The Instigator
Pennington
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
jackintosh
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Theism is more reasonable than Atheism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Pennington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,075 times Debate No: 33137
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (59)
Votes (8)

 

Pennington

Pro

I thank anyone who accepts this debate. Good luck.

RESOLUTION: Theism is more reasonable than Atheism


Burden of Proof


In this debate Pro will assume the burden of showing that theism is more reasonable than atheism. Con will assume the burden of showing atheism more reasonable than theism.


Definitions


Atheism - disbelief in the existence of deity. http://www.merriam-webster.com......


Theism - belief in the existence of a deity.


http://www.merriam-webster.com......


Reasonable - being in accordance with reason; sound judgment.


http://www.merriam-webster.com......


Rules


1) No forfeited round is allowed. If any round are forfeited by either debater then that debater shall forfeit the Conduct and Argument points.


2) All sources and links shall be viewable for both debaters and readers. If either debater needs extra space for sources or links then they may post them in the comments section or an alternate source. If either debater does not follow this rule then that debater shall lose the source points.


3) No semantics or trolling allowed. If either debater chooses to act as a troll or argues with semantics then that debater shall lose conduct and argument points.


4) Any dropped points by either debater shall be viewed as a concession.


Rounds


1) Round one is for acceptance only.


2) The second round is for Pro to present his argument. Con shall also present a argument in round 2 or Con can choose to just rebuttal Pro.


3) The third round is for adding more arguments and to rebuttal previous arguments.


4) The last round is for closing rebuttals and a summation. No new arguments may be introduced. If arguments are introduced in the final round, that debater shall lose conduct and source points.


Again, I wish my opponent a good luck and await their acceptance.

jackintosh

Con

I accept and thank my opponent for the chance to debate this topic. I also agree with the definitions as written out above. Loking forward to it!!!
Debate Round No. 1
Pennington

Pro

Thank you Con for your acceptance.

In this debate I will offer two main contentions as to why theist are more reasonable than atheist. I will offer inside each contention sub-sets that should give a foundation for my main contentions.

C1) God necessarily exist.

C1A - Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Premise 1 seems obviously true as not to need defending. Objects don't pop into existence. They begin and end in a series of causes and effects. Every event is caused by, and determined by, some event or events that precede it in time.[1] What about our universe, did it have a cause?

Extrapolation of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity shows infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. This singularity is also known as the Big Bang, which can be considered the birth of our universe.[2] Therefore giving us reason to think the universe had a beginning and a cause.

One could ask why God is the exception to the rule. The reason God is the exception is because He never came into being but always was. As defined above, the substance must begin to exist. Therefore God is a necessary cause for life as we have it.

C1B - The Ontological Argument

Plantinga:

I. There is a possible world where a being has maximal greatness.

2. Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in all possible worlds.

3. Necessarily, a being is maximally excellent in all possible worlds only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.

4. It would be impossible for a being with maximal greatness not to exist in any possible world.

5. Therefore, a being of maximal greatness exists in all possible worlds.[3]

The Ontological argument purports to be an a priori[4] proof of God's existence. Starting with premises that do not depend on experience for justification and it proceeds by logical means to a conclusion that God exists. This view shows the atheist as not just mistaken but inconsistent in claiming to be reasonable yet denying God's probability.[5] This leads me to another argument that shows scientific reason to believe in God.

C1C - The Teleological Argument

1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design; they have a purpose.
2. The universe resembles these human artifacts.
3. Therefore: It is probable that the universe is a product of intelligent design, and has a purpose.
4. However, the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artifact is.
5. Therefore: There is probably a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.[6]

Teleological arguments are arguments from the order in the universe to the existence of God. The evidence for design is endless, so, I offer two examples.

a. DNA - genetic links unnaturally complex in size, function, and coded information. It is far too complex for random development.[7]

b. First Law of Thermodynamics - supports the supernatural model of origins. Energy is not created naturally and the universe is matter and energy. Therefore, the universe must have a supernatural creator. Atheistic models do not conform to the data available.

Intelligent design offers a consistent explanation for observed data from all life. This model is based off empirical testing and scientific reasoning. The atheistic model cannot offer better alternative explanations for our order and design. For us to have order in place there must be a mind to give law to that order. I submit order has a lawgiver who gives moral grounding.

C2) God is necessary for morality

I do not intend to imply that everyone who has morality needs to believe in God. What I will contend is humans have a moral truth's that comes from God. Therefore all people can have morality even if they do not believe in God. If there is no lawgiver then there is no objective moral value. This would mean there is no code of ethics that is universally valid, it simply would be about how we feel or what we decide.[8] By the atheistic view we have no order and therefore have no reason to have morality separate from other animals. This goes further into intelligent design, we cannot have higher conscious than other animals if not for a intelligent law giver.

C2A. Atheism has no basis

Atheism contends that only through social conditioning do we find acts which we find taboo and then we render them immoral. This thinking does nothing to really decide what is moral or not. By this explanation it seems morality(rights & wrongs) is just an illusion.

Atheism fails to present an adequate basis for thinking in a naturalistic outlook. It offers no value, conscious, personal or materialistic process that produces the type of moral values we place on ourselves.[9] Until my opponent addresses this point and offers a atheistic moral process, I will leave this point where it lies. If Con does claim atheism has moral basis he then will be incompatible with secularism.

