The Proof that God exists IS Mans unique existence.
Debate Rounds (5)
Does God exists ..... Yes. How do you know he does? because Man exists?
How Many Species? A Study Says 8.7 Million
not all inclusive but enough for our venture.
8.7 Million species of animal life. BUT only ONE that is sentient to Human standard.
Full Definition of sentient
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
4.4 Differences Between Human Life and Animal Life
1. The human brain possesses qualities that have no parallel in the animal world. One consequence is man"s explicit mental capabilities.
2. Man possesses the faculty of speech, and his creative communication by means of his vocal system is completely different from those of animals. He has the unique ability to pay attention to various matters at will; he has an inconceivably wide range of interests and observation, because it is possible to consider spatially and temporally remote objects; he is able to make abstractions and to use his system of signs for meta-lingual purposes.
3.Only man is fully bipedal; he can walk upright because of the special structure of the spine. Thus, our hands are not required for locomotion and are available for other purposes.
4.Only man is able to express emotions (e.g., joy, sadness, hope, laughter, shyness). Some animals seem to have similar abilities, but they cannot be compared with human emotions.
The Bible clearly distinguishes between man and beast:
On the sixth day, Adam was created "in the image of God" and quite apart from the land animals through a clearly distinguished separate act of creation. The Hebrew word bara (create) is used three times in Genesis 1:27 to emphasize this act of creation.
2.Only man received the breath of God. In this way, he was given a spirit (Eccles. 12:7; 1 Thess. 5:23) so that he transcends the world of the animals.
3.Only when Adam was created, did God "use his hands": "The Lord God formed [Hebrew yatsar] the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7). In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word yatsar is used to describe the actions of a potter who skillfully and imaginatively forms his vessels. In the same way, God used earthly matter for Adam"s physical parts.
4.Only man can actually communicate with God. Only he possesses the gift of speech and of prayer by means of which he can express all his thoughts before his Creator. Man was created to be near and close to God. He is dependent on communion with God.
5.Only man has a free will and possesses the faculty of creative thought. According to Psalm 8:5, man was made "a little lower than the heavenly beings." Human beings possess gifts such as freely developing personalities, inventiveness, and the capacity for cultural development (writing, music, historical awareness).
6.Even the difference in flesh is mentioned in the Bible: "All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another" (1 Cor. 15:39). This finding has consequences for molecular biology: Proteins comprise the major part of the body. The human body contains approximately fifty thousand different kinds of proteins, each fulfilling its own specific functions. They have different amino acid sequences. All organisms have certain amino acids in the same positions in the polypeptide chain, and they serve to establish and preserve the characteristic functions of the specific protein. In contrast to this precise positioning, there are other positions where the amino acids clearly differ from one kind to the other.
7.It is said only about man that he was not only created "by God," but also "for Him" (Col. 1:16). This high purpose is only ascribed to man. Animals are also creatures of God, but they did not receive the calling to become children of God (John 1:12).
8.In contrast to the animals, man is an eternal being; this means that his existence never ends, even after the death of the body (Luke 16:19"31). An imperishable body will be raised from the perishable one (1 Cor. 15:42).
Okay so what do we know from a scientific prospective? of 8.7 Million species ONLY Humans Have:
1.A unique DNA pattern by construct!
2. Man can emote, speak, teach, create, problem solve at an intelligence level unreachable by any other species. food, lodging, driving, flying, computing etc..
3. Man walks on two legs throughout the whole of life using hands for creation, manipulation, communication, speech, writing, drawing etc...
4. Man has a spirit which enables mans self awareness to surroundings, environmental changes, awareness to illnesses able to seek assistance as needed, Is fearful of impending death, understands dangers on a much high level than animals.
5. Only man KNOWS that He exists, and IS a fully conscious living breathing being and knows he has a soul ..... (that part of you that is AWARE of you!)
On average, in terms of DNA sequence all humans are 99.5% similar to any other human
While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule " about 0.1%, on average
Although scientists have long recognised that, despite physical differences, all human populations are genetically similar, the new work concludes that populations from different parts of the world share even more genetic similarities than previously assumed.
All humans are 99.9 per cent identical and, of that tiny 0.1 per cent difference,
In this response I do not intend to bury Pro with links to the scientific literature that refute his rather strange interpretation of the science. Notwithstanding that, the refutation of his argument seems rather trivial, given the problems with it. Specifically Pro:
1) makes bare assertions, eg about the existence of souls;
2) he begs the question from the outset by applying a "human standard" to the animal kingdom;
3) he provides only a subjective basis by which we can appraise his argument (only his rationale of what he finds important markers of the divine but ignores superior quality of other animals); and
4) his arguments run counter to Occams Razor, because there are superior and simpler explanations
I have taken the liberty of trying to summarize Pros argument:
P1) If god exists, humans would have unique traits, which could only come from a supernatural source;
P2) Only humans have the unique trait of [insert claim here eg speech, sentience, bipedalism etc] to a "standard of human quality";
P3) These traits are so unique they could only come from a supernatural source; and therefore
C1) God exists
P1) Is an arbitrary and subjective perspective. We already know that animals possess some measure of all the traits already posited by Pro and possess some "arguably" superior traits to humans that we do not possess at all (eg the ability to grow a limb back, the ability to fly unaided, the ability to breathe underwater unaided etc). Pro has merely taken what he considers favourable attributes. He has not explained why these are objectively important in comparison to other traits held by other animals. For example he cites our speech as important, but human speech is useless in an aquatic marine environment, where the communication abilities of other mammals are superior to ours. Granted we are not marine dwelling, but that is not the point. The point is that Pro must provide the objective context by which we can assess human vs [other] animal differences with a view to assessing whether supernatural intervention is the best explanation. But it is worse than that. Pro is also presumably committed to a view that the entire animal kingdom was "poofed" into existence. Thus on his view every animal would in reality be some sort of evidence of a god, which would totally undermine his main argument in this debate.
P2) Begs the question. By qualifying any ability as having to meet "to a standard of human quality" he smuggles his conclusion into the premise. Pro tips his hand when he states: "BUT only ONE that is sentient to Human standard". Thus any objection raised by his opponent (say the well documented and researched conscious ability of chimpanzees), will immediately be dismissed by Pro, as not meeting his arbitrary standard because it does not fit the conclusion he seeks. Pros argument is effectively circular > humans are special > because nothing else measures up to human standards > which makes humans special.
