The Instigator
Lafayette_Lion
Pro (for)
Losing
44 Points
The Contender
Freeman
Con (against)
Winning
74 Points

The God of Classic theism is real

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 20 votes the winner is...
Freeman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,406 times Debate No: 11067
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (83)
Votes (20)

 

Lafayette_Lion

Pro

I am new at this form of debating(online debating). If my form isn't correct I'm sorry. I will be using the Bible as my basis of argument, so my case will be built around the Bible(New International Version). If my opponent disproves, please don't accept this debate.

John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2)He was with God in the beginning. (3)Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (4)In him was life, and that life was the light of men. (5)The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

This clearly defines the existence of God. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus clearly explained that many people would not accept the truth. This has proven timeless to date. Many people have chosen not to believe. God allowed human beings to have a free will. In the Bible, God indicated that he was not willing that any should perish, but that all should have eternal life. He also indicates that He knows many will reject the truth of His existence, but he clearly exists.

Contention 1: If God does not exist, then who created us all?
If the God of Classic theism isn't real then the their option is Evolution. The only basis to Evolution is (with all due respect) the incorrect assumptions of Charles Darwin and scientists who have no more knowledge than he did.

Contention 2: God is God
Revelation 22:12-13
"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Genesis 5:1-2
This is the written account of Adam's line when God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. (2) He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man."

And one more:
Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.

I could go on, but this is a sufficient first round. I look forward to this debate/
Freeman

Con

I thank my antagonist for challenging me to this debate. Hopefully he will find it as entertaining as I do.

In order to win this debate all I need to do is show why my opponent's arguments fail. However, I will go the extra mile by providing an argument for the plausibility of God's nonexistence.

=====> A Critique of Lafayette_Lion's Opening Arguments <=====

My opponent's main arguments (almost all of them) are clearly reliant upon circular reasoning. This type of erroneous thinking is best surmised in the following picture: http://theframeproblem.files.wordpress.com...
Nevertheless, I will address the arguments one by one.

Contention 0: John 1:1-5 demonstrates the existence of God.

"John 1:1-5… clearly defines the existence of God."

As stated earlier, this assertion is reliant upon circular logic. [1]

Contention 1: If God does not exist, then who created us all?

The premise of this argument is based on a false dichotomy. [2] Even if evolution weren't true, that would not prove that God exists. However, evolution is most certainly true.

We know for a fact that humans and all other animals are related in terms of their ancestry. Among other strands of evidence for evolution, all animals share the same genetic coding, DNA. And we can use this code to compare the genetic sequences of any two species of animal in order to determine how closely related they are. As it turns out, humans share 98 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees [3], and we share less with our more distant cousins, elephants. Moreover, all of this genetic evidence helps form a beautiful hierarchical family tree among living creatures. We (homo sapiens) are but one twig on that tree, and we are related with every other living organism on the planet, including bacteria and plants.

Contention 2: God is God

This isn't even an argument.

=====> The Case Against God <=====

Contention 1: The Argument From Divine Hiddenness

The argument from divine hiddenness, also known as the argument from non-belief, seeks to demonstrate the nonexistence of God by pointing out an inconsistency within the theistic worldview. I will only offer a brief sketch of it for now in this opening round.

If God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. As such, if God existed and God wanted us to know this, then reasonable non-belief should not occur. But reasonable non-belief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist. This, it would seem, entails a contradiction.

The philosopher Theodore Drange sets forth a formal version of the argument in the following syllogism:

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3) (Drange [4])

As can be plainly seen, the presence of reasonable unbelief presents a very real problem for the existence of God. The common religious response to this argument usually alludes to the notion that the ways of God are mysterious. However, this proposition flies in the face of the central doctrines surrounding theism. According to theism, God wants humans to have a relationship with him. Meanwhile, this God has also cloaked himself from the greatest tools and insights of modern science. Surely, any God that would bother to involve himself in the affairs of one primate species in a universe teeming with over 70 sextillion stars is not as inscrutable as all that. [5]

::Conclusion::

I have annihilated all of my opponent's current arguments. Unless he can formulate an argument that is logically valid and simultaneously dismantle my argument, then I will have won this debate by default. Lafayette_Lion, I look forward to your next round.