C2B. Theism has a basis

As I have shown above, we have much reason to believe a maximum great being exist and with Him comes a maximum great goodness. If a maximum great being does exist then it seems reasonable to think we have maximum truth values on goodness and badness. A maximum badness would consist of values that are opposite to maximum goodness.

Unlike atheism, theism offers many reasons why we have moral truth values within us. Theism gives explanation for why we as human beings have certain moral behaviors ingrained. Things like rape and child abuse are considered immoral. From the atheistic side we are just animals and we make moral decisions as a herd. But, in the animal kingdom we see rape and parental neglect and we never think of it as immoral behavior. We have things like love and charity as human beings. If there are no moral truth values in life then things like love and charity are also just a instinct for survival.

God exist, so objective moral values & duties exist.

If a Maximally great being(ca2&3) is necessary then it follows that maximum goodness from Him exist. If a maximum goodness does exist then it logically follows that Laws were handed down by Him therefore requiring duty. Our moral experience works with our sensory experience and we perceive truths that we hold as morals. Just like our sensory abilities in the physical world we also apprehend internal moral by our natural senses. I contend God has given those moral senses to human beings with some becoming more accepting than others. There is no reason to deny that we have moral truths handed down from a higher cause.

Summation

I have shown that God probably exist. I have shown through scientific evidence our entire universe shows it was designed. I have implied that the designer gave internal laws that we call morals. I have shown that the morals are grounded throughout humanity. Therefore theism is grounded in rational thought from the surrounding universe. Atheism stays grounded in natural means which can never account for the universe, complexity, moral values and duties, and the logical argument for God.

Resources:

[1]

http://www.sfu.ca...

[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3]

http://www.lastseminary.com...

[4]

http://plato.stanford.edu...

[5]

http://www.princeton.edu...

[6]

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu...

[7]

http://www.uark.edu...

[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

[9]

http://www.paulcopan.com...

jackintosh

Con

C1:


My opponents’ reasoning has a fatal flaw. “Objects don't pop into existence. They begin and end in a series of causes and effects.” While this may seem like common sense in everyday world, the universe is more complex than just your living room implies.


The first law of Thermo Dynamics [1] clearly states that Energy can be neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed and transferred in an isolated system, which the universe is the very definition of [2]. This means that energy itself has no cause and no beginning; you misinterpret this to mean that it cannot be created naturally. You are wrong it cannot be created at all; to say otherwise is to call ignorance supernatural and you might as well believe that nebulas are made of pixie dust. Due to mass–energy equivalence, as expressed in general relativity, this means that the singularity (infinitely dense ball of matter) needed nether a creator, nor to even be created. As for the universe itself, it was created from vacuum which is also its current state. According to quantum theory (best idea as of right now), the apparently inert vacuum is not really empty at all, in fact matter (and even antimatter) “pop into” and out of existence within vacuums, known as vacuum fluctuations. [7] [11].


Your argument that God necessarily exists is a lack of understanding of proper physics, thus you have yet to show proof. As for how the singularity got there to begin with, there are a number of theories of which I have not the time to explain, but simply put even if these theories are wrong labeling ignorance god is not a logical statement.


C1B&C


Why? “4. It would be impossible for a being with maximal greatness not to exist in any possible world.”


To this “Human artifacts are products of intelligent design; they have a purpose.” David Hume has a few words to say that I will not rob him of here “A very small part of this great system, during a very short time, is very imperfectly discovered to us; and do we thence pronounce decisively concerning the origin of the whole?”


Also, to support this argument you must prove that Complexity implies design. The author of the citation hinted slightly at this but did not seem aware of a 1952 experiment called Miller–Urey experiment, where it was shown that conditions on the primitive earth was preferential for creation of organic compounds from inorganic matter, Amino acids, which is what DNA is based on.


C2 Morality


You make yet another fatal flaw, in your understanding of morality and its presence in animals seems to be lacking. Animals surely experience morals. [3] This is a relatively new subject that I am not entirely astute at just yet, however there are quite a few books and journals regarding these phenomena. [12]


C2A


I could write a book on this, but thankfully there have already been a few. [4][5] I cannot express how immoral I feel it is it is to think that raping and killing children could only be wrong if there is a god that says so. That statement itself is a proof that a moral truth can be held without god. You obviously believe you need god to tell you that raping and killing children is wrong and you do not see the moral issue with that belief, I however do.


I did not need a god to show me how to see your belief as immoral.


If god is the moral authority, he must have moral superiority. I will show here that god does not have moral authority. We can think of this as a sort of trial of god, with his own inspired works to serve as historical narrative. Here we entertain the thought that god is real and his actions are documented in the bible.


A Trial:


Genesis (The First Eugenics)


Eugenics a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits [10]


Noah, a descendant of the first man Adam, was a lone "righteous" man I the eyes of god. Corruption had spread through the generations and created a hostile environment and corrupt earth. Noah was instructed to build an ark to house the last of humanity (Noah’s family) and 2 of each creature. He then flooded the earth, killing every living creature he deemed was corrupted. God killed every being he deemed having less desirable traits (corruption) to promote the reproduction of those he saw as having more desirable traits, the first act of Eugenics.


We can see parallel in the actions of god with a familiar being of recent history:


God believed the earth had become violent, corrupted by the infusion of degenerate elements into its bloodstream. These had to be removed quickly (An interpretation of Genesis 6:13 through the lens of eugenics.)


Hitler believed the nation had become weak, corrupted by the infusion of degenerate elements into its bloodstream. These had to be removed quickly. Evans, Richard J. (2005). The Third Reich in Power.