P3) Even if it could be demonstrated that humans have objectively unique traits which indicate supernatural intervention, how could it be objectively demonstrated that these can only come from a supernatural source? There are perfectly adequate explanations from the sciences that demonstrate the power of natural processes in the development of animal life. These should be preferred given their explanatory power, scope, simplicity and the fact that all evidence fits into these natural frameworks. Pros claim means that on top of the natural processes, that we know exist, we are now required to imagine the intervention of an infinitely sophisticated being (that doesn"t meet the definition of a being), existing outside of existence in an unknowable realm, using a unknown process to create effects in a way that equates to magic ("poofing" things into existence). The simplest explanation by Occams Razor is in favour of naturalism.
C1) Is therefore unsafe
So building the alternative case for naturalism would entail the following:
1) human traits are emergent features of our evolved anatomies
2) these anatomies have occurred through well understood purely natural processes
Comparative studies of a number of disciplines (morphology, phylogeny, taxonomy, genetics, evolutionary development, social anthropology, palaeontology etc) all coalesce around some key points:
1) other animals demonstrate similar abilities
2) the abilities in other animals become more sophisticated in relation to the level of higher brain function available to that animal (with few exceptions)
3) given the anatomy of our higher brain function, humans demonstrate higher abilities in some areas than the rest of the animal kingdom
4) given the anatomy of certain animals, they demonstrate higher abilities in some areas than humanity
We are therefore safe in a tentative conclusion that even though humans have a level of sophistication that other animals do not, they are nonetheless part of that same animal kingdom.
Finally Pro, rather predictabley, then moves onto a mixture of biblical arguments and arguments from ignorance/incredulity to back up his rather desperate case.
I can only say that I find quoting the bible as deeply unimpressive demagoguery. Does it come as surprise to anyone that a religion would seek to flatter humanity and elevate humanity's place in the natural world? Infact it seems to be the defining characteristic of a religion. Any religion needs to simultaneously advise its adherents that they are both important and meaningless at the same time. If it fails to do that, the clerical classes of the various religions have nothing to sell, nor any leverage of control. Christianity, Scientology, Hinduism etc all seem to offer their adherents some cosmic reward for admitting their depravity (souls, thetans, khama or whatever). The price you are asked to pay is to abjectly surrender your mind and reasoning faculties to an invisible and ultimately unknowable authority, that just happens to have earthly representatives with earthly power who can interpret their wishes for you. Therefore it is unsurprising that the bible states that we are born worthless, but are secretly the most important objects in the universe. Or perhaps put more tersely by Fulke Greville the Elizabethan poet (himself a Calvanist): "Created sick, commanded to be sound".
As for the other points:
1) if Pro is claiming that humans are imbued with a spiritual force (soul etc), the Pro is advocating a form of substance dualism. Pro will need to offer a reason why anyone should take this (17th century), view seriously given it is (at best) a naive view, and has largely been discredited. Whatever the truth of the mind/brain interaction it is not going to be substance dualism.
2) Pro is claiming only humans can speak to a god (I maintain there is no such entity, but saying there was for the purpose of discussing this point) - how does Pro know this? Does Pro have a means of knowledge available to him, and able to inform him that animals and god do not communicate? It is nothing more than an unsupported claim. Can a god only speak yiddish, aramaic, greek? Can god not communicate with a dolphin for example?
3) Pro adopts a psuedo-scientific stance by claiming that our DNA is uniquely different (using the example of flesh). I think this attempt to clothe himself in science betrays the "gee-whizz" incredulity of this and the overall argument. Surely if you look at any one animal species you will see a set of unique character combinations (especially down at the level of the molecular biology). These will make a species unique (otherwise it would not be a species). To then say "Gee-whizz look at that! Thats is proof of something mysterious", rather misses the point that these unique character combinations only exist inside a nested set hierarchy. It is the nested set hierarchy that refutes Pros position and shows how all eukaryotic life is linked (through the tree -bush if you prefer- of life), and is why, for example, a whale with its own unique character combinations and specialisations, is still a mammal and not a fish (even though the bible seems not to know this (Jonah 1:17)).
In summary there is no case to answer here. Pro blindly asserts things he does not know, that he cannot prove, then begs the question in favour of a conclusion he wants. He ignores the evidence which refutes his conclusion and offers a subjective and arbitrary scheme by which we can apparently tell that humanity is specially created by a god. Unfortunately Pro has a higher burden of proof than that.
If Pro thinks the bible gives a better insight into biology and therefore proves god, than actual biology, then he is already deeply committed and entrenched in a supernatural, mystical and magical interpretation of nature. Thus Pro will continue to offer poor arguments like the one presented. Pro would be on much firmer ground if he can offer an argument:
1) providing an objective meaningful standard and context by which we can appraise the differences between humans and animals
2) refraining from using unprovable and most likely false evidences (such as souls)
3) providing a falsifiable hypothesis on why these differences are necessarily supernatural in origin
Until Pro can do this I do not need see how he can move the debate forward in his favour, without further resort to arguments from ignorance, mining creationist websites and/or question begging. Thanks once again for this opportunity and good luck with the rest of the debate.
The topic? Human existence IS THE proof of Gods existence!
I noted that Con immediately and lengthily departed the topic and dove headlong into the animal kingdom. Yet despite this long and informative detour, he produced not a single creature, capable of equal footing or ability as man. Only we are able to create, cars, buildings, growing and processing food, Art. Read Braille, produce braille, pondering future events as we look at the sky, write sonnets, poems, movies, literature, repair broken toys, computers. Standing a full block away from another human being and direct that person to move left, right, move closer, move farther, stop, go, sit down, go away.
Instead we were presented with similarities that are animal behavior that at a quick glance may appear similar, yet are hemispheres away from the capabilities of Man.
Point proven " Man IS unique in the entirety of the Earth! Unless sometime between now and the end of this debate Con can produce an animal who can do ALL the things Man can do! Ahhh yes the ever popular Chimpanzee. And how does science says it goes? man come from Apes ".. Apes come from???? Ahhhh
Next: Con makes a far greater error than Pro " in that He makes a bare assertion that Man IS the sum of all knowledge, even though, at no point does science ever elude to its ability to establish concrete fact beyond all doubt. That permits the conclusion that although a thing is accepted by the majority, it in no way establishes that it is completely TRUE to the exclusion of all else. At no time has Science ever claimed to be 100% accurate. I know everyone can attest to the times Science was WRONG!
1.the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:
Con asserts that science is the more credible authority! I say the God of the Bible IS the ultimate authority in heaven and earth. I can personally testify that God not only exists, but is ACTIVE, in the lives of those who follow Him. If that is true and I assert it is true, then it also stands to reason that His creation of Heaven and Hell, must also be construed as true
Beyond doubt! 2 billion of the 7 billion people on earth HAVE found Him!
Let"s test the nonbelievers Science: http://big-bang-theory.com...
"The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment."
Now look at that statement with Human reasoning?
