There is A God
Debate Rounds (5)
(1) Math is a Product of Intelligent Minds
In the movie "Contact," astronomers were able to look for intelligent life just by looking for things such as a sequence of prime numbers within a signal. Now, why would such a signal prove intelligent beings sent it? Why could it not be a product of natural forces or blind chance? It seems very unlikely to have meaningful information, and a consistent pattern which is independent of (not obviously caused by) the laws of nature. Something just as simple as a list of prime numbers is easy for us to see as the product of an intelligent mind. Yet, there is far more complex mathematics in nature all around us which shows that a vastly more intelligent being than we ourselves must have designed this universe upon a mathematical structure. Take for example the Fibonacci Sequence which begins with either 0, 1 or 1, 1, and each number following this is always the sum of the previous two numbers, so that you'll get 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55...This exact sequence is found in the design of living things such as the branching in trees, arrangement of leaves on a stem, the fruitlets of a pineapple, the flowering of artichoke, an uncurling fern, the arrangement of a pine cone, and the family tree of honeybees. (Douady, S; Couder, Y (1996), "Phyllotaxis as a Dynamical Self Organizing Process" (PDF), Journal of Theoretical Biology 178 (178): 255"74; Jones Judy; Wilson, William (2006), "Science", An Incomplete Education, Ballantine Books, p. 544, Brousseau, A (1969), "Fibonacci Statistics in Conifers", Fibonacci Quarterly (7): 525"32; "Marks for the da Vinci Code: B"". Maths. Computer Science For Fun: CS4FN) The applicability of mathematics of the physical world makes no sense if there is no God. Why would there be this happy coincidence that after the Big Bang, everything sort of just fell into place upon a mathematical structure? I don't have enough faith to believe this mathematical equation https://upload.wikimedia.org...... which the florets in the head of a sunflower are programmed to follow as they grow was made by blind, purposely, unguided chance. It seems more logical to me that just as a building is built according to its blue-print, that the universe and the life in it was created upon a mathematical structure because God designed it that way. I ask my opponent, why is nature written in the language of math? Is not math a product of a mind?
(2) The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
Life in this universe depends upon a complex balance of forces, so finely tuned that if we change any of them by even a hair's breadth, life would not exist, we would not be here. If, for example, the expansion rate of the universe one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball. There would be no planets, no life. (Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), p. 123) The odds of getting favorable conditions for later star formation which leads to the existence of planets is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes. (P. C. W. Davies, Other Worlds (London: Dent, 1980), pp. 160-161, 168-169) If you change the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10 to the 100th power, no life would exist in the universe. Not just carbon based life like ours, but also silicon based life, any physical kind of life we can imagine. (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) I could go on to list more than 40 more examples of other constants that must be finely tuned to permit life; and not only must these forces be fine-tuned, but their ratios to one another must also be finely tune for the universe to be life sustaining.
There is no known natural law of physics that would cause these forces to be turned the way they are. They didn't have to be this way. So how could the mindless forces of nature get them all right in a single go at the Big Bang? The chances of that happening is simply too small to logically conclude that's what happened. Physicist Paul Davies was once an agnostic, but this evidence is so powerful, that after a lifetime of discovering more and more about how this universe seemed set up just so we could be here, he commented: "Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact." (Paul Davies, The Mind of God (New York: Simon & Schuster: 1992), p. 16) Notice he didn't come to this position by faith, or by reading the Bible, but through examining scientific evidence. Robert Jastrow, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, calls this the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science. (Robert Jastrow, "The Astronomer and God," in The Intellectuals Speak Out about God, ed. Roy Abraham Varghese (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984), p. 22) Fred Hoyle declares: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics." (Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Engineering and Science (November, 1981), p. 12)
The fine tuning of the universe is either due to physical necessity, chance, or design. There is no evidence of any law of physics that would make it physically necessary for the forces in nature to be tuned to these specific quantities. They could have been anywhere on the dial. Secondly, the odds of them all falling into such precise locations by chance is simply too small to face. The only option left is design. The universe was designed by someone.
(3) What God Must be Like
My two arguments above demonstrate that some being created the universe. Since the universe is by definition all of nature (if you look up the word "nature," the dictionary will basically tell you nature is the whole universe, all the things in it and how they naturally function), then any being that creates the universe is outside of nature, thus, is supernatural. If He created all of matter, then he cannot be physical. To combat this point Pro would have to demonstrate there is matter outside of our universe, which he cannot do. Imagine the amount of power it would take to create the entire universe with all its suns and stars? I don't how much that is, but you're going to have to imagine something very close to what the Bible calls "God."
