The Instigator
MYTN
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
3DCrew
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

There is a low enough probability for the existence of God to doubt his existence.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,969 times Debate No: 1462
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (21)

 

MYTN

Pro

Definition of God: An intelligent entity that created the universe
Low probability: A claim that lacks so much evidence that it is considered void

Though there is no definite scientific proof for the existence of God, there such a low probability of God's existence that we may well assume that he does not exist. To use the cliched analogy, though someone may claim that there is a giant pink elephant giving Osama bin Laden a piggy back ride while jumping through a hoop of flames to the sound of gospel music on Mercury, there is a low enough probability to assume that that situation is not occurring.

My first point, is the clash between the role of religion and the role of science in explaining how the world works. Though religion in early human civilization was used to explain natural phenomenons, upon the advent of the scientific method, humanity has found a credible source for discovering facts. In the many cases we have seen, when the claims of religion and the claims of science has ever clashed, 100% of the time science has won. When it has come to Earth's orbit around the son, the longevity of the Earth, the categorization of species (the Bible claims the bat is a bird in Leviticus), the evolution of species, the shape of the universe, science has unanimously won these battles. The main reason is because the method employed by science, which uses close scrutiny and peer reviewed research before stumbling on a claim. Religion on the other hand, does not use this method and has mostly used old doctrines and traditions to decide the make up of our world. Only religion, with this method that has obviously never worked, claims that there is the existence of God, whereas science using credible methods has never claimed such. Considering science has been 100% right out of the time, and religion wrong 100% of the time, based on religion's record religion is wrong about God as well.

My second point, is the logic of "to have a creation, there must be a creator." Theists often use this argument in order to show the logic of God's existence. But if this were true, wouldn't God also be a creation, and therefore need a creator? This makes the existence of God a constant conundrum, something theists are not able to explain nor address. The notion that something can intelligently exist outside of time, outside of space, with omnipotent control over every aspect of our physical world is a long shot. Granted, scientists are still not sure how the universe was created and what "existed" before the Big Bang, but to then place all your bets on this God is not based on any scientific method, but to base it off of traditional values that human beings are often too nostalgic to let go of. The notion of a God that is both a creator and a creation in this respect is a logical fallacy, which also makes his probability of existence faint at best.

My third and last point is the theist's argument that life itself is so complex that there must have been a God to create it. But when compared to Darwin's theory of evolution, that life started at incremental improvement starting from very simple beginnings to finally adapt to current perfection, this is a more proven, observable, and logical answer. In order to have a God that created us, you would first need to provide the logical argument of how God can both be a creation without a creator with omnipotent power outside of our physical realm, with scientific data to back it up. Of course, this has not been an issue in the scientific community because the scientific community does not find this hypothesis (and yes, it is a hypothesis) credible or observable. Darwin's theory of evolution on the other hand has been tested and observed. The reason why we always need a constant supply of new and improved flu vaccines is because the flu virus has a small enough database in its DNA to change itself. We see this process happening right before our eyes. Scientists have also found that given the right material, and given the state of the Earth when life first began, cells were able to form with some essential amino acids. These amino acids formed together to make a cell, which clumped together to make algae like substance, and so on and so on. Though these steps may seem improbably, given the millions and millions of years, time is able to provide breathing space for life to form. God on the other hand, is hypothesized to have constantly existed and created life on Earth in a condensed amount of time, which provides no observable evidence, no explanation of how that God has that intelligible power, and therefore ceases the probability of God's existence.

Of course, though we may be debating this issue, the only place where this issue is not debated is the scientific community, the community that has the most credibility in determining these issues because they provide through the most scrutiny, peer reviews, and objective amendments for their findings. When compared to the only group that advocates the theory of God creating life on Earth, the religious community, it holds no proven facts or credibility. Based on religion's knack for getting facts wrong 100% of the time, God's untempered yet intelligent existence and his compressed timing for life on Earth, God's probability is low enough to assume he does not exist.
3DCrew

Con

I agree to the sparse but accurate definition of God for the purpose of this debate.

I would like to add a definition:
Science: The systematic discovery and documentation of what God has revealed to Mankind through his observable creation.