An effort to explain ". Okay not a fact -
Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe DID IN FACT have a beginning ". Yeah no degree needed to know that, I mean we"re here right?
Prior to that moment there was .... NOTHING ". THEN there WAS something " (uhh, yeah ".) okay
So in the beginning there was nothing, it exploded and created the universe and this planet, it also in the explosion created by sheer accident, the DNA strand- the very building block of life responsible for the creation of all biologic, microscopic, cellular organisms ".. THEN at the same time as the explosion created the Atom, again by sheer accident, the very fabric of the entirety of the earth and universe. Both of these elements REMAIN vastly beyond the ability of our greatest minds to fully understand even to THIS day". BUT they occurred out of randomness? Accident? Coincidence?
Okay " a little much for the intelligent mind to accept, but the non-believing of the world INSIST and bet their souls that it IS easier to believe, than God exists. I dunno, I think you guys are completely irrational, but okay, if you says so!
Now let"s ask the logical question shall we?
So your telling me THAT: This planet formed millions upon millions of newborn, creatures, without a single adult creature in the entirety of the planet to feed, water or protect them, and survived to adulthood? That is not even remotely credible, is it! Surely you"ve thought of that? Cause your scientist sure didn"t? They were so caught up with figuring out HOW it came about that they never thought what was actually needed FOR it to come about!
What about MY explanation of how we"re here ". God created everything, just like he said:
God does say that;
Genesis 1King James Version (KJV) (yes its all genesis here:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And as Con so elaborately put it***POOF*** it was SO!
Now you see God created ADULT creatures not babies who could not possibly survive without an adult. Makes sense right? I CAN completely buy that a lot easier than trying to believe that an entire Planet of Newborns without an adult among them to feed, protect or give them drink, managed to live AT ALL!
I mean come on ".. really? AND it says WE ARE DOMINANT! It also means that that monkey thing???? Yeah, you know, you can say it " it ain"t remotely true!
I suggest that it IS far more intelligent and rationale to Believe in your creator God, because not only is he real as evidenced in His creation He is also holding YOU accountable for the life you lead. You See Believers already KNOW God speaks SUBSTANCE.
Ahh speaking of Occam"s Razor; A simple incursion into the internet like Occam's corner https://www.theguardian.com...
"Not breaking news: many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong! Most theories are eventually consigned to the rubbish heap, but this is scientific business as usual. When a theory is shown to be incorrect or a publication in error, it is all too easy to think that the scientist who came up with this theory is a liar or a dishonest fraudster intent on misleading the public for personal gain. Or as Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, puts it:
Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth."
Let that point soak in a moment.
Now consider your souls well-being for a moment: Romans 1:18-20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God"s invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
See? invisible qualities ". DNA/Atom, right in front of you all the time just as God said it was, BUT suppressed by most of you, again just as God said!
In closing I submit that the existence of Humans upon the earth, as well as all sentient Life upon the Earth could ONLY have come into existence BY God! It is the not only the most plausible, but by far the only logical explanation for the existence of all life!
Now I ask you ". WHO is being naive here?
lets try and stay on subject, please!
It gets worse. The response is even more chaotic and more ragged from Pro. He has failed to create an argument worth refuting, there is little more for me to rebut in this round. The reason Pro does not think I am addressing his arguments, is because I don't think he understands that I am pointing out that his statements do not count as argument to rebut in the first place. They do not get past first base, they do not get off the starting blocks, given the logical fallacies he uses to bootstrap them. Add to that, there are perfectly adequate natural explanations of the facts of nature (including human anatomy, skills, abilities etc) and Pro is in no man's land.
I think Pro imagines I want to debate why humans can do poetry and Urangutans cannot, and if I cannot provide a reason that must prove the Christian God is real then! Er no...no more than a spider spinning silk 5x stronger than steel proves the existence of the Great Goddess of Teotihuacan. If I were to present that argument to Pro would want a little more structure than that. He would not accept "hey you cannot name a single creature that can even come close to that!" The question here Pro is not "isn't it incredible that a spider can do that, must be that there is a spider goddess", but instead "why is there an objective reason to think the strength of spider silk is an important marker for supernatural intervention from goddesses". The same is true of your statements about human speech, bipedalism, intellect or whatever thing you want to dream up.
I will start at the end of Pros rebuttal. Pro says: "lets try and stay on subject, please!". Interesting admonishment! He has started a debate "The Proof that God exists IS Mans unique existence" and whereas I addressed his argument head on and pointed out its flaws Pro has instead introduced several new debates just within his first rebuttal:
-Abiogenesis (an interesting interpretation of it)
-The doctrine of Hell (for what the Christian assumes exists ie souls)
-An argument ad populum for the truth of Christianity based on numbers of followers
-An argument from personal experience (God exists, because I have experienced something specific to me)
Happy to debate these and why they make atheism more likely (and a lot more likely) than theism, but none of them are the subject of this debate. So the complaint by Pro that I have edged away from the topic is a mirror image of his own enterprise. Pro is infact complaining about his own argumentation (as can be seen above). Looking to divert attention away from the debate he started and projecting that back onto me. Presumably he is doing this because he knows his arguments are already shot.
So let's get back to the subject. I challenged Pro to better structure his argument and provide a proper grounding, other than the wish thinking we have seen so far. Specifically:
1) to give me a reason as to why the differences between humans (homo sapiens) and other animals are objectively the ones we should focus on. No response from Pro.
2) to stop begging the question and assuming the conclusion. Pro continues to beg the question, as he says for example "he (meaning Con) produced not a single creature, capable of equal footing or ability as man". It is a pity Pro cannot see the circularity of his argument, and merely wants to place a burden of proof on me as to why I cannot respond to his arbitrary standard.
3) Provide a framework as to why differences can only be of supernatural origin. Total silence from Pro, no reason to believe a supernatural intervention was required.
I am a little concerned by the utter confusion and horrible cartooning of science and scientific theories by Pro. Again this is not the topic of this debate, but I think that he regards the tentative conclusions of science and the refinement of theoretical frameworks as some kind of black mark against science, instead of its strength. The weakness of believing in revealed truth is its inability to adapt to new findings, which is why creationists make the terrible arguments they do. We are entitled to believe some things axiomatically of course, but YAHWEH is not one of them.
He then portrays some kind of (frankly weird) interpretation of Abiogensis. Pro asks: "So your telling me THAT: This planet formed millions upon millions of newborn, creatures, without a single adult creature in the entirety of the planet to feed, water or protect them, and survived to adulthood?". This is just an embarrassing strawman of Abiogenesis, totally misunderstanding the hypothesis, but a great example of the incredulity throughout Pros argument. I am presumably meant to say "Gee-whizz you're right how can that happen, must be the story of Adam and Eve was true all along then!" This argument advances the debate he started not one iota. But I am not minded to refute it given it is unrelated to the topic of this debate and yet another red herring by Pro.