::References::

1. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
2. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
3. http://www.scientificamerican.com...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://www.space.com...

Best,
Freeman
Debate Round No. 1
Lafayette_Lion

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. here's your "run for your money to this debate":)

My opponent as one barley formed contention against me. I will prove how wrong he is by formulating an argument that is "logically valid" and "simultaneously dismantle" his arguments.

My C1:
My opponents main argument revolves around circular logic. He ever so graciously provides a snobby picture to illustrate it. Here's MY circular logic explanation:
"But why don't you believe the Bible?"
BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS BOGUS
"But how do you know the bible is bogus?"
BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION
"But how can you be sure of evolution?"
BECAUSE DARWIN ACCEPTS EVOLUTION AND DENIES THE BIBLE

As you can see, my opponent Is also using circular logic. Here is nother way he is ALSO using it...

He said "Even if evolution weren't true, that would not prove that God exists. However, evolution is most certainly true..." OK, even if evolution WAS true, THAT wouldn't prove that God DOESN'T exist. So his whole attack on my C1 falls because it fails to attack the existence of God, because the only "attack" he has to "deny" God's existence, is Evolution. He said "Even if evolution weren't...most certainly true.", however, the converse is also true.

My C2:"This isn't even an argument." This is debate slang for " don't have any arguments." Actually, it IS an argument:)

+++++>>>My opponents Case<<<+++++

HIS C1: OK, first off I love your tag line:The Argument From Divine Hiddenness.
He goes on to say "The argument from divine hiddenness, also known as the argument from non-belief, seeks to demonstrate the nonexistent of God by pointing out an INCONSISTENCY within the theistic worldview" Who are YOU to challenge God's consistency by your "98% ape" brain standards(HE said it, not me). Just read on in his case...

" ...then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. As such, if God existed and God wanted us to know this, then reasonable non-belief should not occur. But reasonable non-belief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist. This, it would seem, entails a contradiction."

How DARE you say what the all knowing God should do? Who do you think you are?! He has provided an abundance of evidence(i.e. prophets,the bible) which you refuse to recognize. The reason God created us is so we would worship Him through our own FREEWILL!!! And in this section of the debate and also in a few other instances where I will point out later, my opponent is not topical.

"But reasonable non-belief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, IF HE DOES EXIST. " The resolution says "The God of Classic Theism is Real" My opponent HAS NOT denied the existence of God with this. Moving on to attack Theodore Drange's syllogism. What backing do you have to this being fact?

1a)I agree
b)His son died to save our sins.
1 Corinthians 15:2-4 (New International Version)
(2)By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.(3)For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (4)that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

c)agree, but the devil tempts us
d)agree, but the devil tempts us
2) NO! we are to believe by our own FREEWILL. How would it be "Believing" if we were forced by Him to believe? Then we'd have no freewill
3)True. Absolutely. Here's why:
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2)He was with God in the beginning. (3)Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (4)In him was life, and that life was the light of men. (5)The light shines in the darkness, BUT THE DARKNESS HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD IT.
.:Therefore God exists.

Here's the interesting part."The common religious response to this argument usually alludes to the notion that the ways of God are mysterious." Nope, not MINE...
My opponent is saying HIS unbelief in MY belief makes my belief untrue. THIS is circular reasoning...If I'm guilty, my opponent is also. Moving on

"According to theism, God wants humans to have a relationship with him. Meanwhile, this God has also cloaked himself from the greatest tools and insights of modern science" Well first of all you have to believe in Him. If you don't, then you cant have a relationship with Him. But God really has "also cloaked himself from the greatest tools and insights of modern science". Really? OK fist off he's off topic again, not denying God. But, is my opponent implying that if God would "uncloak" himself that he could UNDERSTAND God? Is my opponent saying that he and the scientific community posses the ability to comprehend the omnipotent, Great and Mighty God. (Whom my opponent FAILS to negate existence of) Here's another example of my opponent's non-topicality:

"Surely, any God that would bother to involve himself in the affairs of one primate species in a universe teeming with over 70 sextillion stars is not as inscrutable as all that." Again, not DENYING God, but I will attack it anyway. God CREATED us, He isn't "bothering" Himself with us. He Loves us and created US to love HIM.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov... This tells how the earth is tilted and gives measurements. THIS COULDN'T JUST HAPPEN!! If I put a stack of newspaper in the backyard, it will NEVER be the same stack of newspaper on a windy day. NEVER. Not without Intelligent intervention. So the world isn't moving from Chaos (the big bang) to order. Its moving from order(God creating it) to chaos.