Your argument is flawed from the start. This idea that as science as science digs deeper and deeper into the mysteries of the universe that God is pushed out of the picture. This is called the "God of the Gaps" argument and it is known to be flawed. It means that as science "discovers" how things work, we no longer need God to explain that particular thing. There is a great deal about the universe that we cannot ever know. Scientists are discovering these roadblocks at the quantum level now. The discoveries are more and more fantastic (to us) but never the less already there, created, revealed and waiting to be found. From my perspective each new discovery only glorifies and magnifies God as the designer of this place. Just as we would expect to find an engineer behind the creation of a Hemi engine, we should expect to find an engineer of exceeding intelligence behind each and every scientific "discovery".

"Though there is no definite scientific proof for the existence of God, there such a low probability of God's existence that we may well assume that he does not exist."

God is "transcendent" meaning that he is outside the bounds of what we can know through natural sciences. Science can point to God through the design they find but none can prove 100% that He is there. However, none can prove 100% that he is not there. God always leaves room for faith. If an atom were endowed with intelligence, how could it ever hope to discover that it is part of the Milky Way Galaxy much less the universe?

"Though religion in early human civilization was used to explain natural phenomenons, upon the advent of the scientific method, humanity has found a credible source for discovering facts."

Science is, by nature, is wrong all the time contrary to your assertion. The early scientists were the ones that placed the sun at the center of the universe. The literal bible scholars liked this idea very much as it gave the human race glory and God's full focus a his special creation. Later, other scientists unable to explain the "wandering stars" eventually discovered that the Earth was not the center of the solar system but that the Sun was. That upset a few scientists and clergymen I can tell you. However, it eventually became the new 100% scientific truth rendering the previous 100% scientific truth 0% reliable. Later, we discovered that we don't orbit in perfectly circular orbits around the sun. Later still we discovered that we're in a galaxy in a universe filled with galaxies. Science is only right for a time. What theories were crushed by Einstein? What theory came before plate tectonics? What theory preceded the big bang? One must also ask, what will superseded it given enough time.

Evolution absolutely NOT been proven. From my reading, evolution is getting close to being the next scientific "has been" of our day. There is no credible evidence. Even Darwin told us when to abandon his theory – that being when the required transitional fossils are not found within 100 years of the publishing of his theory. Time's up I'm afraid.

"The main reason is because the method employed by science, which uses close scrutiny and peer reviewed research before stumbling on a claim. Religion on the other hand, does not use this method"

Claiming that science is 100% right and that the bible is 100% wrong is just outright incorrect. You want peer review? The bible is the most studied, most scrutinized writing in the history of mankind. There are many trying to prove it true and many trying to prove it false. If it is known to be 100% wrong, isn't the job already done? Why would hundreds of thousands of scholars worldwide still be working on archaeological digs, translating scraps of new found verses, etc. if this is a fact as you state it?

"My second point, is the logic of to have a creation, there must be a creator."

Theists do address this. Explain it? Difficult. However, God claims to be the alpha and the omega, the uncaused cause, eternal, neither created nor dying. He is transcendent, outside of his created finite universe. Knowable but unfathomable at the same time. We know of God what he reveals to us and that's all. The rest we made up. I think they call that religion!

"The notion of a God that is both a creator and a creation in this respect is a logical fallacy, which also makes his probability of existence faint at best."

If God were in the natural world he would have had to be created. However, he is not. He is, as I said, transcendent. He is outside of his creation. That you are unable to grasp a transcendent eternal intelligent being is understandable but it does not lead to the logical fallacy that you stated.
My third and last point is the theist's argument that life itself is so complex that there must have been a God to create it.

You are speaking of the "Intelligent Design" movement. Science has done an amazing job at helping theists support the argument by design. The bible told us that all living things only reproduce after their own kind. It wasn't until the discover of DNA that explained why that is. You simply can't mate a monkey and a dog. They were created in their kind and stay in their kind. One species does not beget a new species, ever. Microevolution, variations and adaptations within a kind are a fact and do not in any way dispute the creationist's argument.

Darwin's theory of evolution on the other hand has been tested and observed.
Citation please? This is patently false and wishful thinking.
The reason why we always need a constant supply of new and improved flu vaccines is because the flu virus has a small enough database in its DNA to change itself. We see this process happening right before our eyes.
Microevolution, adaptation, and you are quite correct. However I can assure you that the DNA database is anything but "small".