Pro also accuses me a bare assertion. I quote from his rebuttal "He makes a bare assertion that Man IS the sum of all knowledge". I can only ask him to point out where I said then in my opening statement. I do not believe I have said anything of the sort.
So I would like to end with Pro's beginning. Pro It may have escaped your notice but atheists tend not to believe they either have a soul, nor that there is therefore one to endanger. Thus threatening me with high stakes game of eternal punishment is slightly amusing, slightly presumptive, slightly boring, slightly predictable and slightly rude, but ultimately uninteresting and irrelevant. Also continually quoting bible passages at me is dangerously close to proselytisation and not debate. This is a debate and not about the subject of biblical passages. So I would politely ask that you refrain from quoting the bible at me. I am not seeking a conversion from you. I am not looking to convert you by advising you that you are wasting your life on a lie. I find the history, motivation and intentions behind the writing of the bible much more interesting than its actual stories themselves. It does feel like those who interpret those stories literally, miss the irony, beauty and pathos of the bible, it is a fascinating topic.
So Pro asked me a direct question "Now I ask you ". WHO is being naive here?". The answer is Pro. Naive arguments from incredulity, naive strawman arguments, naive question begging, naive understanding of science and the scientific method, naive metaphysics, naive understanding of biblical literature" and so on.
So for the second time I ask that you provide an objective analysis of your assertions, to stop question begging and provide support that it necessarily from your assertions that this proves there is a supernatural dimension to humanity. Thank you for your time and consideration.
It is beyond question that despite Cons rhetoric, he continues to not address the topic itself? I present human kind, a being of sentience beyond all other creatures as described in Scriptures. Con presents us with spider webs, 5x strong than steel? And that has to do with the topic HOW? ". How many of you have walked through spider webs other than a brief grossing out, you continued through it without slightest pause ". By Cons reasoning that alone should allow man to call himself superman " yes? Nonsense.
That Con does not think the question is beyond first base, is equal to how his science operates, that is Cons modus operandi is it not " SCIENCE? The strength of a spiders web to the average human is consider 5x stronger than steel? I don"t think so, IF it were 5x stronger than steel, YOUR NOT walking through it are you? Why the artful dodging (a clever or dishonest trick done in order to avoid something)? Could it be it is because he cannot present any species which IS capable of the levels of Mankind, and that IT PROVES Man IS exactly what God said ". UNIQUE in the World!
That would also indicate that Man"s level of self-awareness very much indicates the presence of a living soul, Why? Because you don"t need science to tell you, that you are you. You decide, where to walk, when to run, how to live, what to eat? That IS YOU in control, and THAT part of you continues after death, sorry went of topic!
Why the AGAIN immediate departure from the topic. MAN and his creator? Con resorts to the familiar and nothing more. At the onset, Con gave away his position " he believes whatever science TELLS him to believe, despite mountains of true evidence against such preposterous positions that remain obvious to any person of intellect and reason.
Con would have you BELIEVE that life evolved"period. Con doesn"t WANT you to think about the how, science said it and that is that!". Well for those of you not lead about by whatever science claims " YOU answer it then, HOW could life evolve from infancy, and SURVIVE to adulthood, it"s a very simple but extremely important point don"t you think? Could any newborn do that NOW, no? Then how did they accomplish it back then? But no one knows huh? That"s gonna HAVE to be his response. I know ". God created all life, not as infants as adults thereby BEGINNING all life, it is the ONLY REASONABLE solution to the problem!
Can the excuses-Cut the ties-Count on Gods power! Many of you remain under condemnation because you"ve allowed yourselves to be deceived. Don"t blame anyone else, the person responsible you can find by simply looking in the mirror. The Good News is that you don"t have to continue in ignorance. You can change that right Now, by a simple choice, go on believing what SCIENCE wants you to believe or START searching for God yourself " science is NOT going to do it for you. They have closed their minds completely, they are the masters of all they survey " till they come before their creator! Course by then it will BE TO LATE! Rats, I got off topic AGAIN " my apologies ".
Con would have you believe his science which says you came from a newborn ape ".. who miraculously grew to adulthood to start the gene pool without so much as a morsel of food or drink or protection, and not ONLY SURVIVED but actually GREW to adulthood. I proclaim before all present that Con capitulates by his own admission, we were born IN EDEN!
Hear this and BE WARNED!
Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious " the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe " can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.
Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.
Carroll argues that God's sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times, as physics and cosmology have expanded in their ability to explain the origin and evolution of the universe. "As we learn more about the universe, there's less and less need to look outside it for help," he told Life's Little Mysteries" . end-quote.
AS science said " . "As we learn more about the universe, there's less and less need to look outside it for help,"
What a pantload! Notice THEY aren't saying HOW millions of infants survived to adulthood without food, water protection ... like Con .... that query doesn't get past first base! Therefore THEY DON'T have to answer it! One begins to questions Mans intelligence altogether when we behave in a manner we only require of our dogs ... sit, fetch, leave it, take it .... Believe IT!
Yep, you got it here first people ". Earth EVOLVED, FORGET and IGNORE HOW helpless newborns, without benefit of food, water or protection grew to adulthood. Science says it and that's it!
God help you all. Those who close their mind shall have the most unpleasant privilege of JOINING Sean Carroll, in a place that was not original created for the souls of men! But exists, none the less. I"m sorry off topic again!
By the way ... NO species comes level to the DNA of Humans. All Humans DA is 0.1 different from every other Human, that means we are 99.9% carriers of the same DNA, no other creatures come to that level.
"All human beings are 99.9 percent identical in their genetic makeup. Differences in the remaining 0.1 percent hold important clues about the causes of diseases."
"This page takes a very brief look at what happens if the code in DNA becomes changed in some way, and the effect that would have on the proteins it codes for.
Random changes to the genetic code
Copying errors when DNA replicates or is transcribed into RNA can cause changes in the sequence of bases which makes up the genetic code. Radiation and some chemicals can also cause changes. The examples which follow show some of the easier-to-understand effects of this.
A gene will be made up of a string of these codes rather like a string of 3-letter words in a sentence. We'll use that as a simple analogy. Take the sentence:
the big fox bit the dog but not the boy
Suppose one letter got changed in this by accident. Suppose, for example, the "d" in dog got replaced by a "p". The sentence would now read:
the big fox bit the pog but not the boy
Clearly this doesn't make complete sense any more. Would that matter if the same thing happened in a gene? It depends!