Romans 10:9 (New International Version)
(9)That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

John 14:6 (New International Version)
(6)Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

"I have annihilated all of my opponent's current arguments. Unless he can formulate an argument that is logically valid and simultaneously dismantle my argument, then I will have won this debate by default. Lafayette lion, I look forward to your next round." Done, done, and done.

Freeman I look forward to your next round
Freeman

Con

My opponent's last round was littered with Bible verses and almost entirely void of logic. Consequently, I will keep this round relatively terse. It would simply be patronizing to the members of DDO for me to explain for a second and third time why circular reasoning is fallacious.

=====> A Critique of Lafayette_Lion's Arguments <=====

Contention 1: If God does not exist, then who created us all?

I never argued that evolution discredits the existence of God. Moreover, my opponent's argument in this section has already been demolished. Nothing else needs to be written on this topic.

Contention 2: God is God

I admire my opponent's fantastic ability to form delightfully tautological and self-sustaining arguments. However, it would be improper of me not to point out that these modes of argumentation fail to meet certain standards of reasonableness.

=====> The Case Against God <=====

"My opponent is saying HIS unbelief in MY belief makes my belief untrue." - Lafayette_Lion

Actually, Lafayette_Lion, the only thing you've managed to demonstrate is that you don't understand the argument.

As far as I can tell, my opponent did present one minor objection to the syllogism I have laid out, so I will address it briefly.

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)

In response to the second premise of the syllogism, my opponent argues that not all humans could logically be expected to believe in God under theistic assumptions because they have free will. In response to this, I will simply reiterate what I said in a previous debate on this subject.

The second premise of the syllogism has nothing to do with free will or its negation. If God exists and wants all humans to believe this before they die, then he could appear before the world in order to demonstrate his existence. According to the Bible itself, God did this with Moses on Mt. Sinai and he also revealed himself to other people through Jesus. So, even from a biblical perspective, God could bring about a situation whereby everyone believed in him without compromising their free will.

::Conclusion::

I feel no compunction at stopping here. Illogical arguments and bible thumping don't demonstrate the existence of God. On top of this, my argument still remains entirely intact.

Best,
Freeman
Debate Round No. 2
Lafayette_Lion

Pro

My opponents last round was also littered. I find it interesting that my opponent repeatedly bashes me for using Bible verses and being "almost entirely void of logic." I'M the one void of logic? Really? Yet my opponent has waited TWO ROUNDS and STILL not given my ANYTHING to attack that is COINCIDING with the resolution! "The God of Classic theism is real" Please present me an argument that DENIES God!
Brief road-map, I'll be defending my case and attacking my opponents case

My opponent didn't attack my newspaper argument. "http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...... This tells how the earth is tilted and gives measurements. THIS COULDN'T JUST HAPPEN!! If I put a stack of newspaper in the backyard, it will NEVER be the same stack of newspaper on a windy day. NEVER. Not without Intelligent intervention. So the world isn't moving from Chaos (the big bang) to order. Its moving from order(God creating it) to chaos."

My opponent discredits My arguments by saying they are "Void of logic" and "Littered with bible verses." "Void of logic." I love it:) I'M the one void of logic? Read on...

"The premise of this argument is based on a false dichotomy. [2] Even if evolution weren't true, that would not prove that God exists. However, evolution is most certainly true. We know for a fact that humans and all other animals are related in terms of their ancestry. Among other strands of evidence for evolution, all animals share the same genetic coding, DNA. And we can use this code to compare the genetic sequences of any two species of animal in order to determine how closely related they are. As it turns out, humans share 98 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees [3], and we share less with our more distant cousins, elephants. Moreover, all of this genetic evidence helps form a beautiful hierarchical family tree among living creatures. We (homo sapiens) are but one twig on that tree, and we are related with every other living organism on the planet, including bacteria and plants". -Freeman

OK, but according to my opponent
"I NEVER ARGUED THAT EVOLUTION DISCREDITS THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Moreover, my opponent's argument in this section has already been demolished. Nothing else needs to be written on this topic." His ONLY ATTACK on my C1 was evolution existing, so my C1 STILL STANDS despite my opponents objection. Read the all caps, "I NEVER ARGUED..." OK, then your attack on my C1 doesn't discredit my C1, because I said "If God doesn't exist then who created us all?"