These two beings committed the same atrocities (granted different reasons) and we deem Hitler and his NAZI eugenics program evil/ immoral, we must label God the same as well by comparison and thus both are immoral beings.


The An Act of Genocide


Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. [8]


Nation is: a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history. [9]


According to the definition, genocide has occurred when such conditions are met; reason is not one of the conditions for an act to be genocide. Even if the act was a punishment and intentions were righteous, it would still qualify via criteria met as genocide.


Sodom and Gomorrah citizens shared at least culture (since the whole of the people, save for the Sodomite Lot, had been corrupt, a corrupt culture is still a culture), & more than likely since this was a large permanent settlement, the majority shared descent and a history, making them a national group. The definition of nation clearly grants Sodom and Gomorrah the title. If nothing else the act of genocide on Gomorrah alone (where no one was spared) is reason enough to call god immoral/ evil.


If god can commit an act we deem as immoral today, would that not be an example our own ability to create a moral framework for ourselves? If we can conjure this ability within us, what need do we have of god to deliver it?


Conclusion:


You have not shown that god probably exists. Science actually is contradictory to your premise, [6] that universe had a designer. Rational theism is an oxymoron, as theism neither has neither logic nor reason to support it.


I have shown in my brief arguments that god has, through the eyes of modern man and our level of moral certitude, acted in an immoral fashion. This would implicate god as a being not bound by the perfections of moral superiority. If god can do something that we concede is immoral, then that means we have created the moral standard to be used, which means that we do not get our moral compass from any god. So why would we need this being at all?


To the resolution of the debate Theism is NOT more reasonable than Atheism since it makes assumptions of a deity’s existence that has not a logical basis.


[1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


[2] http://rationalwiki.org...


[3] http://www.oup.com...


[4] The Moral Landscape - Sam Harris


[5] The Blank Slate – Stephen Pinker


[6] The Blind Watchmaker – Richard Dawkins


[7] Immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space - William J. Kaufmann


[8] Funk, T. Marcus (2010). Victims' Rights and Advocacy at the International Criminal Court


[9] World Book Dictionary


[10] American Sociological Review 389,397


[11] Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle


[12] Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (a text book!)





Debate Round No. 2
Pennington

Pro

Thank you Con for your opening argument and rebuttal. My opponent seemed focused on the Bible last round even though this debate is about theism as a whole. Nevertheless I will address those remarks first.


A Trial:


Con seen it fit to compare Adolph Hitler with the God of Genesis. This comparison is a poor example by my opponent. If my opponent takes written scriptures from the Bible as a reliable source then he has already accepted it as a historical account. This means he also accepts that God is the creator of man and being a creator, God had the right to destroy creations that stood against His will. Men lived in His house(earth), and they were subject to His rules, His conditions, and His penalties.


God created man and Hitler did not. God had a level of authority that Hitler did not. The crimes of people on earth before the Flood are described as being extreme, and certainly deserving of death. Did the Jewish people commit extreme acts deserving of their fate? No. Do we not kill criminals who are deserving to this very day? Yes we do. This comparison is absurd.


Con brings up allegations of Biblical genocide. My opponent does not address the Canaanites but instead brings up Sodom and Gomorrah which were cities and not nation's themselves. The definition given by Con does not live up to the allegations here. I provide scripture to this:


2 Peter 2:6, "if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly."


Fatally showing Sodom and Gomorrah were cities, not nations. Genocide cannot be considered here. I will address this further if my opponent wishes to continue this path.


C1) God necessarily exist.



C1A - Whatever begins to exist has a cause


Con asserts my reasoning has fatal flaws but I think we will see it is his reasoning that has flaws. Con says the universe is more complex than my living room but this comparison isn't adequate. I can see and touch everything in my living room, I can test the objects in my living room. We cannot go in the reaches of space to test and touch the objects that dwell there. If we did, we may find that space is possible to be known and then becoming less complex, like my living room.


The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a principle that everything must have a reason for coming into existence.[1] Formally, the Principle states: For every fact F, there must be an explanation why F is the case. On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason[2], four classes of explanation fall under the principle’s rubric.


Sufficient reason provides forms of perspective for the subject from the object(First cause). The object remains merely perceived in the mind. This means only experience and perception give one proof about God. We should use our priori intellectual experience and perception. It is possible to investigate the phenomena of experience as a source for new knowledge. If we ignore any possibility of gaining this knowledge from experience, we then ignore possible reality. I contend atheism ignores such realities.


Con makes the mistake of thinking theism misrepresents the first law of Thermo Dynamics. Science has shown that our universe expanded(Big-Bang) and by the principle of sufficient reason, the expansion needs a cause. For appearance of this energy and matter supposedly from nothing, there had to be a cause outside time and physical space. This cause would not be directly inside physical space or time. Therefore the energy and matter did not come from nothing but a cause outside our physical understanding which is neither limited by matter nor time. This cause has all the properties we give God. Con claims the dense mass ball of matter needed no creator and I agree. I do not claim it was created but always existed. I claim it needs a cause to - Big Bang.


Con claims that vacuum fluctuations show that matter can pop in and out of existence. "Vacuum Fluctuation Models did not outlive the decade of the 1980s. Not only were there theoretical problems with the production mechanisms of matter, but these models faced a deep internal incoherence."[3] These models give a infinite past, we should observe a very old universe but we observe one that is too young for these models.[4] Con suggest we should rely on a broken theory instead of possibly considering outside means. Furthermore Con says I am illogical to assume a sufficient cause(I call God), caused the universe. Even if God does not exist that does not leave atheism as more reasonable.