If you look back at the table, there are several amino acids which are coded for by more than one base combination. For example, glycine (Gly) is coded for by GGT, GGC, GGA and GGG. It doesn't matter what the last base is - you would get glycine whatever base followed the initial GG.
That means that a mutation at the end of a codon like this wouldn't make any difference to the protein chain which would eventually form. These are known as silent mutations.
Inserting or deleting bases
The situation is more dramatic if extra bases are inserted into the code, or some bases are deleted from the code. Using our example sentence from above, and keeping the three letter word structure:
If you insert a single extra base:
the big fro xbi tth edo gbu tno tth ebo y
An extra "r" is inserted in "fox". If the sentence still has to be read three letters at a time (as in DNA), everything from then on becomes completely meaningless.
If you delete a single base:
the big fxb itt hed ogb utn ott heb oy
This time the "o" in "fox" has been deleted. And again, because we have to read the letters in groups of three, the rest of the sentence becomes completely wrecked.
So does this matter? Well, of course it does! Large chunks of the protein will consist of completely wrong amino acid residues.
We've looked so far at inserting or deleting one base. What if you do it for more than one?
The effect is the same unless you add or delete multiples of three bases - without changing any other codons. If you added an extra three bases between two existing codons, then essentially you are just adding an extra word.
the big fox bit the xjy dog but not the boy
That extra word represents an extra codon in the DNA, and so an extra amino acid residue in the protein chain. Does this matter? It depends where it is in the chain (Is it important to the active site of an enzyme, for example?), and whether it affects the folding of the chain.
What if the three bases were inserted so that they broke up an existing codon? Here is the same extra "word", "xjy", dropped in the word "bit". Everything is then reshuffled into groups of three letters.
the big fox bxj yit the dog but not the boy
You can see that the effect is again fairly limited. It will change one codon completely, and introduce an extra codon. That would give you one different amino acid and one extra amino acid in the chain. Again, how much that would affect the final protein depends on where it happens in the chain."
its very interesting I recommend reading the whole thing... its fascinating.
Long form answer: Pro is obviously a little riled by the dissection of his reasoning and has resorted to mimicry in order to project himself more successfully in this debate. Pros peevish reuse of my opening to Round 2, is a form of plagiarism. Lucky for Pro that I regard this as the highest form of compliment. So thank you. Pro in a debate format try and become less emotional and more open, calm and rational. Peevishness is not an attractive quality and ultimately self-destructive. But one thing is now crystal clear - he has nothing new to say if he has to copy me.
On a positive note I am glad to see Pro has refrained from quoting the bible. He still has a tendency to proselytise rather than debate, so I just politely ask again that he tries to control has understandable zeal for his religious faith in a formal debate setting.
It is difficult to know where to start with a response like the one in Round 3 from Pro. But I will sub-divide it in 3 main areas (and apologies for missing anything):
1)Pros rebuttal of my Round 2 (barely on topic and does not support his argument)
2)Pro railing against science (off topic and does not support his argument)
3)Pros attempt to build language and information science metaphors into the study of DNA (off topic and does not support his argument)
1)Pros rebuttal of my Round 2
He has reverted to attacking me rather than my arguments. He accuses me of living in some kind of imagined fairy tale world. I don"t have to respond to this nonsense. I will just reassure Pro that I reject idealism, thus I do not believe in any imagined anything (including the Christian God).
However, Pros failure to grasp of irony is as delicious as the irony itself. He states I am in an imagination land. Here is someone who believes he has knowledge of unknowable, invisible, magical being, who lives in some kind of eternal, non-existent realm, that can make whole universes appear in 6 days, make snakes that talk and that thinks amongst the most important moral advice we need is to not be jealous of your neighbours donkey. Child abuse, racism, subjugation of women not important enough topics for the creator of the universe, but donkey jealousy apparently is! Does that sound real or imagined?
Pro states: "That Con does not think the question is beyond first base is equal to how his science operates". Firstly it is not my science but an achievement of mankind, secondly I have pointed out logical (see philosophy) and not scientific flaws in your reasoning, thirdly I think you are mistaken in assuming I am offering a scientism or scientistic (a philosophical view inspired by science). Scientism does not form the base of my philosophy. I do not believe scientific theories, I accept them as the best current explanation of the facts about our reality. Science is perhaps the best bull-droppings detector we have, but it is not a philosophy.
Pro continues to assert that I am not addressing the subject as he puts it "man and his creator". I have explained to Pro (twice) that this is question begging. His aim is to prove a god exists (see title of debate), he then wants us to assume this conclusion in his premises, so we can only debate against his logically fallacious and arbitrary standards. Of course Homo Sapiens are unique, so are Darwins Bark Spiders, Blue Whales and Cheetahs. If you:
a) do not accept that human cognitive abilities are only a result of higher brain function; and
b) you already pre-committed to humans being set apart from the animal kingdom (ie not to be classified as animals),
Then there is nothing anyone can say to you. You are sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the fact that we are apes (genetically, morphologically, phylogenetically, taxonomically etc etc etc). What evidence can I show to someone, who doesn"t respect evidence? I have tried multiple times to show you why your reasoning is invalid, which I summarised for you:
P1 Unique amongst living organisms, humans are capable of higher forms of conscious$ activity (poetry, philosophy, science etc)
P2 No other living organism can meet the standards established by humans
P3 Such incredible ability can only be the result of Supernaturalism (Christianity)
C1 Therefore it follows that the Christian God exists
$ Insert here any such claim: speech, bipedalism etc
I have tried to help you improve your argument by drawing an analogy for you. It is meant to show you how his your argument can equally be used to justify the absurd:
P1 Unique amongst living organisms, spiders (eg Darwin's Bark Spider) are capable of naturally producing a substance over 5x$ stronger than steel
P2 No other living organism can meet the standards established by spiders
P3 Such incredible ability can only be the result of Arachnid Supernaturalism (Great Goddess of Teotihuacan)
C1 Therefore it follows the Great Goddess of Teotihuacan exists
$ "Spider dragline silk has a tensile strength of roughly 1.3 GPa. The tensile strength listed for steel might be slightly higher"e.g. 1.65 GPa, but spider silk is a much less dense material, so that a given weight of spider silk is five times as strong as the same weight of steel"
Pro has already had 2 rounds to correct my summary of his argument if it is incorrect, lazy or inept. He has had 2 opportunities to offer an objective reason to believe any premise, stop question begging and inform us how these things can be true only as a result of supernaturalism. Instead there is nothing put a deafening silence, followed by cries of incredulity that I do not accept his view and slews of rehashed creationist arguments which do not support his premises.