A citation is needed here:
---
Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334).
---

"Scientists have also found that given the right material, and given the state of the Earth when life first began, cells were able to form with some essential amino acids. These amino acids formed together to make a cell, which clumped together to make algae like substance, and so on and so on."

False, false, and false. The whole "primordial soup" mix produced simple amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins which would immediately disintegrate in the formaldehyde byproducts of the "soup". Evolution doesn't even come into play until you have a living cell capable of self reproduction and that's a far far cry from a few amino acids.

"Of course, though we may be debating ths issue, the only place where this issue is not debated is the scientific community."

False as well. There are many many scientists that are theists and Cristians. Many more that you would think. Please refer to http://www.asa3.org... for just one of these organizations.

"God's probability is low enough to assume he does not exist."

False. There is no possible way in which this incredibly fine-tuned obviously engineered universe can exists without an intelligence far greater than that of created man. God is the only plausible answer. The probability that there is no God is low enough assume that he DOES exist.
Debate Round No. 1
MYTN

Pro

"I would like to add a definition:
Science: The systematic discovery and documentation of what God has revealed to Mankind through his observable creation."

I would first like to address your definition of science. I believe your definition is unfair in that for me to accept your definition, that science is the systematic discovery and documentation of what GOD has revealed, forces me to concede to the argument that the natural world is created by God.

My definition of science, and one that the scientific community follows, is the one offered by Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

I apologize for not setting a definition in my last argument, and if this debate ends in a stalemate due to our differences in definition then it is my fault.

"This idea that as science as science digs deeper and deeper into the mysteries of the universe that God is pushed out of the picture."

The reason why I am arguing this is because often times theists and scientists debate on these issues, and that these issues are contradictory to each other. I am not exactly arguing that the discovery of science destroys the foundation in the belief in God, but I am saying the discovery of science destroys the foundation in the claims founded by modern religion. Again, this is an argument on probability, and considering science has proven religion wrong on everything but God, I am saying it would be safer to place your bet in the idea that religion is probably wrong about God as well.

"Just as we would expect to find an engineer behind the creation of a Hemi engine, we should expect to find an engineer of exceeding intelligence behind each and every scientific "discovery"

I have addressed this dilemma, that if you believe that we would find an engineer behind the creation of a Hemi engine, then shouldn't we expect an engineer for the existence of God? Of exceeding intelligence? That is the conundrum that I am addressing, that if everything has been created by an intelligent being, then with your own logic shouldn't that Being be created by another more intelligent Being, and so forth?

What I am arguing is that the probability of this definition of God is low due to the logical contradictions that afford its existence, low compared to the theory that most physics has been toying with, which is that the universe itself is timeless, or at least time is malleable through natural patterns that do not need an intelligent design. Scientists are already finding many factors that contribute to this, including distant supernovas being unexpectedly dim which would suggest that the universe is accelerating, or gravitational lens contributing to the distortion of space and time.

"God is ‘transcendent' meaning that he is outside the bounds of what we can know through natural sciences."

I believe this argument to be a bit of a cop-out in the face of the lack of evidence. My argument is again based on probability, and to consider something supernatural and probable at the same time is a contradiction. I could make the same argument for Zeus, or Elves, or Tooth-fairies, and claim that just because I lack evidence doesn't mean they can't exist because they are supernatural. But someone can make the argument that because of my lack of evidence, the probability itself is low.

"The early scientists were the ones that placed the sun at the center of the universe. The literal bible scholars liked this idea very much as it gave the human race glory and God's full focus a his special creation. Later, other scientists unable to explain the "wandering stars" eventually discovered that the Earth was not the center of the solar system but that the Sun was."

When I say science, I mean the advent of the scientific method. The "early scientists" though were scientist for that time, did not employ a credible means of investigating their natural phenomenon by today's standards, along with all the other scientists on your list. The early scientists in your example instead placed their standards in the methods of the time, which would include the Bible as you suggest. With your claim on this, it would seem contradictory for you to defend what we would deem as religious beliefs, and at the same time claim that these "scientific discoveries" were wrong.