C1B&C


Con ask why, why is it impossible for a maximal great being to not exist? Well, a maximally great being has, among other properties, necessary existence. So if it exists in any world, it exists in all of them!


Inference to the best explanation[5] means you have to find the best explanation from the data available. The best explanation for our universe is by design. Con quotes David Hume, well I will offer scientific quotes as well.


Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater)2001 "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."


Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer)


"I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."


Con mentions the Miller-Urey experiment(aka abiogenesis), as far as can be seen from the actual experimental work and knowledge, is not supportable from true science.[6] There is no reason for the rational person to accept assertions about abiogenesis, nor to consider the various abiogenetic theories as a reason to disbelieve in Creationism.


C2 Morality


Emotions ≠ morality.


Con admits animal research for morality is a new approach. He then asserts animals surely have morals, I think he confuses morals for emotion. He has a very loose definition and it seems to make morals meaningless. Animals don't have enough logic thought to arrive at a moral conclusion.[7] Con offers nothing for atheism here.


C2A


Con ignores my comment about people having morality regardless if they know God or not. My contention implies we have a conscious for morality and it is because we have a higher conscious that morality comes from. Con never addresses this. Con makes the mistake by assuming I suggest we need God to tell us raping or killing is wrong, not so. I said we were created by God and we reflect His morality and therefore we consider morality through Him.


Conclusion:


Let's go over what I have shown and what Con has shown. I have shown our minds can reveal God. I have shown that a mind is the most likely reason the universe and its complex nature, exist. Science recognizes the universe has order and design. Con did not offer anything to defend atheism. Con has not shown any moral base for atheism. We have more than enough reason to think a higher cause exist and Con has not shown any reason that is unreasonable. Con has shown his unreasonableness in this debate already by flat out denying that proposal.


Thank you back to Con.


Sources:


[1]


http://plato.stanford.edu...


[2]


http://en.wikipedia.org...


[3] Isham, "Creation of the Universe," pp. 385-87.


[4]


http://www.reasonablefaith.org...


[5]


http://www.informationphilosopher.com...


[6]


http://www.studytoanswer.net...


[7]


http://www.patheos.com...

jackintosh

Con

Thanks to pro for a very amusing argument. It seems like he did not look into any of the claims I made, or any of the sources, and for that I fear he has shown little more than his reluctance to educate himself.


Theism - belief in the existence of a deity.


Why I used the bible:


Christians believe in god because of the bible. Christianity is a form of theism by definition; I used only the bible because I could barely fit two examples I provided; much less fit all the examples from the myriad of other theistic texts.


God has a right to mass murder, yep that seems moral….


“God had the right to destroy creations that stood against His will.” What logical sense does that make? Does that mean if I built a house for someone else to live in, and three years into their living it in I can take a bulldozer to it? If you think so, then again I question your source of morality…


A mother can kill her child simply because she is the mother; she gave birth and thus life to it? No.


Eugenics, even if it’s done for a good reason, it’s still eugenics and still immoral.


“The crimes of people on earth before the Flood are described as being extreme, and certainly deserving of death.” As I pointed out reason for the act committed does not play into the definition of the act itself, eugenics.


“Did the Jewish people commit extreme acts deserving of their fate? No.” I am sure that was what Hitler said while he was propagandizing against them and killing them.


The death penalty is a debate for another time, but I also believe this to be immoral as well. And yet you do not. If we were both given morals from the same god (whiter I believed or not) wouldn’t I find capital punishment as moral as you do?


I showed how the two “cities” could be considered nations. I even gave a solid definition and rational that shows the definition fits the situation. How is the definition of nation NOT fitting? What is not true about Gomorrah being a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history?


However, let’s forget that part for a second, so you are saying that it was moral for god to destroy everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah? How can the intentional mass murder of anyone, for anything, anywhere, at any time, by any being (supernatural or not) be moral, how can any of that be right? The morality of anyone who says it is forgivable to mass murder must be questioned.


The laws of the universe are simple, it’s called god!


Are you really arguing that the universe is as simple as the things you can touch and feel in your living room? “…space is possible to be known and then becoming less complex, like my living room.”


Surely this was a joke? That would be like saying simply because you know calculus that a calculus problem is not complex.


Muddy waters of logic


As for the Principle of Sufficient Reason, did you not look at my sources at all? I will try to explain quickly, for every entity X, if X exists, then there’s an explanation for why X exists. For the entity we call energy, if the entity exists, there is a reason why. In the case of energy it is because of the first law of Thermo Dynamics, it cannot be destroyed or created is the reason. Principle of Sufficient Reason, says nothing about creation, only reason for existence.


Energy, by the way, is a measurement, like height. Height doesn’t exist it describes something that does. Energy, the measurement/ description does not exist, but the “something” it describes does.


How to write a fallacy:


As for the big bang, you make the fallacy that I warned you against, labeling ignorance god. I admit, we do not know the initial cause, or at least there isn’t a theory that I see as plausible yet to explain it. However, simply because you do not know the answer does not imply a supernatural being did it, argument from ignorance fallacy. You even admit to this fallacy here:


“… energy and matter did not come from nothing (did you even look at Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?) but a cause outside our physical understanding which is neither limited by matter nor time. This cause has all the properties we give God.” And that ladies and gentlemen is a fallacy. If it is a fallacy to believe in god that by logical deduction means that atheism is more reasonable.


