUIRES TIME."

This is the second time you have redefined a word. The word cause is defined as "something or someone that produces an effect, result, or condition : something or someone that makes something happen or exist" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) and the word causation is defined as "the act or process of causing something to happen or exist" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Nothing about those definitions requires time.

"PROCESSES HAPPEN OVER TIME! Pro said creation = process."

Now we have a third word that has been redefined. The word process is defined as the "a series of actions that produce something or that lead to a particular result" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). The cause of the Universe would have to be eternal so my argument still stands.

As for the Big bang theory, it only helps me out. The Big bang supports that the universe has a beginning which means that time itself also had a beginning. Which again means that the cause of the universe would be required to be timeless (God).

What is the debate is about?

The title says it is about the God of the bible's existence and your own resolution says the same thing. But for some reason my opponent has changed the resolution into "Does God exist."
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by famousdebater 10 months ago
famousdebater
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
Posted by MagicAintReal 10 months ago
MagicAintReal
With all of these fluctuations, thermal variations are in fact, like the particles, existing and being "annihilated" as well.
If it's the case that an unstable thermal variation reaches a critical temperature, before annihilation, for that pseudo moment it exists, a subnuclear particle has an opportunity to avoid the annihilation and remain.

These thermal variations have been measured in the CMB too.
Posted by famousdebater 10 months ago
famousdebater
Ah, okay, that makes more sense. How does it avoid annihilation though?
Posted by MagicAintReal 10 months ago
MagicAintReal
Quantum fluctuations are mainly the forces between the sub nuclear particles and the subnuclear particles themselves.

These forces and the subnuclear particles never remain, they are annihilated at the instant of their existence in nothing, quantum fluctuations.

This is a state of nothingness, that is to say, existence/annihilation is what nothing is, because the remaining result is annihilation...nothing, but because so much of this is happening in QF, this annihilated state is unstable.

This unstable state has no energy REMAINING.
Once the instability hits a critical point, a subnuclear particle can avoid being annihilated and remain.
This remnant is energy, because now the particle remains.

This instability's eventual energy is in fact exacerbated at the big bang, because the only space then was that which fluctuated in and out of existence with the forces of the subnuclear particles, leaving the proportion of REMAINING energy and REMAINING space dominated by energy.

So to answer your question, nothing has no remaining energy, but once a subnuclear particle in that unstable state avoids annihilation, you've got REMAINING energy.

Did that help?
Posted by famousdebater 10 months ago
famousdebater
There's something I don't get. If quantum fluctuations are nothing then how can energy be expressed from nothing? How can you get energy from nothing (which is what quantum fluctuations are)?
Posted by MagicAintReal 10 months ago
MagicAintReal
i didn't need to "call him out" on his version being deistic or theistic, because I negated "the creator of the universe" clause of the definition of god...no creator, no god of the bible or deistic god.
Posted by Skepticalone 10 months ago
Skepticalone
*full disclosure* I scanned this debate and did not read each and every word.

Pro went through many arguments for god, but they were for a deistic god. Even if I assume that he made a more convincing case on each of these, he would still need to tie these into the Biblical god. I didn't see that - not even in the Jesus argument. I also did not see Con call Pro out on this.
Posted by MagicAintReal 10 months ago
MagicAintReal
Yeah, sorry, I didn't say a formal thanks, but thanks. From now on, I'm going to explain my argument of objective morality a little differently than I have in the past, because of your responses, so thanks for that too.
Posted by Jerry947 10 months ago
Jerry947
Yeah...it would be nice to get some votes from the moderators. That said, thanks for the debate. I also enjoyed it.
Posted by MagicAintReal 10 months ago
MagicAintReal
Sweet, fun debate man, hope we can get some moderator votes on this; I can't stand the lame RFDs from simply opinionated people on my side of the argument and on your side of the argument.
No votes have been placed for this debate.