"Evolution absolutely NOT been proven. From my reading, evolution is getting close to being the next scientific "has been" of our day. There is no credible evidence."
There is a large amount of evidence. You did not provide what aspects of evolution is not credible or what evidence is lacking besides Darwin's abandoning of it (Einstein abandoned the theory of anti-gravity, but that theory is starting to find new life). Among the evidence of course is fossil records of transitional species. Lets look at one: example the evolution of the whale. Scientists have hypothesized that whales evolved from land-living mammals. Of course, the only fossils possessed at the time were an early land-mammal that resembled the whale, and an actual whale. Scientists then found the fossil of transitional species, the Ambulocetus. This specie was able to walk as well as swim, and possessed a nose that can swallow water and bone structure similar to that of a whale. Of course, to have this transition, we should be able to see the transition of this species' ears, as different ear structures are needed when hearing underwater and in the air. Scientists of course have discovered numerous fossils that have a transition in the middle ear, that allows the species to go from listening in the air, to intermediate forms of both, to listening underwater. So we have seen land mammal transition to an entirely new species with fossil findings.
"False as well. There are many many scientists that are theists and Cristians. Many more that you would think. Please refer to http://www.asa3.org...... for just one of these organizations."
I am not arguing that there are not scientists who believe in God, I am arguing that scientists are not debating this issue in the scientific community. No scientific journals have been produced that back up Intelligent Design or the theory of a God. I would like for you to point out any award winning widely regarded scientist that is part of American Scientific Affiliation. There has been no public debate about Intelligent Design and theology in science except in the courtrooms of Kansas and Ohio.
"There is no possible way in which this incredibly fine-tuned obviously engineered universe can exists without an intelligence far greater than that of created man. God is the only plausible answer. The probability that there is no God is low enough assume that he DOES exist."

With our understanding of how the universe exists through a natural process, with our understanding of how life exists through a natural process, with the fact that God himself is considered supernatural even among his supporters, we have seen that God is not a plausible answer due to lack of natural evidence for him. To claim that he is transcendent and therefore does not need evidence is itself to show: the probability that there is no God is low enough to assume that he DOES NOT exist.
3DCrew

Con

If scientists ever allow God as a possible explanation of the data they are observing then, according to your definition, that causes them to cease to be practicing science. That's a catch-22 if you ask me. That's why organizations like the ASA have been formed. They are saying, "Hold on a second! I'm a doctorate-holding scientist and I DO believe in God and for good reason!"

God is not the default "cop out" answer to every unsolvable scientific question. God is the creator of all that science is discovering. More and more scientists are embracing the inevitable conclusion that a study of creation supports, even proves, the existence of God.

There are some scientists that are so dead set on avoiding this inevitability that they refuse to allow God into the picture no matter what the data says. To the question of why the universe is so finely tuned as to allow atoms to bond, planets to form, suns to radiate, and life to exist the obvious answer is that there is a designer - an "intelligent fine tuner". They are so desperate to avoid this obvious conclusion that they invent other causes that are equally unprovable: Multiverses?! These scientists would have us believe in a metaverse that produces trillions of universes all with different random tunings. Certainly one universe is bound to come up eventually. How else could we be here debating this right now? Now THAT is blind faith!

Scienctists pushed to the edge of reason will believe that there is, for the lack of a better name, a "universe creation machine". This machine not only has an infinite amount of energy to draw on but it is sufficiently more advanced in that it can create individual universes with the ability to create life by random unguided uncaused accidental means. Science is willing to believe in such an unprovable universe-making machine with no data and no means possible to prove its existence. Is that the science that you hold in such regard? That begs the question, "What made THAT machine? The meta-metaverse?"

Just as no one can answer the question, "What created the universe making machine" so too no one can answer through scientific means "... then who created God." I believe the bible when it says that God is eternal and has always existed. Theism can't prove that God exists nor can science. However, science can, and does, generate ever more undeniable data that says that there MUST be a God.

Let's say for the sake of this debate, that God was created. If so then he must have been created by a more supreme meta-God who was created by a more supreme meta-meta-God, etc. infinity. That takes nothing away from the fact that the universe was created by our God. Do you see how futile is is to even place a probability on the existence of God?

This is not a debate on evolution. If it were I would be quick to point out that if evolution were proven to be true that it would absolutely not negate God as the cause of the universe. It might make the bible appear to be in error and it would make some theists cringe with embarrassment. It would not in any way deny the only reasonable explanation for "how all this got here" - God!