What is science? Simply put, here is and idea lets prove it wrong!


"Soup" theory, Eigen's hypothesis, Fox's experiments, Deep sea vent hypothesis, Coenzyme world, RNA world, Lipid World etc…


As you can see, if something in science does not fill in all the blanks and all the questions, science does not simply give up. Scientists work on other ideas, put pieces of one to another and test, and continue that. We are still doing that! Again, to think that god is the answer is a fallacy.


Do you understand logic?


“Even if God does not exist that does not leave atheism as more reasonable.”


So believe in something (god) that does not exist is more reasonable that the belief that nothing ever existed in the first place? ”Even if god does not exist,” which means he never existed (since the part of the definition of god is eternal), then believing that he never existed in the first place is not more reasonable than an imaginary friend?


How would you logically come up with reason supporting something that in fact does not exist that, and still be more reasonable than the logic of: I do not observe, there is no record, no evidence and I cannot measure the existence of (god, fairies, flying carpets, talking fish, magic wands) so they must not exist?


Emotions ≠ morality


Any example I post here will be anecdotal so I will refrain and simply say read the books, there is an evolution of morality.


“Con ignores my comment about people having morality regardless if they know God or not.”


“I did not need a god to show me how to see your belief as immoral.”


&


“If god can commit an act we deem as immoral today, would that not be an example our own ability to create a moral framework for ourselves? If we can conjure this ability within us, what need do we have of god to deliver it?”


I will ask again, if god, any god, can commit an act I see as immoral, this shows that I do not need that god to give me morality.


I see any god who created man without the intellect to understand his will as an immoral act of creation; they did not make us perfectly capable of understanding them. I see that as a flaw in our creation and to make us with a flaw I see is immoral. I also see making humanity so that we can die as a flaw, another immoral imperfection “cooked” into us.


Your conclusions… I am sorry to hear that


“I have shown our minds can reveal God.” Nope where did you prove this? You have just shown that your mind cannot get around the idea that god doesn’t exist.


”I have shown that a mind is the most likely reason the universe and its complex nature, exist.” Nope, you just don’t know enough about the creation and the existence so you call it god, you admitted that.


“Con did not offer anything to defend atheism.” I did, several times, and even gave recommended reading. Morality has evolved and in some ways is embedded into our genetics. Most people have the moral belief that killing is wrong. You think it’s because god told you not to. However, if you examine the purpose of life is to beget more life, we have children to pass on our traits. Killing people is contrary to that instinctual desire to reproduce, and that is where the morality against murder came from. This is really simplified, but if you read some of my citations you may understand better. Not everyone has the same morals, just like not everyone has the same traits. Obviously personal experience also plays into our individual moral framework.


“Con has not shown any moral base for atheism.” Again, I am an atheist, I think that you only not killing babies are morally wrong only because god said so is and immoral belief. I have morals, I have no god and if I did then I would hold the same moral believe as you and would not consider that belief immoral.


I ran out of characters.






Debate Round No. 3
Pennington

Pro

Thank you Pro.

RESOLUTION: Theism is more reasonable than Atheism

Burden of Proof

In this debate I showed that theism is more reasonable than atheism. Con did not assume the burden of showing atheism more reasonable than theism. In this debate I offered two main contentions as to why theist are more reasonable than atheist.

C1) God necessarily exist.

C1A - Whatever begins to exist has a cause
"I will try to explain quickly, for every entity X, if X exists, then there’s an explanation for why X exists."

Yes that is correct. But, then when one goes back you will finding a never ending cycle and the cycle must end because the universe had a beginning and the only thing that ends that cycle is a first uncaused cause.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle were, in fact, seen as twin targets by detractors. According to their interpretations of quantum mechanics, there is no fundamental reality, just a prescription for calculating experimental results. There is no way to say what the state of a system fundamentally is, only what the result of observations might be. Some experiments within the first decade of the twenty-first century have cast doubt on how extensively the uncertainty principle applies. http://en.wikipedia.org...

C1B - The Ontological Argument
The Ontological argument starting with premises that do not depend on experience for justification and it proceeds by logical means to a conclusion that God exists. Con ignores this argument.

C1C - The Teleological Argument
"Are you really arguing that the universe is as simple as the things you can touch and feel in your living room?"

If one is capable of researching the universe as they can things on earth then yes the universe would become less complex. Intelligent design offers a consistent explanation for observed data from all life. This model is based off empirical testing and scientific reasoning. The atheistic model cannot offer better alternative explanations for our order and design.

C2) God is necessary for morality

This would mean there is no code of ethics that is universally valid, it simply would be about how we feel or what we decide.[8] By the atheistic view we have no order and therefore have no reason to have morality separate from other animals.

C2A. Atheism has no basis
"I will ask again, if god, any god, can commit an act I see as immoral, this shows that I do not need that god to give me morality."

You have not shown any immoral act yet. All you have done is express your moral standard without any logic behind it.

"Morality has evolved and in some ways is embedded into our genetics."

This is what I contend. How can it be ingrained in us without someone ingraining it in us. If no one did then we would just develop morals throughout life and have no reason to love or find acts immoral unless taught too. My opponent admits it is in genetics. Until my opponent addresses this point and offers an atheistic moral process, I will leave this point where it lies.