In attacking My C2. Lets see...In response to this my opponent says:"This isn't even an argument.",and "I admire my opponent's fantastic ability to form delightfully tautological and self-sustaining arguments. However, it would be improper of me not to point out that these modes of argumentation fail to meet certain standards of reasonableness."

THIS proves my point! THIS CONTENTION is what you are supposed to be debating! This says "God is God", coinciding with the resolution, and therefore requiring an attack. Nevertheless Freeman has failed to attack my C2 because it is "tautological"[1] and "self sustaining". If arguments aren't meant to be self sustaining, then apparently my opponent means one's OWN arguments are supposed to uphold and agree with ones opponent's arguments, a practice he has adopted in this debate, as I have proven above in reference to his attacks on my C1 and C2.

"As far as I can tell, my opponent did present one minor objection to the syllogism I have laid out, so I will address it briefly." What do you call this???
"1a)I agree
b)His son died to save our sins...
3)True. Absolutely. Here's why:
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2)He was with God in the beginning. (3)Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (4)In him was life, and that life was the light of men. (5)The light shines in the darkness, BUT THE DARKNESS HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD IT.
.:Therefore God exists."

I will expand upon my arguments on #2 and 3
2)"If God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him... God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist."
WHO do you think you ARE to say this. How DARE you say what the all knowing God should do? According to my opponent, believing is apparently a forced matter, or that God should FORCE us to believe in Him. Belief:"confidence; faith; trust"[2]. He goes on to say that "If God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him." Belief requires cooperation from the person beleiving. God provided an abundance of evidence i.e. prophets and the Bible, which YOU refuse to acknowledge.
3)This argument makes NO sense. Its OBVIOUSLY true. They refuse to acknowledge the Bible, God's prophets (i.e. Isaiah, John the Baptist, Elisha), and more importantly His Son Jesus. God wants all men(people) to believe in Him before they die, because if they don't they'll go to Hell.

I don't believe in gravity. I deny all proof, reject the men who tell me I'm wrong, and denounce Sir Isaac Newton as a liar ad a lunatic. Even the existence of it since God created the earth has no effect on me. Its all bogus.

This is an example of why proof doesn't always guarantee belief. Proof is inevitable, but I can still deny it.

#) is to make defending/attacking easier
This is where it gets very interesting:
1)"The second premise of the syllogism has nothing to do with free will or its negation." Either one has free will or not

2)"If God exists and wants all humans to believe this before they die, then he could appear before the world in order to demonstrate his existence. According to the Bible itself, God did this with Moses on Mt. Sinai and he also revealed himself to other people through Jesus. So, even from a biblical perspective, God could bring about a situation whereby everyone believed in him without compromising their free will."

Now my opponent earlier said:
"If God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. As such, if God existed and God wanted us to know this, then reasonable non-belief should not occur. But reasonable non-belief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist. This, it would seem, entails a contradiction."

Now, by reading both arguments thoroughly, one should see the contradiction easily.
Paragraph #2 says Reasonable unbelief is warranted because of lack of evidence of His existence, and because God "should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. My opponent also said God is "mysterious" and should reveal himself. But paragraph #1 says God could "appear before the world in order to demonstrate his existence. According to the Bible itself, God did this with Moses on Mt. Sinai and he also revealed himself to other people through Jesus. So, even from a biblical perspective, God could bring about a situation whereby everyone believed in him without compromising their free will." #2 Says He's mysterious, #1 says He's revealed Himself. Neither DENY God's existence, which is what my opponent is supposed to be doing. As one can see, my opponent cannot ATTACK God in His next round because then i will only have 1 round to defend. My opponent admires my ability to create self sustaining arguments...thank you.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...