(4) The Resurrection of Jesus
There are four facts that are agreed upon by the vast majority of historians concerning Jesus Christ:
1) Jesus" burial in a tomb by Joseph of Aramathea. As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin which Jewish Christians despised and vice versa, its unlikely that the church would invent a story of a Sanhedrin member who does what is right by Jesus.
2) The discovery of his empty tomb by a group of His women followers. The testimony of women was not considered reliable in first century Palestine, so no one would make up a story with women as the first witnesses if they wanted others to believe it.
3) His post-mortem appearances. Historians generally agree that individuals and groups of people had experiences of seeing Jesus alive after his crucifixion.
4) The origin of the disciples" belief in his resurrection. These disciples became willing to proclaim this message in the face of stiff opposition despite having every reason not too.
In the absence of any plausible, naturalistic explanation of these facts, I'm justified in concluding that God raised Jesus from the dead. But that entails that God exists.
In this topic we need to use reason , we need logic and we need to ask questions ( WHY ?) and make assumptions in some points deliver the idea behind disbelieving :
1- Why did god create human ? what is the purpose ? is it to entertain him ? Does god need entertainment ? No ? Then why ? can't the almighty powerful god live by himself and do anything on his own ? what did he create us for ? was he lonely ? i think gods don't get lonely only poor imperfect humans do.
2- Did god create us to worship him ? In my religion we pray 5 times a day , when i asked parents why do we pray they said to "thank god for his grace" beautiful words and yeah we humans are blessed indeed but , why will god be angry if i didn't thank him ? ....so angry that he will burn me in hell ? , Why does the perfect god need my gratitude I'm just an ant to him. Doesn't it look that way to you like god is more like a human ? feeding his ego by forcing others to pray to him.
3- Let's assume , god created us out of love (which doesn't make sense) why are we taking a test (life) that we have to pass leading us to the next point. Why didn't god forgive Adam for eating the fruit , if he is so forgiving as it's said in the holy books ? He is punishing human race as a whole , for an individual sin. God isn't justice as it's mention in the holy books.
Satan is a devil , which encouraged Adam to sin and also encouraging the human race on earth to sin , Wait wait..why did god create devil at the first place ? It's said that Satan was an angel that rebel on god , why didn't the almighty god just kill him.
4- We see those who were born poor , rich , born in corrupted society , or ill. we usually have different conditions but we are taking the same test , so someone who was born with cancer or crippled , goes on a hell on earth while others are born to enjoy their lives. the universe doesn't look too fine tuned to me.
- Now what i proved here is that holy books are wrong about god characteristic , if god exists he is definitely a psycho.
but i don't think he exists at all because creation is a never ending cycle.
Let's assume god created human beings , then can you tell me who created god ? Why are you convinced that god can't have a creator but unconvinced that humans are created by mere chance just like god is.
at this point if you think rationally , believing there is a powerful mighty god up there with some angels serving him makes less sense than accepting the fact we were created randomly somehow , doesn't have to be god or big bang...the fact that we don't know how we exist, isn't a motive to create illogical explanations.
Con gave a number of questions I am quite pleased to answer, none of which refutes any of my arguments presented in round 1.
"1- ..can't the almighty powerful god live by himself and do anything on his own ? what did he create us for ? was he lonely ?..." No, He wasn't lonely, and He certainly can do things on His own. The fact that He made us doesn't imply that He was lonely, anymore than the fact that women have children proves that they do so because they are lonely and can't do anything on their own. God created us because He desired to share the gift of life. Aslo, in Christianity, God being a Trinity rules out Him being lonely since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit always existed before creation to give each other company (Gen 1:26; John 1:1; Matthew 28:17-20). He wanted to share companionship, and mirror this aspect of Himself by having other families around, hence a mother, father, and child (three persons again to make a family). God is a people person, a sharing, generous being, that's why He created us.
"2- Did god create us to worship him?" He wants us to respect His position as Creator which involves worshipping Him. To worship God means to make Him the centre of our lives. It makes sense that only the manufacturer of a product knows how best to use it and keep it in good condition. As our manufactuer, God knows how best we should live, and so it makes sense that He should want us to always be in close relationship with Him in order to receive from Him his guidance on how we should operate. If you are a parent, don't you want your children to respect you, and obey the rules of your house while they live in it? Why shouldn't God want us to obey Him, and be close to Him? Why would that be egotistical or wrong in any way?