C2B. Theism has a basis
As I have shown above, we have much reason to believe a maximum great being exist and with Him comes a maximum great goodness. Theism gives explanation for why we as human beings have certain moral behaviors ingrained. From the atheistic side we are just animals and we make moral decisions as animals would.

A Trial:
"What logical sense does that make? Does that mean if I built a house for someone else to live in, and three years into their living it in I can take a bulldozer to it? If you think so, then again I question your source of morality…"

You are putting men on equal ground with God. We should think about as so:

If we had a herd of cattle(cows), do we think of them as humans? They have their use and we care for them but consider them equal. As so God does think the same about humans. If we had cattle that was infectious to the other cattle would we not separate them from the healthy? I think we would.

"A mother can kill her child simply because she is the mother; she gave birth and thus life to it?"

You are still putting people on a equal footing with God and they are not.

"Eugenics, even if it’s done for a good reason, it’s still eugenics and still immoral."

My explanation above with the cows shows that ridding the flock of infectious cows can be moral.

“As I pointed out reason for the act committed does not play into the definition of the act itself, eugenics."

This is simply semantics. My opponent wants us to believe because I have given reason how a act we consider immoral can be moral that it is still immoral because we think it is. Nonsense. There is a perfectly good reason to eliminate peoples who infect the other people.

"What is not true about Gomorrah being a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history?"

My opponent simply is not recognizing that Sodom and Gomorrah had the same language, culture, ethnicity, descent, as many surrounding cities. Those cities even went further in history than Sodom and Gomorrah. They were cities within a whole nation.

"so you are saying that it was moral for god to destroy everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah? How can the intentional mass murder of anyone, for anything, anywhere, at any time, by any being (supernatural or not) be moral, how can any of that be right? The morality of anyone who says it is forgivable to mass murder must be questioned."

Yes it was moral and if you remember Abraham pleaded for the cities but not even five righteous was found. You obviously you have not been in war or been in a situation were people are killers and rapist and were no negation is possible. I guess you leave them alive to later kill you and your family.

"As you can see, if something in science does not fill in all the blanks and all the questions, science does not simply give up."

My opponent suggests those that believe in God, just gives up logic and science. I never claimed no such thing. To have logic we look for answers to problems and Con want us to stay in no man land hoping we find the answers. My opponent has no shown that atheism is more reasonable then theism.

Thank you Con. Vote Pro.
jackintosh

Con

I almost feel sorry for you if you honestly feel this way. If you are just debating the topic for sake of debate, a challenge to your mind, then that is fine, I do that all the time! But, if you truly feel that the life of cows is not equal to the life of man, than I’m afraid you have a serious issue with respect of life.



C1A:


“…you will finding a never ending cycle and the cycle must end because the universe had a beginning and the only thing that ends that cycle is a first uncaused cause.”


Why must the cycle end? If there is a substance, we call energy, that exists and that substance cannot be created or destroyed, how can it be at all possible to end the cycle? The energy in the system would just exist, continuously, never ending in different forms and states but for infinity existing.


SCIENCE


Heisenberg principle and its implications is unfinished, like all of science! Science is the practice of “I don’t know, lets figure try to figure it out!” It does not answer every question, but it seeks to do so! That is what science is for!!!!! How come that is so difficult for theists to understand?


Science is a never ending book, it’s a constant search for truth an endless barrage of questions, proofs, ignorance, knowledge…. It does not end and as long as the last scientist is breathing that quest for WTF is happening will always be asked. with “God did it!” is the worst mistake humanity can make in the pursuit for understanding.


C1B - The Ontological Argument


I flat out asked you why on #4, the logic that god exists because he must is circular. I neither ignored nor accepted as true this argument, and you never properly addressed it. Just for fun, it’s a bit of a play or semantic but, with that exact “logic” we can disprove god as well:


Juan Manuel Correa:


A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and


A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.


It is possible that there is not a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)


Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist.


Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.


Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.


C1C - The Teleological Argument


NO! The universe, even once we have a complete understanding (which we probably never will) will not be a simple as the example of what is in your room. I cannot accept this as an authentic point; it’s just too silly to even think that people think this way. I can research anything I want on earth; I can read how the blood pulses through my body that does not take away from the complexity of the query or its answer. I even addressed this faulty logic with the idea of calculus, no matter how good at it you are, there will always be problems that are complex! A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare


As for Intelligent design I quote “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” George Bernard Shaw


“The atheistic model cannot offer better alternative explanations for our order and design.” Atheists tend to rely on science, and I assume that is what angle you are using for this comment. So I will address this by again saying, just because we don’t know yet does not mean it is god that did it. That is, ONCE AGAIN a fallacy.


C2


“This would mean there is no code of ethics that is universally valid” DIGN DING DING DING!!!! Yes exactly that is entirely true!!! It would be exactly a mix of the evolved moral basis that we all have (like my explanation on murder) as well as community and personal experience. The Mormons used to have polygamy, I personally find this to be immoral, but that also goes against my genetic moral imperative to to reproduce with as many people as possible to cause the most life. We all have different morals; there is not a single moral code that is universal for all, anywhere! I have to say this is the most logical statement you have made so far!


C2A


“…your moral standard without any logic behind it” once again you hit the nail on the head, it is MY moral standard, not yours, not my fathers, not gods. It is entirely MY OWN which means once again, I made the logic for it. I can explain my entire moral code to you logical if you like, but 8000 character wouldn’t be nearly enough. The point is that I did not need god for it!