2)Pro railing against science
This is an off-topic rant and does not support Pros premises. Here we have a slightly maniacal opening statement "Hear this and BE WARNED". The rest of it is a rather disappointing (especially after the opening), wearisome and rambling attack. A reasonable summary of which is "those rubbish scientists are naughty men, saying some nasty things that upset me about not needing a god to explain stuff anymore. Boo-hoo I don"t like it". Oh please! You should stop wallowing in self pity just because science has rolled back the ignorance of the iron age mysticism of Christianity. Yes the earth is not flat, it revolves around the sun and graves do not open for zombies to creep out.
Your disdain for science, because it doesn"t match your particular shard of Christianity is palpable. You gave an argument in this debate to justify your position, stating that 2bn people are Christians and that helps prove Christianity is true! Well 1.2bn of the 2bn Christians are Catholics, and when I last looked, the papal edict was the evolution should be accepted. If you are going to argue consistently and bravely you now have to accept evolution or reject your own argument ad populum, or do both. Which is it?
Again he repeats some total nonsense:
"Yep, you got it here first people . Earth EVOLVED, FORGET and IGNORE HOW helpless newborns, without benefit of food, water or protection grew to adulthood. Science says it and that's it!"
I am not sure you are even really being serious? Are you just trolling me? Pro it is not the view of science that first there was no life, and then some babies appeared that needing feeding and protection. You need to get out more, or read or something. This is just embarrassing for you, I can only help by suggesting that you do not persist with this line of attack. I am not a professional scientist, but seriously Pro come on. Science tells us the first life forms were uni-cellular, usually clumped in blooms, and self replicated by binary fission (no Mummys, Daddys and babies until later in Earths history, when we had the evolution of multi-cellular animals).
I literally have no idea why you think the genetic similarity of homo sapiens is an important argument for your debate topic. Perhaps you would like to draw me a sketch of why this fact supports only a supernatural hypothesis and not a natural one. An alternative explanation to me (without researching it) would be because homo sapiens split off from other hominid species relatively recently (100 - 200k years ago) and has therefore had limited time to diverge. But surely this is a problem for you and not me. If you accept that through time a 0.1% variance can accumulate, you have to open to accept that it could happen again and again, until we break the species boundaries. Then we would have a speciation event in the population (macro-evolution).
PS Sean Carroll is right!
3)Pros attempt to build language and information science metaphors into the study of DNA
This is off-topic and does not support your premises so I will limit my responses. I know creationists love this stuff, but I fail to see why they think it is such a powerful argument. Never have so many words, died in vain on a page!.
Is DNA a sort of language? Not really and not in the sense invoked by Pro. Does it contain "information"? Sort of if you are struggling for a better analogy on how it builds the living organism it represents? I would argue it is better described as data rather than information (although this analogy is also flawed). But then snowflakes can be said to contain data (or "information"), so can sand on a beach or iron filings. If you want to take this question on bravely, you also have to concede that anything could be said to contain data ("information"). Life also contains the data ("information") needed to build itself but also contains data ("information") from its parents, the environment, species lineage, defunct features etc. This is further evidence of evolution, not of being 'poofed' into existence by magic.
Your ENTIRE LIVES are based completely on a LIE! God HAS JUST PROVEN HE EXISTS FOR ALL TIME!
you owe your creator an APOLOGY for your arrogance, your insolence, your complete lack of Faith! God has sustained your pitiful lives despite the hatred you have spewed at Him, THAT is Love, That is Kindness, That IS MERCY! Stop your unbelief, turn to your Lord and Savior Now, NOW while He may yet BE found! Seek Him, He will do the hard part, seek Him in earnest and He will COME TO YOU! Time is of the essence, you may never GET this opportunity again!
PROOF ..... after 2 DAYS and HOURS LATER, Con CAME BACK WITH NOTHING!!!!!!! but his bruised and embarrassed remnants of what was an intelligent being! NONE is more intelligent than YOUR God!
Don't be to hard on Him though? There WAS nothing he COULD come back with? Yes .... like the rest of you unbelievers He ran not walked to his precious science and was just as dumbfounded as the rest of you. He DISCOVERED EXACTLY what the rest of you discovered! YOU'VE BEEN HAD! YOUR evolutionary Scientist HAVE SUCKERED YOU, YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. ******THEY CHEATED!
They STARTED WITH AN ADULT SUBJECT, which IS IMPOSSIBLE-no way they can rationally, intelligently show the formation of newborns capable of surviving to adulthood without parents, so THEY SKIPPED IT. TOOK what God provided them, Adult subjects, then unceremoniously through God OUT!
God Did say, if you added to His word you .... well just read it for yourself: Proverb 30:6
Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
YES, I am off topic as CON HAS BEEN THE ENTIRE TIME. Con does it to his shame, I do it to the Glory of our God, whose word is for all time! I do it to call WHOMSOEVER WILL to come and see that God IS GOOD! Get into a Bible believing Church, Baptist, Catholic, 1st church of the Nazarene, all of which CAN be found TRUE believers of God to assist YOU, to God.
Yes I know what I said about denominations .... BUT I also know which ones ARE SAFE, at least from my prospective in the NOW!, It is possible that there are more. BUT They Must know God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, They must acknowledge the bodily resurrection of your Savior Jesus Christ!
MY provision I give you from God is this:
2 Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things.
That means you believe the scriptures and the scriptures ALONE! NO outside interpretation.... it was not allowed by prophet it's not allowed NOW! Scripture interprets scripture ONLY!
John 6:45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.
That MEANS God IS YOUR TEACHER NOT MAN!
All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.
DO YOU SEE? God interprets scripture for you and to YOU, Not any man. It says emphatically, if you do not understand .... ASK HIM (God), and HE (God) WILL MAKE IT CLEAR TO YOU! not man!
1 Thessalonians 4:9
Now about your love for one another we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.
HOW MANY TIMES must God TELL you HE WILL teach you, STOP chasing watered down Gospels and seek the WRITER OF THE GOSPELS while He may yet be found!
(SIGH) Thank You Con, you have filled me with an indescribable sense of Gods presence, I I shall remember you in my prayers that God will see fit to save a wretch like you as He once did me!
GLORY BE TO GOD!
Okay I'm regaining my composure a bit!
As to your statements .... you know as do all reading, that their garbage, trash! IF you COULD have come back with ANY KIND of REAL EVIDENCE you would have. But you couldn't BECAUSE MAN IS UNIQUE, created BY God, With spirit WHICH, most definitely EXIST BEYOND DEATH! Heaven? HELL? That is all up to each one of you?
No don't even try it! Gods BEEN PROVEN That VERY MUCH IMPLIES HIS WORD IS REAL TOO, beyond a reasonable doubt! Deny Him now to your condemnation and consignment to await The Great White Throne Judgement and the Lake of Fire!