Thank you for your time and thoughtful responses during this debate MYTN.
Debate Round No. 2
MYTN

Pro

Phew, last one. This is tiring.

"If scientists ever allow God as a possible explanation of the data they are observing then, according to your definition, that causes them to cease to be practicing science."

God is by every sense of the definition, a hypothesis. This does not mean that God cannot be a possible explanation of data, it is just that it will hold no ground without experimentation, trial and error, and peer review research. God in this field lacks all of those, and this is what I mean when I speak of probability. The more evidence- and I leave it to the scientific community to tackle that issue in this respect- the more likely, and the less evidence the least likely.

I consider anyone who treats God as any more than a hypothesis as lacking credibility, as they are not holding up to the standards of science and covering general truths of the operation of general laws by the use of the scientific method.

"God is the creator of all that science is discovering. More and more scientists are embracing the inevitable conclusion that a study of creation supports, even proves, the existence of God."

When you say "more and more," I am assuming you mean a significantly increasing number of scientists, in which I would need some statistics that show that scientists are embracing the existence of God in terms of debating it in the scientific community, publishing peer reviewed research papers, releasing findings from experiments or theoretical physics proofs. (note: which is much different than discussing it in their personal lives, as people do not often set such a standards in regard to their religion).

"There are some scientists that are so dead set on avoiding this inevitability that they refuse to allow God into the picture no matter what the data says….They are so desperate to avoid this obvious conclusion that they invent other causes that are equally unprovable: Multiverses?!"

Actually, because there is no evidence of a multiverse, scientists consider the multiverse a hypothesis, and therefore hold it at the same regard as the belief in God. The multiverse is gaining ground in the scientific community because there are possible ways to observe it. But otherwise, I do concede to the fact that the multiverse as of right now is equally unprovable, but that is already a given considering the scientific community considers it a hypothesis, and therefore are not acting as if it is some kind of substitute for God. The bottom line is, "we don't know," but to then substitute ignorance with God is not a better alternative.

"Scientists pushed to the edge of reason will believe that there is, for the lack of a better name, a "universe creation machine". This machine not only has an infinite amount of energy to draw on but it is sufficiently more advanced in that it can create individual universes with the ability to create life by random unguided uncaused accidental means…That begs the question, "What made THAT machine? The meta-metaverse?""

As I said before, we have already witnessed the fact that the universe itself can distort time at a natural pattern, so therefore it is much more probable that the universe itself can be timeless. Considering this theory is based on observational facts, this theory alone is more probable than the hypothesis of God, which is based on a nonexistent foundation. To define science as discovering the work of God (if I am allowed to paraphrase here), is to outright assume his existence without regard to evidence.

"Let's say for the sake of this debate, that God was created. If so then he must have been created by a more supreme meta-God who was created by a more supreme meta-meta-God, etc. infinity. That takes nothing away from the fact that the universe was created by our God. Do you see how futile it is to even place a probability on the existence of God?"

This would take away from the fact that the universe was created by our God because this would mean "our God" would be a logical fallacy, which would make any observer doubt His existence. The universe being timeless is not a logical fallacy as the universe has been observed to distort time.

God however has not been observed, and add to the fact that his existence would twist logic in this manner, the probability that an entity can break this logical fallacy is low enough to assume He DOES NOT exist.
3DCrew

Con

Well MYTN, we agreed on something! Debate IS tiring but you have to admit that it's more educational and mind expanding than sitting around watching Discovery channel all the time. It's like exercising your brain muscle once in a while. Thanks for hanging in there.

We've been through the pros and cons now so let me sew it up. What we were debating about was you assertion that "There is a low enough probability for the existence of God to doubt his existence." I obviously disagree and am at the far opposite end of your scale. I believe that science has done an amazing job showing that there is a low enough probability that all this just happened by chance that we MUST attribute the universe and everything in it to a very real God.

If God chose to, he could have created this universe and all life in it without any possibility of ever discovering anything about how it works. By that I mean that if he didn't want to be detectable through his creation he certainly could have made it so. I find it fascinating that not only did he leave his work open for investigation he also endowed us with the ability, even the drive, to discover him through his works. I also find it fascinating that he designed this place so well that no one can doubt his hand in creation while at the very same time he has made it impossible to both prove or disprove his existence. God allows us to approach and appreciate his work through science but he made sure that we cannot come into his presence without that one final step called "faith".