Morality is in part genetic, I gave an example. I even gave a textbook citation for you to read “Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved.” You contend that god gave us all morals, if that were so, as I said previously, then we would all have the same morals, which we do not.


Re-trial:


Why shouldn’t we as men be on equal foot as god? What logical argument does one have that make us unequal to god? Saying “the bible says so” is not a rational reason. The bible also gives rules for selling daughters, are you going to a trial for human trafficking with “the bible said I can do it!?”


If we are unequal to god, then it is because god made us this way and I feel that that is immoral, here is my logic:



  1. 1. Equality is good

  2. 2. God makes man

  3. 3. Man is unequal to god

  4. 4. Man is not made good

  5. 5. God intentionally made us inferior

    1. a. -> that is immoral for someone who can do anything, including make us equal, but chose not to.



Using your example, a group of sick cows in quarantine, sure that is fine! Nothing is wrong with that; I separate myself from the world when I am sick, that is logical! But that analogy does not compare at all with what god did.


To take a field of cattle that may be sick and instead of heal them, treat their illness or at least limit any suffering that animal(s) has so that it can live out its life in as much peace as possible and die with dignity, we burn them all alive (as god did in Sodom and Gomorrah) that would be inhumane and immoral, you did not dispute this at all.


Nice dodge by the way, you didn’t dispute that they were in fact the exact definition I presented of a national group, instead you rely again on the bible simply call thing them cities. This point has to go to me, the definition fits, that was not disputed with any rational other than “the bible says so.”


I am sorry…


In regards to mass murder: “Yes it was moral.” I feel sorry for you, and humanity. Excusing immorality and giving god a free ride to moral purity, in inexcusable. Why is atheism more reasonable than theism, we do not give anyone the label of perfection, certainly not someone that can commit mass murder.


Con shows the following reasons for why theism is more reasonable:


C1A - Whatever begins to exist has a cause


But does not know that energy is not created, leaving us with the knowledge that his premise is an assumption.


C1B - The Ontological Argument


Con did not address my question regarding his retelling of this old argument. The argument has the fatal flaw of affirming god exists simple because it’s possible, with that logic I can also prove the Flying spaghetti monster and bigfoot.


C1C - The Teleological Argument


“…because you know calculus that a calculus problem is not complex.” A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. George Bernard Shaw


C2) God is necessary for morality


I have different morals that Con based on my own logic, thus I do not need god for morality. If I do not need god for my morality then this argument is false.


C2A. Atheism has no basis


I said clearly, morality is genetic as well as learned from the community and derived from personal experience.


C2B. Theism has a basis


A fallacious, immoral, lost in translation basis with holes in knowledge and understanding…


“You don’t have to be brave or a saint, a martyr, or even very smart to be an atheist. All you have to be able to say is “I don’t know”.” Penn Jillette


Debate Round No. 4
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
By the way, jackintosh, I see that you are catching up in points. Maybe it's too early to call the match. Good luck to you, sir!
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
@jackintosh, you're most welcome. I realize you remain troubled by Pennington's comment that even if god does not exist, then atheism is still not not automatically more reasonable than theism. To a point, I actually agree with him. I will explain why, and also touch upon what that means for those of us who reject the God Hypothesis.

The rationale can be summed up with two words: "placebo effect." A theist still has a (flawed) basis upon which to structure their lives. An atheist, as it appears at first glance anyway, does not. So even if prayer is nothing more than the psychological equivalent of a sugar pill, as long as it gives a sense of comfort, peace, and is used as a form of meditation, there can be tangible benefits.

A long time ago I used to do sales, and one of the lessons I learned is that people generally do not buy based on logic. They take action only out of EMOTION. You can't reach the part of someone's mind that houses their belief system unless they are emotionally engaged and in tune with you. That's a big part of why Christianity was so successful in its infancy, and still is. "Become all things to all people" was Paul's admonition, and it worked pretty well. First Christians will relate to you, act nicely towards you, earn your respect and even admiration, and THEN they share their views, which are filled with hope and feelings of safety and comfort. That model has worked well for them. Rather than only criticize the success of the religious and belittle them, atheists should study successful religions, learn from them, and adopt useful strategies as their own. Is that not evolution at its finest? Is that not survival of the fittest ideas, even if they came from imperfect sources?

@devient.genie: If you'd like to debate me, challenge me to a topic and I'll likely accept so as to put you in your place. Otherwise I have no reason to do anything but ignore you.
Posted by Olorin 3 years ago
Olorin
Pro has merely defined god into existence. This is not quite adequate.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
Cut 'our' hair'.

A serious debate about a pound of bricks and a pound of feathers, if someone says the pound of bricks is heavier, they are a moron :)

Political correctness is overrated in instances where the information is harmful to society :)

Teaching creationism alongside verifiable science is despicable and deserves nothing but ridicule and contempt.