John 3:16- "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Freeman

Con

My opponent is an evangelist masquerading around as a debater. Therefore, this round is going to be very brief.

=====> In Defense of God <=====

Contention 1: The Newspaper Argument

"http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov......... This tells how the earth is tilted and gives measurements. THIS COULDN'T JUST HAPPEN!! If I put a stack of newspaper in the backyard, it will NEVER be the same stack of newspaper on a windy day. NEVER. Not without Intelligent intervention. So the world isn't moving from Chaos (the big bang) to order. Its moving from order(God creating it) to chaos."

My opponent's only argument that he has left is an appeal to ignorance. [1]

=====> The Case Against God <=====

Contention 1: The Argument From Divine Hiddenness

1. If God exists, God:
(a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
(b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
(c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
(d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1)
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
.: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3)

My opponent hasn't presented any reasonable objection. Allow my previous rebuttals to extend forward.

::Conclusion::

Lafayette_Lion, if want to preach, then church is the best place to do that.

::References::

1. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
Lafayette_Lion

Pro

"This isn't even an argument.", "I admire my opponent's fantastic ability to form delightfully tautological and self-sustaining arguments. However, it would be improper of me not to point out that these modes of argumentation fail to meet certain standards of reasonableness.", "I feel no compunction at stopping here. Illogical arguments and bible thumping don't demonstrate the existence of God. On top of this, my argument still remains entirely intact.", "My opponent's only argument that he has left is an appeal to ignorance.", and, lastly:"Lafayette_Lion, if want to preach, then church is the best place to do that."
My opponent has abusively NOT debated the resolution, AVOIDED my DIRECT questions with the skill of a politician, contradicted himself numerous times, and not ATTACKED OR significantly defended his case. If you have read the previous arguments you can see...

"My opponent's only argument that he has left is an appeal to ignorance. [1]"1. http://www.iep.utm.edu......

<.:Nobody has ever proved to me there's a God, so I know there is no God:.>
This kind of reasoning is generally fallacious. It would be proper reasoning only if the proof attempts were quite thorough, and it were the case that if God did exist, then there would be a discoverable proof of this."

<.:Nobody has ever proved to me there's a God, so I know there is no God:.> This is exactly what my opponent has been saying the whole debate, and EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what I'm saying. This argument is hence void.

I would like to close with this. I know it isn't really relevant but unlike my oppoent who tries to claim otherwise I am acknowledging that.

If I am wrong, along with Paul, John, Mark, Isaiah, Elisha etc... and there is no God, what will that get me and every other christian? 80 something years of living a good life and beleiving in a God that doesn't exist. In the end i wont even know the difference. I have made the choice to be a christian. If my opponent, Darwin, and the "scientific community" are wrong, however, the choice's consequences are eternal...think about it [1], [2]

And in Closing:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about
Him(Jesus):"I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." 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—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. You can shut Him up for a fool,
you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.
But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not
left that open to us. He did not intend to."-C.S. Lewis

Best wishes to Freeman in his debating career. This has been a fun and enlightening experience.
.:[1] http://www.billygraham.org...
.:[2] http://www.sbc.net...
Freeman

Con

My opponent has abandoned all of his arguments and has resorted to preaching. Moreover, he has failed to give a sufficient rebuttal to my argument. However, my opponent did present a version of Pascal's wager in his last round. This argument is irrelevant to the existence of God, but I will respond to it anyway.

=====> The Empty Wager Of Blaise Pascal <=====

Blaise Pascal was a rather brilliant scientist that lived in the sixteenth century. During the later part of his life he ended up defending the Christian faith, and he addressed his Pens´┐Żes to those people that couldn't manage to accrue religious faith. As it turns out, this happens to be me, along with quite a few other people.

Pascal's wager basically states that faith is a safer bet to make than unbelief, since nothing of value is lost if one chooses to have faith. Needless to say, this line of reasoning is flawed for a number of reasons. For example, there are an infinite number of potential Gods and religions one could place faith in. Therefore, people will almost certainly be mistaken about their beliefs in God, given the diversity of beliefs on offer. Consequently, any faith placed in God or religion is likely to be in error, since all of these religious assumptions are unfounded. Moreover, those that cling to this belief in a God will have ended up misusing the only life they do have by living under an illusion.