"why will god be angry if i didn't thank him?" How would you feel if after all your love and care your children turned out to be ungreatful? Wouldn't you be disappionted in them? God doesn't "need" your gratitude anymore than the average parent "needs" the gratitude of their children, but just because they don't "need" it doesn't mean they don't "deserve" it, or that they shouldn't "want" it! When I do good deeds for my family and friends I expect them to at least show appreciation. Why do you have an issue with God expecting the same common decency from us that we expect from others?
No, God doesn't send people to hell just for being ungrateful, but for rejecting Him in their hearts. God can't help being angry at sin anymore than He can help loving righteousness - its His nature. He can't change His nature anymore than a bird can decide to hate flying or a mouse decide to love cats.
"Doesn't it look that way to you like god is more like a human?" We were made in His image, which includes the ability to reflect his qualities. So all those feelings like love, anger, compassion and jealousy, we have them because God has them. So it makes sense that to have a relationship with us, we would need to experience some of the same qualities God has.
God doesn't "force" others to pray to him, He gives them a choice, just as you don't force your children to be obedient, you give them a choice. But they maybe punished for disrepecting you in your house.
"3-... Why didn't god forgive Adam for eating the fruit?" Because he didn't repent of his sin. Why should we forgive people who are not even sorry for what they have done and continue to do it? Should a wife stay with a cheating husband who continues to cheat and isn't even sorry? Forgiveness is available to those who repent.
God isn't punishing us for one man's sin, He is allowing the laws of nature to take their course, namely, a rotten tree cannot produce good fruit. To ask God to have imperfect, sinful Adam and Eve, to produce perfectly holy children, is like asking all the women with AIDS who get pregnant not to pass it on to their babies. We go to hell for our own sins, not for those of Adam. God didn't even kill Adam, Adam because broken because he sinned, just as an appliance becomes broken if you misuse it. We are not designed to live forever in sin.
God didn't create an evil devil, but a righteous heavenly being. He choose to rebel. Why didn't God destroy him? He gave him oppotunity to prove his case that he raised. Had he destroyed him, you would probably accuse God of being a tryrant, as most atheist do when God destroys any human being in the Old Testament. How ironic.
4- Con has a problem with God because we are all born in different situations, but freewill is the cause of that. The alternative is to make us all mindless robots that have to obey Him so everyone would have to share everything and they wouldn't be any poor people. Would you prefer to be a mindless robot? Would you want those kind of children? Its not possible to get 100% obedience from everyone in a universe with free will during this life. And God isn't sending people to hell who did not have a fair chance to learn about Him and choose and His ways. You don't need to be a millionaire to love God, in fact, its in the poorest most suffering countries that Christianity is spreading most rapidly.
Con asks "who created God," but why would God need a creator? The reason why we need a creator is not because we are complex, but because science has proven that we (and out universe) came into existence. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause of its existence. We can test that philosophy on every other thing we know of, such as cars, buildings, trees, etc. They all have some cause that facilitated and led to their origins. To even ask "who created God" assumes that Con already knows God has a beginning, which he does not! How could he, when he doesn't even believe God exists? But we do know that humans have a beginning, and Big Bang cosmology has proven that this universe began billions of years ago, so it cries out for an explanation of its beginning. God can't cry out for an explanation of His beginning until Con proves He had a beginning, but that would entail that God exists!
Now, why can't we accept that this universe didn't happen just randomly without a cause? Because, as I have shown in my opening arguments, (1) Math is the product of a mind, so the mathematical structure found across the universe, especially in the design of some living things, such as this equation (n) = (r(n),_2;(n)) = (W30;n,2`0;b1;n), cries out for an intelligence that placed it there. But what kind of intellect and power would it require to make an entire universe with such features? I ask Con, and blind chance do math? Can the forces of nature come up with equations all on their own? If so, please explain to us how. I am not speculating that it must come from a mind, I know that algebra originates from intelligent beings. This alone show a powerful, super intelligent being made the universe (God). Con is yet to give a response to this, even though he had lots of space left in his opening round.
I also showed the universe is finely tuned for life. Just because some of us are born in unfortunate circumstances due to the greed of humanity, not due to God, due to bad eating habits that lead to disease, not due to God, Con thinks the universe is not fine-tunes for life. This is like saying that because a a twenty story building is dirty, rat infested, and not fit for humans to live in, it therefore was not originally built by intelligent humans, but popped into being by itself, without a cause. You see, the bad condition of the world today doesn't prove that the physical structure was not erected by someone, anymore that the bad conditions of that building shows that the blueprints had no designer. Con's argument here fails. The world is damaged because of sin, but it still shows evidence of design. In fact, damaged design is still designed.