Grow up, and do a better job calculating risk :)

Its extremely risky to keep dragging outdated ideals into each century as mankind strives to advance to a higher standard :)

Quotes 5:5--"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this."-- Albert Einstein :)

Tell Albert to be Nice and not make fun of ignorance Captain Save A Ho! :)
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
"Talking as if anyone who disagrees with you is a moron"

Totally acceptable in cases where someone claims existence of leprechauns, unicorns, bugs bunny, or when a grown adult says the reason for all the stars and galaxies, the sub atomic world and DNA made an appearance in the middle east to let us know how to cut out hair :)
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
Chase200mph
jackintosh, you're too nice....religion is a disease. : )
Posted by jackintosh 3 years ago
jackintosh
calculatedr1sk Thank you!! As for the bad spelling and grammar. I wrote most of that debate during lunch on.my cell phone browser. That hopefully explained why "someone" turns into "Simone." All the same I feel its total acceptable to give the G&S to Pro. That is not where I am lost however,

If someone asks me a scientific question but expects an answer I'll give a scientific answer. That is where I am not understanding. Ignorance of scientific endeavors and the meaning behind those pursuits that's not proof of being a moron its proof of ignorance. A moron is someone that will continuously use fallacies after they have been pointed out. Like ontological argument and the statement "even if god doesn't exist theism is still more reasonable than atheism." How that comment alone doesn't throw someone of a sound mind into a tail spin confuses my inadequate mind.

But thank you for trying to explain it to me. And again sorry for typos, I am in a car on my phone.
Posted by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.

Similarly, debate doesn't determine who's right. Debate determines who was more persuasive.

I have no doubt William Lane Craig would wipe the floor with any one of us. But as good as any of the theists in this community think they are, I also have no doubt that Sam Harris would crush them handily.

If you want specifics of what I was trying to tell you earlier, here are some observations just about your last post:

"I very clearly have different morals than Simone that follows god," could have been better written as "Simone, WHO follows god, clearly has different morals than I do."

"If that's not leaping to a conclusion premature then I don't know what is" should instead have been "premature conclusion."

It seems picky of me to call out things like this, but you do it often, and bad grammar and spelling WILL cost you points. It is one of the metrics that voters are asked to grade!

Better conduct is another area that could use work for you. Talking as if anyone who disagrees with you is a moron is a very ineffective way to communicate, and I think a lot of Atheists have this weakness when they debate, just as a lot of fundamental Christians do.

I hope this critique will help.
Posted by jackintosh 3 years ago
jackintosh
How am I wrong though? I very clearly have different morals than Simone that follows god. That has got to be proof of moral relativism.

I completely dissolved the ontological argument and the teleological was complete nonsense, god made us was the premise for goodness sake. If that's not leaping to a conclusion premature then I don't know what is.

And is no one counting how many documented fallacies were used? Ilas far as sources, honestly Wikipedia vs a textbook?

Can no one explain the weakness of my arguments without saying things as fallicious asbecause I'm citing the bible as a possible historical record for the actions of god I must accept that god cannot be judged? What sense does that make?
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
@ Jackingtosh

I am not here to educate you about the morality argument, that's what the debate is about, learn from that......Obviously, either most voters in this debate conclude wrongly that your answer towards the morality argument is not a sufficient answer, or, you are right and we are all wrong....It Is possible that multiple people who voted are wrong, or it might be, just might be possible, it is you who does not see their fault...... I suggest the latter.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
PenningtonjackintoshTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter devient.genie.
Vote Placed by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
PenningtonjackintoshTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Theism and Leprechaunism have equal amounts of evidence, there is no debate
Vote Placed by Chase200mph 3 years ago
Chase200mph
PenningtonjackintoshTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources, the bible is NOT a source, never has been, never will be I fault pros position and sided with Con just for this reason. Pros moral argument was conjecture and unsupported. I also disagree with the comment that debates are ALL about persuasion. The idea that debates in this area have become popularity contests is distasteful to say the least. Debate in thi8s forum has a voting structure that allows and this unfortunate: nevertheless, the latter as is concerns formals debates does not?.. I would certainly challenge this debates credibility because it professes science and magic while begging the question of god. I am also giving a tie vote for spelling, while con may have more errors, Pro uses the Christian term ?God? with a cap G. The term god is not and has never been a proper name even by biblical texts as in the original texts; the term only refers to god?s as written in the plural tense.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
PenningtonjackintoshTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough one... Conduct: In round 3 the insults started from con, calling a well written argument a joke; in the closing round "if you truly feel that the life of cows is not equal to the life of man, than I?m afraid you have a serious issue with respect of life." It was a good appeal to emotions, but it failed for me. In addition to yelling (caps lock). Argument: Both sides made several errors when it comes to current scientific theory. Pro mostly stayed on topic making a good case for general theism (asking the question) being more rational than to not; whereas con went off track looking at a single religion, and confusing atheism with science (as pro cited a few important scientists who are religious, it's included in the argument that they are not the same thing). The moral argument would have gone father comparing different religions killing each other in the name of morals. So no theism is not more rational than science, but atheism was not aquatically defended (and is not science)
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
PenningtonjackintoshTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: No contest. Pennington provided many arguments and Con didn't do very well t refute them at all. Con failed to deal with morality and the ontological argument completely. Conduct to Pro because Con's little statements about pro needing to "educate" himself were very uncalled for.
Vote Placed by GeekiTheGreat 3 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
PenningtonjackintoshTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I still don't think that using Wikipedia counts as a reliable resource. Pro did clearly disregard any facts that con brought up as well.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
PenningtonjackintoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both offered very strong arguments but Pennington stuck more rigidly to the topics in hand and had jackintosh slightly on the backfoot, Con had no valid explanation out of the morality argument and also threw in the Miller?Urey experiment as if it was they who resolved the question to how the origin of life began, I saw this at clutching at straws....But not bad overall.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 3 years ago
HeartOfGod
PenningtonjackintoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: jackintosh did not attack the morality problem properly. I give arguments to pro