I will simply end this debate by allowing the viewers to see how Christopher Hitchens deals with Pascal's Wager. [1]

::References::

1. Youtube video

Lafayette_Lion, it has been interesting. Good luck in your future debates.

Best,
Freeman
Debate Round No. 4
83 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by startrekfan1324 6 years ago
startrekfan1324
Evolution just says that species change over time. That doesn't mean God didn't create the universe. It doesn't mean the Bible is bogus. It means, something that, frankly, anybody with have a brain can realize would happen, SPECIES CHANGE OVER TIME! That's it! :)
Posted by mds1303 7 years ago
mds1303
"I would say our universe (our singularity point/Big Bang) obviously had a beginning, but exists inside of an eternal Multiverse of multiple Big Bangs. I don't believe anything is "created" other than that things create itself, given the conscious nature of the Universe."

So you think our Universe has a conscious? Like the ability to be aware of things happening with in it and make decisions (such as creating a universe) accoridingly? Not sure if I am grasping your belief, sorry :X
Posted by timcooley 7 years ago
timcooley
"My opponents main argument revolves around circular logic. He ever so graciously provides a snobby picture to illustrate it. Here's MY circular logic explanation:
"But why don't you believe the Bible?"
BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS BOGUS
"But how do you know the bible is bogus?"
BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION
"But how can you be sure of evolution?"
BECAUSE DARWIN ACCEPTS EVOLUTION AND DENIES THE BIBLE"

Love the strawman.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
@mds1303

I would say our universe (our singularity point/Big Bang) obviously had a beginning, but exists inside of an eternal Multiverse of multiple Big Bangs. I don't believe anything is "created" other than that things create itself, given the conscious nature of the Universe.
Posted by mds1303 7 years ago
mds1303
so has the universe always existed or was it created?
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
@mds1303

I'm a Pantheist who believes in an Intelligent Universe, so all the arguments against random chance don't apply to me. I would actually be inclined to agree with you on those points.

Regarding extraterrestrial research, I would refer you to David Icke, Michael Tsarion, and the Disclosure Project (400 government employees who have revealed E.T. encounters). According to researcher, M. Tsarion who has been researching for 30 years, said: "Amazing and super technologies were being used, magical and psychic powers being used; we're talking about UFO's and spaceships, and there was extraterrestrial involvement, there have been wars on this planet, and there have been "gods" frequencing the earth. We have not been told that! Nobody will tell you that. But it is a fact." - Michael Tsarion

Regarding me being an ex-Christian, it has nothing to do with not understanding the religion, nor does it have to do with Christians not acting according to scriptures. Actually I had a great experience as a Christian, no problems involving "bad" Christians. Really, the more and more I learned about Christianity, the more disgusted I became with it. It's not the extraordinary claims or the followers, but the problematic philosophical problems, corrupt origins, immoral scriptures, and dogmatic properties of it that turned me away.
Posted by mds1303 7 years ago
mds1303
"I was actually a Christian for 17 years."

Sorry to hear you are no longer one :( But I have grown up my entire life as a "Christian" however it doesn't necessarily mean I have always understood my religion completely, kind of hard to do when you are to young to really reason logically on your own, esp on in depth topics, like scientific ones. However, since I am older I can see how people bash the Bible when they don't understand numerous things about it. Like C.S. Lewis points out Christians are the biggest enemy to the religion of Christianity, because they are still sinners, and when people on the outside look at them and don't understand that they are perfect they call them hypocrits. I am sure you know after being a Christian for 17 years that people can claim to be Christians and still not live their life like the bible says. Nice chatting though, def nice to hear another perspective.
Posted by mds1303 7 years ago
mds1303
"You make the assumption that this process happened by random chance like a dice roll."

Yes I believe the Big Bang theory was predicted to have created the galaxy by chance, when you add the numerous mathematical truths that had to take place exactly the way they did for the galaxy to exist its pretty overwhelming. Now when it comes to the origin of life, once again a lot of chance is involved when it comes to making a self-replicating molecule that progresses in complexity. And last but not least the theory of evolution involves MUTATIONS which happen by CHANCE, (hold your horses though before you go crazy and think I dont understanf the theory of evolution) because obv the theory of natural selection doesn't happen by chance but it still needs the mutations, which do, in order to be true.