Probability? Science is finding that all of "this" at the quantum level is nothing BUT probability. In the early days scientists found out through direct experimentation what they didn't know. These days, the bar is pushed out so far that scientists are faced with the impassible fence of the quantum level on one side and the impassible portal of the "Big Bang" singularity on the other. Not only do the laws of nature break down at these two ends of the universe so too does the scientific method. There are still many things to discover within these boundaries and discover them they will slowly, bit by bit. With each new discovery more questions and with each new question more discoveries; but science will never be able to prove nor disprove that God exists.

I've listened to many debates and read several books on the contemporary arguments on both sides. It is incredible just how much science does know and yet discoveries always beget questions. Science (and Theists) always have and always will fall just short of proving or disproving God's existence. It simply can't be done because God designed it that way.

I think that it would be very appropriate to ask God to end this debate in his own words spoken through the Apostle Paul in the Christian bible:

Romans 1:20-22
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MYTN 8 years ago
MYTN
Haha, wow, I lost by one vote.
Posted by 3DCrew 8 years ago
3DCrew
Thanks MYTN. I thought you did a fine job, commendable really, even for your young age. It seems to me the only one needing to talk like and adult is friar_zero. How about cracking open a debate with one of us and show everyone how it's done?
Posted by MYTN 8 years ago
MYTN
"when you get ready to talk like adults, drop me a line."

I believe the person I debated is 41 years old. And to his credit, I think he brought up some good points, except the whole Bible deal.

But anyways, the whole "wacky faith-heads" isn't helpful.
Posted by friar_zero 8 years ago
friar_zero
You wacky faith-heads crack me up. Pascals wager? Please, that has been so thoroughly deconstructed I would be surprised to find young earth creationists using it. Oh, and I'm fitting facts to my conclusions? I have one word for your intellectual integrity: FAITH. Since you folks seem to have wandered into the Fox News style of logic, I will leave you to your mental suffocation. Have fun boys, and when you get ready to talk like adults, drop me a line.
Posted by MYTN 8 years ago
MYTN
You seem to be assuming that there are is a large vestige of evidence for God, and atheists are just there to find one little inconsistency in order to ruin the party.

But like I said, there are no credible scientists nor are there debates within the scientific community that are pointing towards the existence of God. God is only a hypothesis, and certainly not one that has been reasonably tested. The only reason God is such a large issue is because this subject has been with humanity since the beginning of civilization, and therefore holds a place of credibility in our community. But that's as far as it goes; tradition stumps evidence.

"But obviously it has some profound impact on you, and disturbs your ability to continue in the path you have, so you seek to "prove" to others his non-existence to calm the waters of your unrest."

That's actually pretty funny considering it is Atheists who often accuse Theists of relying so much on God because it is their moral and existential imperative to do so; because they're so afraid of being wrong and so afraid of a nihilistic world.

But I'd like to detract from that because I don't think this argument has to do with moral superiority; it is an argument on evidence. That is why when I instigated this argument, I didn't want to say "God doesn't exist, debate me!" I wanted to use probability because it still leave leeway for God's existence, albeit in my viewpoint a small enough one to doubt it.

The question that 3DCrew seems to ask is whether all scientific evidence points to God, or whether they are detached from it all. I seem to be on the latter, and I guess that's where this argument is headed.

"I believe that we have enough evidence through the bible "

No offense, but it really shows how strict of a definition you have of "evidence" when you consider the Bible as a source of facts.
Posted by 3DCrew 8 years ago
3DCrew
Well said mmaderom. Atheists have this incredible bias. They search and they search to find just ONE thing that can in concept from our limited human perspective seem to prove that God is not needed to explain X. They grasp hold of that and fly it like a flag. "God can't exists because __________" - fill in the blank. Or, more to your points, "How can God exists if _________." Once they've tricked themselves into thinking that they have found a place or process where God is not present they then make the incredible leap of atheistic "faith" that therefore there there is no God. I would put forth that if we can find even one good reason to believe that God is the creator than ALL else should be held accountable to that realization. In short, either nothing is attributable to God or everything is. I believe that we have enough evidence through the bible and through science and through common experience to KNOW that God exists.
Posted by mmadderom 8 years ago
mmadderom
I forgot to mention the perfect water to land mass proportion and climate necessary to sustain all of these different life forms in the first place. What are the odds of all happening by happenstance? Infinity:1?