Because Con can't explain how the universe got so finely tuned for life without God, he simply assumes that "we don't know," and lets leave it at that. But the problem with his argument is that the fine-tuning of the fundamental forces in our universe RULE OUT chance, which only leaves two options - physical necessity (they had to be this way), and design. But science knows of no natural law that requires the constants I mentioned in round 1 to be this way, they could have been anywhere. So this rules out physical necessity. This leaves only design. Add to this that math is the product of a mind and we most definitely have an intelligent Creator.
Nor did Con reply to the facts concerning Jesus' resurrection. Unless he can give a plausible naturalistic explanation of these four facts, I am justified in accepting the supernatural explanation, that God raised Jesus from the dead. And that entails that God exists. Thank you.
(1) regarding the previous points :-
* I still don't see a motive behind god wanting to create a life just to "share" his. If we are created to mirror the aspect of himself why aren't we just a man and son like him in his case.
* "He wants us to respect His position as Creator" Respect is earned not given , in order to respect god i must have a direct relationship with him , which I've never seen him. or heard his sound , i would sure respect him and obey him if he talks to me from the sky or just whisper in my ears , But so far the only way i was introduced to him was by human beings just like
* If we were made in god's image , and you mentioned that humans are the one that corrupted the perfectly designed life that the god has created by their greed and evil. So this means that God also has these qualities "Evil , Greed" along with " love, anger, compassion and jealousy " you mentioned God can feel jealousy , how can God ever get jealous if he is the greatest and he is perfect.
* If a rotten tree can't produce good fruit , then we all humans are doomed to fail in the test of his. So what's the point of it ? As we are all descendants of Adam. We for sure wouldn't accuse him of being a tyrant as we wouldn't know of the devil's existence , But now we know are a part of the little game he and god are playing together.
* "The alternative is to make us all mindless robots that have to obey Him so everyone would have to share everything and they wouldn't be any poor people" having an equal or at least as closest thing as possible to equal life is an alternative. A one day tobacco company profit can feed an African child for the rest of his life , the only child's fault was that he was born without a choice and he will suffer until he die out of poverty. also Islam at the moment is the fastest wide spreading religion , its known that religions spread fastest in the countries that suffer from ignorance and poverty what a coincidence , these hopeless poor people of-course will look for something to hold onto even if imaginary.
*All you did there was twist the question on me , There is a god = God exists.... Existence is the state or fact of being real. so everything we know like you said , that is existing and functioning ( Eg; human , robots , computers , buildings ) has a beginning , therefore it has a present. How can god be existing and present if he didn't have a beginning ? Since you are the one who believes in his existence and by asking you to prove existence of god , you are one required to prove his beginning as well. It's a presupposition when you talk about existence of something that it as well has a beginning.
* regarding the mathematical theories , number is the language of quantity it's used by scientists to measure & explain the natural phenomena , Answering your question ; Nature ISN'T written in language of math , but we humans and specially scientists has decided to read it that way. So it's pretty much a normal thing to find many things that preforms in a pretty sequential order. You've looked at the billion happy coincidences and left out other billion of sequences and equations that doesn't make sense at all. Just as a building is made typical to its design and it's blue-print , you can see it looks symmetric. But on earth its not the same from a far it looks like a water colors balloon exploded on a ball and painted it. I think we should not compare. I prefer to leave it "We don't know" and the possibilities will remain , rather than taking religions too seriously for granted and ruining our world and life more than it is.
(2) The Jesus resurrection :
* Just because the points you stated are agreed on by a majority of Historians , this doesn't mean they are "facts".
I don't think any of our grandparents or the parents of our grandparents has witnessed Jesus resurrect. I don't think we should narratives of other human beings as any evidence , I meet nuts who lies everyday to me about things who didn't happen.
(3) Some more theories :
1- Since you are interested in hisory , Do you believe in Islam as a god sent religion that came after Christianity ?
a) If Yes ---> How do you explain that in Quran it's mentioned that God has no descendants (Jesus?) , and all it's contradictions with Christianity , Why do you think god needed 3 holy books to guide humanity , is god that much of a failure to fail within 2 books already.
b) If No ---> Then you are denying some historical "facts" and evidence that has been found about Prophet Muhammed , He is supposedly burried in Saudi Arabia until the current day somewhere near Al Kaaba , his sword and some of his cloth as well was found etc. Also if you are gonna deny all the sources that proves Quran existed decades ago not some made up religion , then i might as well deny all the historical events that proves any existence of a holy miracle.