A true Believer might... as I am, pondering .....WHY..... at THIS POINT in time, did God wait to reveal the Lie of the World? Could it BE that the TIME to FIND HIM, is coming to a close? That would imply that the tribulation is fast approaching? The TRIBULATION? I'm sorry you don't know do you? The Great tribulation is what is revealed in Revelation the last book of the Bible, where Gods Wrath is poured upon the Earth?
No Believers will not be participating in it, But That's another story! Anyway, it is a time nobody wants to BE alive for! BUT that I know at least 4 Billion who WILL be going through it , if of course statistics can be believed, statistics say there's about 7 billion give or take, and 2 Billion who profess Christianity! Oh well, it's something to consider, isn't it?
Nothing more for me to say since Con has already LOST this debate, and WAS Lost at it's beginning! misdirection, dodging, ducking, all to NO AVAIL! Con could not provide a shred of evidence to show MAN was created by God UNIQUE among all creation!
Thank You all for your Kind attention. May God be with you all.
Heres what to do: stand on a street corner, wearing a sandwich board and sell pencils from a cup.
Here's what not to do: start a formal debate, have your arguments dismantled, but still claim victory.
You have surrendered your reasoning faculty to mysticism, you cannot form a conherent and logical argument, you cannot answer a single challenge to your position. However worst of all when under severe pressure in a debate format you crumble become emotional, resorting instead to hectoring your opponent about your false hope of salvation by a magical being.
Pro has failed to meet his burden of proof. I therefore submit that man is not proof of the existence of a god, much less the Christian variety. Pros arguments have been dismantled and he has resorted to preaching and not debating.
Instead? He spent all his time OFF topic, spewing imaginings which anyone of intellect already knew had no comparison with Human capabilities, such as spider webs?????
Tossing stupid things that have no place in an intelligent debate such as:
1) makes bare assertions, eg about the existence of souls;
2) he begs the question from the outset by applying a "human standard" to the animal kingdom;
3) he provides only a subjective basis by which we can appraise his argument (only his rationale of what he finds important markers of the divine but ignores superior quality of other animals); and
4) his arguments run counter to Occams Razor, because there are superior and simpler explanations
1) I mean honestly, are you NOT AWARE that YOU exist? That ... that complex part of YOU that you CALL you, is a being of substance, not a creature of total instinct, but capable of thought, rationalization, ABLE to store past experiences and call them to the forefront at will? OF COURSE you have a soul!
2) Applying Human standards? PLEASE , are we NOT completely distinct from ALL SPECIES except Man? This is specifically WHY man cannot possibly have evolved as SCIENCE implies, because IF WE DID, being MADE from exact DNA Strands that differ ONLY IN DESIGN ...... there would BE MULTIPLE species CAPABLE of EQUAL ability as humans.... BUT there is ONLY One! Which would be impossible under any natural construct!
3) Superior Quality of the animals? Yeah that's why we live in air conditioned homes, eating steaks, chicken etc.. and the SUPERIOR ANIMALS eat what they can find and sleep where ever the can FIND to sleep. Superior .... yeah!
4) Occams Razor? are you kidding me? Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287"1347), I'm sure everyone else lives the whole of life concerned with Occam's Razor! That is the stupidest of them all, it falls right in there with Can God make a rock he cannot lift .... God doesn't exist to entertain the stupid? Why would such a rock BE NEEDED? What purpose would there be to CREATE such a Rock? and the infantile proclaim ... see God isn't all powerful? That is moronic in the extreme!
After all, Atheist put their entire SOUL in the balance when they ignorantly bought off on Evolutionary science without actually LOOKING at what the scientist based their theory on ..... INCOMPLETE AND IRRATIONAL DATA!
Don't feel bad, though it's not your fault that all those times YOU saw that lizard crawling out of the primordial ooze, it NEVER OCCURRED TO YOU to think ..... Hey? So HOW did the adult LIZARD form as and ADULT LIZARD? That's impossible!, okay it MUST have developed as a newborn, then grew up and crawled ..... Hey? wait a minute , That's impossible? How did the baby lizard SURVIVE to ADULTHOOD without an adult to CARE for it???? Who fed it? Who gave it water? well then HOW???????
That's right Children .... God created the Heaven and the Earth, the plants, trees, animals, birds, AND US, as ADULTS .... .... as Con so adequately put it ****POOF'd into existence!****
THERE IS NO POINT ARGUING Boys and Girls .... ONLY God poof's, make NO mistake about that! Science couldn't poof to save its Life.
That is because Man was created precisely as the Biblical text describes and only one who REFUSES to accept the TRUTH could think otherwise, and That's called SUPPRESSING the truth, and THERE are severe consequence of doing that!
Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
Revelations 22:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars"they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
So stay self deluding and die in your ignorance or seek God now, while He can STILL BE FOUND!
I know SOME of you THINK OTHERWISE .... FINE then ANY ONE of you, since Con is basically useless in this debate.
May have a bit more ability to reason can feel free to answer this:
Go back to your Scientific Literature and review Evolution! Answer me this?
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE, for millions of newborn creatures of all types, kinds and species, to come INTO EXISTENCE, and NOT be DEAD in days of inception .... because NO Adults were there to support and sustain them to Adulthood? No food, water, protection? I mean common SENSE dictates that Newborns CANNOT MOVE ABOUT on their own to seek sustenance ..... EVEN in the newborns of TODAY? So there should BE NO LIFE ON Earth!
There was no other way UNLESS you concede that they HAD to FORM AS ADULTS? WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE under ANY NATURAL means. That ONLY leaves the supernatural ..... God!
You already know Science has no way of claiming that an entire ecosystem sprung into existence AS adults, that's impossibility number 1!
Science also cannot possibly claim that an entire ecosystem sprang into being as newborns and SURVIVED TO ADULTHOOD, without adults to care for them? Impossibility number 2!
That leaves ONLY 1 possible, intelligent plausible way .... doesn't it? God created all creatures including MAN as adults, precisely AS THE Biblical text DESCRIBES!
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
1) Pro has failed to demonstrate that man's existence is unique. We can agree that man possesses unique abilities. But I would drive a wedge in there. Any other species could also be said to demonstrate a unique ability if you select for the right ability. No objective reason was offered as to why we should believe Pros arbitrary standards.
2) Pro has used logically fallacious methods in his attempt to prove god (see below). He defeats himself straight out of the gate and his conclusions are therefore unsound.
3) All the evidence is that we are looking at natural phenomena. Pro would need to overturn science to support his belief that we are looking only or even just mainly at supernatural intervention. Even then his conclusion would be inductive, which is not strong enough to use the word "proof" (as in Pros argument).