The arguments against God are typically "why" arguments. "Why would God allow my baby to die?", "Why would a loving God allow evil?". That any of us could even think to question an entity capable of what God has done is unfathomable. We can only comprehend a God "thinking" the same way we do and try to explain it from there. I'd submit that people of faith recognize that we don't have 1/1000000th of the capacity necessary to comprehend it. That we can't understand where something as simple as where the 1st blade of grass or 1st banana tree came from demonstrates just how lacking science is on this subject.
Posted by mmadderom 8 years ago
mmadderom
"You NEED to explain away God to justify some part of your lifestyle."

Very good point. The reason they NEED to explain away God is in case they are wrong. See, they gain nothing by being right, but lose EVERYTHING by being wrong. The more time they spend arguing against God, and the more people they see support their position, the more content they can feel in taking the position in the first place.

After all, if we're wrong we die like everyone else and get eaten by worms. But if we're right, we go to heaven. If they are right, they suffer the same fate we do if we are WRONG, but if they are wrong they suffer a fate much worse than death itself.

There is more to life than our 5 senses are capable of comprehending.

I'll ask it this way...what are the odds of God existing? Now, what are the odds of the universe expanding the way we THINK it might have, life developing out of nothing, then evolving into basically every creature on earth? Let's not forget that evolution doesn't rely simply on a "missing link" between ape and man, it relies on an original spontaneously created life form that then evolved into an untold number of different animals. We are to believe that given enough time a single cell creature is capable of producing virtually every living creature on earth.

And that's JUST the animal kingdom. We know grass grows from seed, for example. So where did the FIRST grass come from? An empty dirt field won't grow anything on it's own, I don't care how many billions of years you give it. Were grass, and tree, and flower seeds part of the original "big bang" of matter already in existence?

As science itself proves via DNA that all life CAN'T have evolved from the same place, where did cockroaches and dandelions come from? Poison arrow frogs and Oak trees? Evolution is good for adapting to an environment, not for explaining the few million different life forms on earth...

Which is the bigger leap of faith here, God or evolution?
Posted by Kreuzian 8 years ago
Kreuzian
Friar, and all others who "need" to go online to debate this issue: it's hilarious!

You NEED to explain away God to justify some part of your lifestyle.

If God doesn't exist, why is it such a big deal for you?

You don't spend this much time debating the existence of leprechauns do you?

But obviously it has some profound impact on you, and disturbs your ability to continue in the path you have, so you seek to "prove" to others his non-existence to calm the waters of your unrest.

I just use the athiests are pathetic argument. It works everytime. Who wants to be around a bunch of hateful, argumentative, nihilists?

That goes for religious zealots who try to "prove" their religion is right to others FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON athiests are trying to prove it is wrong! To justify their lifestyle, of hate and condemnation, rather than love and peace.

Athiests and religious zealots share more in common than with the rest of us who are trying to love God and love others.
Posted by friar_zero 8 years ago
friar_zero
What proof that actual infinites cannot exist? William Lane Craig gives semantic gymnastics about his personal incredulity. Science has not ruled out the existence of actual infinites. For all intense and purposes the law of conservation of energy could be taken as proof of an actual infinite.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by johnnyrockit 8 years ago
johnnyrockit
MYTN3DCrewTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 8 years ago
mrmatt505
MYTN3DCrewTied
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 
Vote Placed by righty10294 8 years ago
righty10294
MYTN3DCrewTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
MYTN3DCrewTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Black.Nite17 8 years ago
Black.Nite17
MYTN3DCrewTied
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 
Vote Placed by solo 8 years ago
solo
MYTN3DCrewTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
MYTN3DCrewTied
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 
Vote Placed by uiop 8 years ago
uiop
MYTN3DCrewTied
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 
Vote Placed by 3DCrew 8 years ago
3DCrew
MYTN3DCrewTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Derrida 8 years ago
Derrida
MYTN3DCrewTied
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