As i have never seen a miracle myself , i can't believe just because i read in some book or my parents told about it. Can opponent tell me why we only hear of these legendary miracles but never seen one ? for example, why don't we wake up tomorrow finding "Jesus" or "Allah" written all over our bodies for a day as a sign.
Why did our ancestors get the chance to see a physical evidence of his existence , while im asked to just "Believe" doesn't this make us question the existence of these gods at all ?
Con claims he "used to be a true believer" when he was a child, and his evidence for this is that he used to pray, go to the mosque, and "used to get this sense of inner satisfaction and enlightenment" when he prayed. Then he claims that since other people get the same feelings when praying to their gods, this shows its all in the mind, and illusion. But Con's argument is illogical here. First of all, if you thought you had a real diamond, only to find out as you gained more knowledge that it was fake, would that prove that real diamonds don't exist? Of course not! But Con is claiming that because his experience in his religion was not genuine, this somehow shows that nobody else's experience in any other religion is genuine. That's like saying that because one man has confused his lust for love, that therefore everyone else has confused their lust for love, and love is therefore just an illusion. If your experience was not genuine, fine, but don't assume the same is true of everyone else.
Secondly, Con assumes that all other religions are using this same fuzzy feeling as the criteria for proving their experience of God is real, but this isn't so for all Christians. For example, unlike Mormons who claim to get a "burning in the bosom," Christians in my church and many others I know don't believe you can prove if God is really there by feelings alone, or even by feelings at all. We believe that God is quite capable of literally speaking to His people, and performing miraculous works. I have heard God's voice. I saw a vision one day in church, and my Apostle saw the same exact thing at the same exact time. I was literally healed of injuries. People have spoken prophecies into my life and I have seen them come true. So the fuzzy feeling you are arguing against is not the gold standard of God's existence. When I was first doing prophetic training I told my apostle the exact time of day and the amount of money her shop would make by that time for the following day, and I was correct to the last penny. Was that an illusion in my mind? Was my pain going away through prayer to my God just some trick? Are you saying the pain didn't go away? I was only pretending not to feel it? And as for other religions who have success praying to their gods, all this shows is that there is more than one source of miracles.
(1) regarding the previous points :
* So you don't understand God's motives for creating us, how does that prove that He didn't? If we have the murder weapon with the accused fingerprints on it, eyewitnesses who saw him commit the crime, and he has no alibi, do you really think the accuse will get off easy just because we haven't established motive? Not knowing the motive for someone doing something doesn't show that he didn't do it. What a shallow argument against theism!
You don't see why God would want to "share" life, just like some egotistical, stingy, greedy millionaires don't see why anybody would want to feed the hungry and give away to the poor.Just because they don't "see" a reason they consider "good enough" doesn't mean these acts of selfless generosity don't happen.
"If we are created to mirror the aspect of himself why aren't we just a man and son like him in his case." Actually, God isn't just a man and his son, He's Father, Son and Holy Spirit (three persons), and it takes a father, mother, and child (three persons) to establish the full immediate family unit. Also, just because God wanted us to mirror certain aspects of himself doesn't mean He wants us to mirror every single aspect of Himself. I would want my son to be like me in certain ways only, but I still want him to have his own personality - I don't need him to be exactly like me in every single way. Why should our heavenly Father want any different for us?
* I totally agree with you, respect is earned, and God has earned the respect of those who have heard his voice, who have experienced his presence, who have seen appearances of Him in the earth. You claim you would respect the Creator if He does things your way, but He doesn't have to, does He? This debate is about God's existence, and you can't show that someone doesn't exist by arguing he hasn't earned your respect. My father has not earned my respect, he doesn't even call, but that doesn't show he doesn't exit, so your point here is mute. You seem to be dwelling on random questions about God that don't amount to evidence against his existence, and such red herrings only distract needed space from the topic at hand. But to satisfy your craving, let me also say that you can't assume God doesn't have good reasons for not directly speaking from the sky to you. Surely an hamster in a lab doesn't understand the experiment of the scientist. He may wonder why he has to be running about in this cage all day. But his ignorance of the scientist's reasons doesn't prove the scientist therefore cannot and does not have good reasons, or that he doesn't exist at all. Yet you seem to be implying that if "you," who are more limited and more ignorant compared to an all-knowing God than that hamster is the scientist, are ignorant of God's reasons for operating the way He does, that He cannot and does not have good reasons for so doing. You are not in a position to make such a judgment.