""Ok so scientists theorize that it is possible in some other galaxy perhaps?"
Yes.""

Wow its not hard to look at a universe that is full of galaxies and postulate that life could possibly exist on others, seeing as how it would be near impossible to disprove that. That doesn't mean we have a shred of proof that it does.

"Faith? No. Reason, research, and logic? Yes."

What does this research point to? The possibility not the actuality, but in all honesty I love science so would like to see some articles on this if you get a chance.
Posted by mds1303 7 years ago
mds1303
"So you assume. Who said the first cell was non-living?"

I am confused on what you are trying to say. If you believe in the Big Bang Theory as most Theist and Atheist do then are you suggesting that during this "explosion" some material that was created was living? Most scientist believe that the first living thing came form non-living, but at what point is it deemed living?

"That's absurd. First, why does it seem unlikely? Second, the true absurdity is saying "it wasn't evolution, God did it." This is ridiculous and solves absolutely nothing."

What is absurd? I am simply going along with the overwhelming statistics of mathematics that say the chance of the numerous theories involved in evolution, the creating of life by random chance and the perfect balance of our solar system produce form the big bang didn't happen. (I don't even want to venture a guess of the odds that all of these things took place, which were necessary for the current life we see). So I believe in the probability that God created it all the aformentioned, which as I see it is at the worst a 1 out of 2 chance.

"By what process did God come into existence. Why doesn't he require a cause? What is his chemical and compositional make up. Where is he. Etc."

See you are making a pivotal error which is assuming that God must conform to natural laws. However, why would this be the case when he is supernatural?

"Well, many scientists would agree with that. However, other credible scientists like Dr. Crick suggests that life was seeded here, as well as Dawkins who suggests this as an "intriguing possibility."

I notice you say that they "suggested" this. They obv didn't have much evidence to back it up. I just think your missing the point though. I see it as merely impossible for those numerous things I mentioned before to take place in order for life to be where it is at today, so adding the theory of pansperimia will only increases the odds drastically which is insane then
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"Because believing in aliens would mean numerous things.
1. Aliens that originated from Darwinian Evolution still had to have gone from non-living to living as their first cell,"

So you assume. Who said the first cell was non-living?

"which I don't think is possible without a creator."

That's absurd. First, why does it seem unlikely? Second, the true absurdity is saying "it wasn't evolution, God did it." This is ridiculous and solves absolutely nothing. By what process did God come into existence. Why doesn't he require a cause? What is his chemical and compositional make up. Where is he. Etc.

"Therefore this argument is not only baseless"

So you think.

"but is increasing drastically the amount of faith an atheist would have to have in unproven theories. Why not just stick to believing that the first cell was created here."

Well, many scientists would agree with that. However, other credible scientists like Dr. Crick suggests that life was seeded here, as well as Dawkins who suggests this as an "intriguing possibility."

"2. You are believing that the numerous mathematical phenomenon that took place in order for life to be sustained on Earth also existed elsewhere."

You make the assumption that this process happened by random chance like a dice roll.

"Ok so scientists theorize that it is possible in some other galaxy perhaps?"

Yes.

"That is still obv a very weakly supported argument and only supports the amount of necessary faith once again."

Faith? No. Reason, research, and logic? Yes.

"Well of course it does to someone who only looks at the religion of Christianity topically. I am willing to predict you don't know the Bible or the Christian religion very well."

I was actually a Christian for 17 years.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kahvan 7 years ago
Kahvan
Lafayette_LionFreemanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Lafayette_LionFreemanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Lafayette_LionFreemanTied
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 alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Lafayette_LionFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
Lafayette_LionFreemanTied
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 Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
Lafayette_LionFreemanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 7 years ago
popculturepooka
Lafayette_LionFreemanTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
Lafayette_LionFreemanTied
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 mds1303 7 years ago
mds1303
Lafayette_LionFreemanTied
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 Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
Lafayette_LionFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06