According to the generally accepted terms of Occams Razor, the natural explanation is always to be preferred over the supernatural. It is clear from the debate the Pro has failed to meet the necessary standards required for his high burden of proof. He has failed to demonstrate his contention and therefore the motion that "The Proof that God exists IS Mans unique existence" falls.
I would like to offer some further commentary on this debate which is not relevant to the conclusion. It is clear that my opponent is passionate about his faith and has expended considerable energy responding. It is equally clear we have very different views about the nature of reality, the purpose of a debate and conduct within it. Whilst we have different views it should still be possible for us to come together and discuss matters, the principles of which were laid out by Socrates (the so called Socratic method). Important to debates are some common ground that we can both share to enable us to move forward a discussion:
1) That the primary purpose of debate is to reach a better understanding and learn from each other (not to win or lose). If we both learn something then we are both winners
2) That whatever your view, reason and logic are main tools in guiding us through a discussion
3) That a debate is an exchange of ideas, not of dogma
That is not to say I wish to pull my punches. If I see a bad argument I will attack it with as much rhetorical flourish as I can muster. But then I expect my opponent to do the same. I have been involved in debates with Christians before and whether or not I "won" that debate, or not, I have come away with a new learning. I am thankful for that, that is a good thing. I am not so sure this debate afforded me this opportunity. My opponent has a different idea of debating to the one I espouse above. His view appears to be:
1) The most important thing is to declare yourself a winner, notwithstanding the quality of your arguments
2) That logically fallacious reasoning is to be embraced if it supports the conclusions you want
3) That a debate is a platform for preaching dogma
In general I do wonder about apologetics like this. It seems to me that the approach is indicative of a deeply held insecurity in ones own belief system. Rather like Dorothy closing her eyes, screwing her face up, tapping her shoes together, then repeating the mantra "there is no place like home". The apologist will screw their face up, repeat bible passages and ignore logic and reason, then repeat "god is real" in the desperate hope that wish thinking will transport them and their opponent to the "reality" of their Christian supernatural "Oz". It does not!
In this situation the failure of the Christian apologist to reason bravely, clearly and honestly is precisely because he is so utterly confused, broken and demoralised by his own religious beliefs. Their ego and self-confidence have been systematically removed by having to surrender their mind to dogma and literalism. The apologist is therefore desperate to shore themselves up, and make themselves feel better about believing a delusion by imagining that they have defeated whatever out-group they have conjured for themselves be it Atheists, Catholics, Scientologists or whomever. The corollary of this for them, is that when under attack they stick their fingers in their ears, and hope no-one notices when they realise their arguments are exposed for poverty of intellectual rigour and bravery. This was perhaps why Ayn Rand said the "religion attacks man's reason", she was indeed right and insightful on this point. It is an irony that Christian debaters in this position think their opponents are spawning hope. Infact the opposite is true there is little hope for their own individuality, freedom of thought, expression and self-confidence by submitting in such an abject way to something so obviously man made, that children see through it. They already assume themselves to be a worthless pawn, of an ultimate power, who they must worship whether they like it or not. They are not free men standing on their own two feet, but slaves to a literary tradition (of dubious heritage) and of course slaves to earthly demagogues, who unsurprisingly collect money from them and reinforce their minds with outrageous nonsense.
In this debate, to me, my opponent has shown this side of himself. He would do better to listen and reflect on some of the observations made on his arguments, and why they do not work, instead of shutting them out trying to claim he was right, because he was right because he was right etc etc. And if that wasn't enough to prove his point, here are a few bible passages that really prove it! Just look at his confused and dishonest representation of science. My opponent thinks he has a really powerful general argument against naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and its diversity. His "how come all the babies survived despite having no adults hypothesis" is a prime example of this confusion and dishonesty. Of course that is not the scientific hypothesis at all, and I do not wish to get dragged down into this nonsense. I will however given him a ladder to drag himself up and away from this embarrassing argument. Even a cursory examination of the subject will inform him the the so called R-strategy of raising infants (many offspring, with no parental care) is prevalent in a wide range of animals even today, for example the vast majority of fish (which are extremely complex compared to the first life forms on earth) and their populations manage just fine. The so called K-strategy (few offspring, but with parental care) is shared by a relatively small number of species. Of course there are intermediate strategies. My opponent will need to do the rest of the research for himself.
Worse than this though is his total failure to grasp the flaws in his reasoning. Just a sample of the lack of rigour proudly on display by Pro has been:
1) Bare assertions about the supernatural origin of humans. The explicit and implicit assumption that humans have souls etc with no support at all, and all the evidence against. The ad-hoc nature of the filtering of abilities he thinks support his intended conclusion.
2) Question begging by assuming his conclusions in his arguments, and by applying a human standard to the general animal kingdom.
3) Engaging in arguments by weight of numbers (ad populum). 2bn Christians can't be wrong! We should all pack up and go home then and not think anymore if 2bn Christians can't be wrong. But apparently this is true only when it suits his argument.
4) When it does not suit his argument he engages in a "No True Scotsman" fallacy to cover his tracks. 1.2bn evolution believing Catholics do not count as they apparently are not real Christians when it comes to this question. Infact worse still most of the 0.8bn remaining Christian denominations also accept evolution. But again I doubt they meet Pros arbitrary definition of "real Christian".
5) Arguments from false authority, the bible says it...it is therefore true as if we are to regard the bible as the authority on all matters relating to biology
6) Arguments from ignorance (I can"t imagine how X about humanity is true by natural means, therefore the Christian god is true)
These are issues of standards in a debate, even before we can debate the evidence. Is their any evidence Pro would accept as denying his proposition? What evidence can be shown to someone, who does not respect evidence?
He says I could have defeated his argument by pointing out an animal with human like qualities "to a human standard". I have already showed him why this is terrible reasoning, and a non-starter of a question. However, his view of what would defeat his position isn't even a good defeater in my opinion. If I did give him the example of say a "poetry writing owl", he could equally marvel at that and add that to his claim of evidences for a god.
He could (and maybe should) have argued that all animals were created by supernatural agency, and therefore all have unique qualities (which is true at least on some level). This at least is safer ground. But of course that argument was tried before in the 18th and 19th centuries, and it lost the battle for ideas with the acceptance of Evolution by means of Natural Selection. This means he doesn't only make a bad argument, but he also willing to accept bad reasons for accepting his own arguments invalidity. I have given him much better reasons why the argument is already dead-on-arrival and why his argument can equally justify believing the absurd (as in my parallel spider analogy).
Just because I find his arguments terrible should not take away from the fact Pro has shown the courage of his convictions and has had the initiative to start a debate. I wish him the best in his future studies in order that he can be the best, that he can be.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.