It may very well be that even if you accept God's existence, you won't agree to follow his ways. Many who believe in God still prefer to live a life of sin, thinking that God's laws are too restrictive or unfair. Some people actually hate God for not giving them what they want in this life. As if He is under obligation to obey them. Or it could be its just not yet God's time to reveal Himself to you the way He has done to others. It could also be that you already heard from God but rejected Him. Either way, I don't see how this proves He doesn't exist. I never saw anti-matter, but that doesn't mean others have not seen it. So just because you claim God has never spoken to you, doesn't mean he hasn't spoken to others.
* Just because we are made in God's image doesn't mean God is made in ours. So we have the ability to reflect God's qualities, that doesn't prevent us from adding our own sinful qualities that God doesn't have. Jealousy isn't always bad. There is good jealousy and bad jealousy. If a woman sees her husband kissing another woman, she has a right to be jealous, to feel like her territory is being breached, as well as her trust. If God sees us worshiping stone He has a right to feel betrayed. We should only worship Him who made us, knowing too that the stone can't do anything for us. Jealousy is natural and normal, but there's another form of jealousy that is too possessive and controlling.
* "If a rotten tree can't produce good fruit, then we all humans are doomed to fail in the test of his." If we rely on our own efforts alone. Thanks for His grace, which is a free gift, we are not saved by works, but by faith alone in Him.
*You claim that "It's a presupposition when you talk about existence of something that it as well has a beginning." That's simply not true. Just because something exists doesn't mean it has a beginning. Personally, I don't believe in a beginning of time, and nobody can prove time began no matter what, because no matter what even you think of, your mind can still conceive of a state one second before that event. So even the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe, has a period of time before it BEFORE whatever it was that went "bang!" went "bang!" Energy also cannot have a beginning because energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one state to another, and that is a fact of science. So no, all existing things don't need a beginning; but all those things which do have a beginning do have a cause - as is seen in every single thing we know of that we know began to exist. So since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. God, on the other hand, would only need a cause if it can be shown that he began to exist. Like time, and energy, I see no evidence that he ever began to exist. So if you want to provide that evidence, go right ahead, but you'll be admitting that He exists, and I'll win the debate.
* Con says "Nature ISN'T written in language of math , but we humans and specially scientists has decided to read it that way." So scientists have read the Fibonacci sequence into organisms in nature that do not follow this sequence? The scientists are just imagining things? They are reading in a way different from how it actually is? That seems to be what you are saying, please clarify. The examples I gave show that many things in nature grow according to this specific sequence. Scientists didn't impose this sequence into these plants, they "DISCOVERED" it. I would agree that E=mc squared is a description, but the Fibonacci sequence is an actual PATTERN occurring in nature which cries out for an explanation.
You don't see the narratives of other humans as evidence, so a police report which narrates the eyewitness report of an incident isn't evidence? I gave 4 facts agreed on by most historians about Jesus, you didn't do the same for Muhammad. More on Jesus in the next round, I'm out of space.
zeyadahmed forfeited this round.
If I throw a rock at a wall and it gets parts of it broken off, lets say a scientists creates a mathematical formula to describe the new shape of this rock. It's shape is a pure accident in the sense that I didn't plan out how it would break. Now, you would not expect that formula to accurately describe all other rocks on the planet, would you? It wouldn't even describe a single other rock, because chances are, no other rock is shaped exactly like this one. Yet, e=mc squared describes all the matter everywhere in the universe. Why? Why does all matter follow the same equation if it only came about by accident? The only rational answer is that someone made it this way, deliberately.
Con has not replied to the reason I gave for accepting each of these four facts about Jesus as being historical. They are good enough to convince most historians in the world, why does he object to them?
* Your narratives of Jesus miracles is not a "fact" and it remains a legend until Jesus comes back to life and re-preform all these miracles again in front of me.
* I still didn't get a Yes - No answer for the question i asked earlier , Muhammad is mentioned in the Quran , so is Christianity and Jesus. If you don't believe in it are you implying that Quran was just a fake invented book ? ---> Why don't you accept that the Bible is as fake as Quran is.
Isn't it logical that same way a faked "Prophet" as you imply was able to brainwash half of the religious population of the universe to be Muslims (increasing by 3% rate every year) , the other half is as equally brain washed by the idea of religions.
* Ever wondered why the relation between us and god has to be mysterious ? why isn't it a direct relation , just like the messengers had a direct relation with him , why couldn't it be direct from god to people. He could give us orders directly and still leave us the choice to obey or disobey , chances are it's because he doesn't exist.
* I still don't see a reason why he doesn't send a 4th messenger , obviously the first 3 failed terribly. Now that im alive myself and i need a proof of his existence , he won't show me a miracle but he requires me to just believe that some miracles happened bilion years ago and just base a belief on that.
And at the end , i want to leave a reminder for everyone that the human being always tended to worship something , our ancestors in the "Jahilya" time used to worship Stones , Animals, The stars. It's a Psychological factor so let's not let our brain trick us into worshiping the unknown and the mysterious. The prophets criticized their ancestors for worshiping brainless , unreliable objects. ironically now our society is worshiping a mirage that is unseen.
You talk about the low chance of coincidences doesn't mean they can't happen, even if its 0.01%. THis shows how little math you know. At some point, the odds of something happening are so small, that its dismissed as an impossibility! Imagine a tub filled with billions of white ping pong balls, and a single black one. There are at least 50 constants in the universe that need to be finely tuned for us to exist, and the Big Bang only gives one chance to get all 50 of them. So our universe being the way it is, is like picking the black ball 50 times in a row without ever picking a white one, because that would like placing the force of gavity to high or low which would mean we don't exist! How could blind forces of nature pick the black ball at random, every time, out of a sea of billions of white balls? It can't! Clearly its set up this way by an intelligent Creator. Its like the same dude winning the lottery 50 times in a row, and only buying 50 tickets, it just can't happen by chance - that's a set up.
"I do not believe that any scientists who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents. [Fred Hoyle, in Religion and the Scientists, 1959; quoted in Barrow and Tipler, p. 22]
A few examples of this fine-tuning are listed below:
1. If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)
2. Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 4, 35; Barrow and Tipler, p. 322.)
3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.)
4. If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 39-40 )...
Imaginatively, one could think of each instance of fine-tuning as a radio dial: unless all the dials are set exactly right, life would be impossible.... The fact that the dials are perfectly set...strongly suggests that someone set the dials..., for it seems enormously improbable that such a coincidence could have happened by chance." https://www.google.com...
Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe"s low entropy condition obtaining by chance
alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number.
I didn't narrate Jesus miracles, I gave four facts about Jesus. His death (not a miracle), his empty tomb (no miracle), people saw Him afterwards (seeing a man isn't a miracle, many explanations can be put forward for this), and the origin of the proclamation of His resurrection. (preaching isn't a miracle). Now, these are accepted as facts by the majority of historians. What best explains them? No naturalistic explanation ever works, thus, I am justified in accepting the only explanation the first Christians gave - His resurrection by God. Now, since you claim you won't believe it unless Jesus does it again in front of you, you must be saying you only accept things that happen more than once. So the Big Bang didn't happen? Cause we don't have evidence that it ever happened again. Yet most cosmologists accept it base on evidence. America has only had one black president, so you'll only believe it when they elect another one?
As for the Quaran, its easy to see how Muhammed could convince people to believe his version of what Jesus did 6000 before his time because no eyewitnesses were around to challenge him. Its very difficult to see how the original Apostles and other followers of Jesus could convince thousands of people across the entire Roman Empire that this man was raised from the dead and performed miracles in the presence of eyewitnesses who could refute them easily. Paul even calls on the presence of over 250 eyewitnesses who were around in his day to prove his case. (1 Cor 15:3-8) Paul names the eyewitnesses in his letter to the Corinthians. This he could not do had there been no eyewitnesses around at that time. I can see how a Muslim can sincerely believe in Allah out of ignorance, and be willing to die for that belief, but I can't see how the original Christians, if they never saw Jesus alive again from the dead, would be willing to suffer the persecution they did, even in the face of death, for what they knew to be a lie they made up!
God still speaks directly to His people today. He talks that way to my Apostle, and to me. I know plenty of Christians to hear His voice. But as Jesus prophesied in Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43, false Christians would be mixed with true one. Maybe you were simply a fake, that's why you didn't hear God. Doesn't prove that others don't.
You claim you don't get a miracle, but why should God give a miracle to someone who isn't willing to live as He commands? He healed me by the power of prayer. I called on His name and He stopped a man from taking my life. Miralces happen every day. People even come back from the dead.
You argument seems to be that since some people worshipped fake gods, that all worshippers do. That's like saying because some diamonds are fake, all are fake. Not rational.
Nor did you address the reasons why historians believe the four facts I gave concerning Jesus really are facts. "Blaise Pascal gives a simple, psychologically sound proof for why this is unthinkable:
"The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a man has risen from the dead. While Jesus was with them, he could sustain them; but afterwards, if he did not appear to them, who did make them act? The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it out to the end, and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus' death and conspiring to say that he has risen from the dead. This means attacking all the powers that be. The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. One of them had only to deny his story under these inducements, or still more because of possible imprisonment, tortures and death, and they would all have been lost. Follow that out." (Pascal, Pensees 322, 310)
The "cruncher" in this argument is the historical fact that no one, weak or strong, saint or sinner, Christian or heretic, ever confessed, freely or under pressure, bribe or even torture, that the whole story of the resurrection was a fake a lie, a deliberate deception. Even when people broke under torture, denied Christ and worshiped Caesar, they never let that cat out of the bag, never revealed that the resurrection was their conspiracy. For that cat was never in that bag. No Christians believed the resurrection was a conspiracy; if they had, they wouldn't have become Christians....If the resurrection was a lie, the Jews would have produced the corpse and nipped this feared superstition in the bud. All they had to do was go to the tomb and get it. The Roman soldiers and their leaders were on their side, not the Christians'....There were too many witnesses. Hallucinations are private, individual, subjective. Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene, to the disciples minus Thomas, to the disciples including Thomas, to the two disciples at Emmaus, to the fisherman on the shore, to James (his "brother" or cousin), and even to five hundred people at once (1 Cor 15:3-8). Even three different witnesses are enough for a kind of psychological trigonometry; over five hundred is about as public as you can wish." https://www.google.com...
Con gave his personal reasons why he isn't believing in God, but hasn't been able to refute my evidence. If his smoking gun comes now, just recall I cannot rebut him after this. Please vote Pro.
Well , Obama is a fact being witnessed by myself , we both exist in same portion of life. However , that is not the case for the big bang and i answer , yeah it might have never happened. It's a theory and it remains a theory until it's experimented somehow. ( despite the rumors that says it will re-expand again ). This also means that earth (nature) didn't "come into existence" therefore it don't cry out for an explanation and it could be the end of the beginning. maybe nature is god.
Call it an illness or trust issue , but i'll call it a proper sharp critical thinking. But i do not agree to believe anything i didn't witness , including events that are documented in history books. as crazy it sounds , these "facts" written in history books seems to differ from a country to another.
But assuming that big bang is true and that the universe cam into existence, this cancels the idea of the bible hence there are contradictions between bible and big bang theory , for example in the sculpting of the universe. there seems to be a lot of contradictions , Pro is free to search it up.
( reminder that i do not have to stick to an opinion, I'm using different weapons and concepts to prove god doesn't exist, but pro is in situation where he has to stick to what he is defending. )
* It seems god is very smart to produce such a mathematical universe but god doesn't seem to encourage scientific rational thinking, as I'm required to worship him without any physical evidence, out of the other 1000 gods out there who claims to be the real ones. also his smart creation doesn't match with his irrational actions , creating us because he "loves us" then punishes us for a mistake i didn't individually do myself.
* Pro claims god speaks to him , so how does god sound like ? Must be like Morgan freeman huh! No seriously now , a testification should be made regarding how god sound like and we will definitely get different answers from everyone. I think it's all in your heads but there is no real voices.
"You claim you don't get a miracle, but why should God give a miracle to someone who isn't willing to live as He commands?" , Isn't Miracles purpose and the purpose of Jesus in the first place is to guide those who are mislead ? Such as myself. I'm willing to live to his commands , i just need a signature (Miracle) that he is there. Just like he gave to our ancestors who weren't living by his commands as well. " I called on His name and He stopped a man from taking my life." I don't know what physically happened between you and that man but are you sure not a similar scenario where a ill man says "thank god" after the surgeon spends 6 hours resistless in operation saving that man's life ? Because i doubt this man was about to take your life away and then an electromagnetic shield popped around you and saved you , if so you could be the next hero in the avengers.
* If twelve kids claimed they witnessed santa would you believe them ? that's the case to me. this information is very old, at times where mentally poor people used to worship stone , there's a chance these information have been corrupted. in a way or another they are not an efficient proof.
At last , as far as i've noticed in the very few days i have been introduced to this website, the majority here seems to be Christians so I'll probably lose this debate. Nonetheless thanks pro for this debate , a strong opponent for my first debate. Now i leave it for the judges.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro.
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.