The Instigator
MrBurns2017
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kwagga_la
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There is no such thing as God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 778 times Debate No: 103737
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

MrBurns2017

Pro

Background about me. I learnt at school Torah for 11 years (since primary school) and I love reading cosmology books in my free time. I am atheist.
I believe that the universe was formed 14.8 billions yrs ago, earth was formed 4.5 years ago and I also believe that we are 'star stuff' and a by-product of evolution.

I wont start listing my arguments. I just want to start by the other side trying to contradict my points.

I want the other side to address my points and prove his point in any way (even philosophically).

- Why there is one God and not billion Gods?

- Why God is morally good?

- Who goes to heaven and what exactly is there?
kwagga_la

Con

Thank you for starting the Debate. I believe in the Bible and will therefore answer based on what I learn from there and what makes sense to me.

1. Why there is one God and not billion Gods?

To answer your question I will post something here written in a different debate. In order to determine which God is the only true God one should look at what that God and the associated religion teaches. For example: The question here is quite meaningless to a Hindu who DO believe there are millions if not billions of gods. The Bible however claims exclusivity in that there is only one Creator who is God. In order to make sense of it all I use what I call the "Accountability argument".

"If I believe in the God of the Bible and die, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief and will be rewarded by gaining a life everlasting with God. Nothing to worry about. If I believe in the God of the Bible and die, and he did not exist, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief or anything else because I will cease to exist. I have nothing to worry about.
If the atheist die, and the God of the Bible exists, then he or she will be held accountable for disbelief and will be judged accordingly. Something to worry about. If the atheist die and there is NO god, then the atheist will cease to exist and will not be held accountable for anything. Nothing to worry about. If I believe in the God of the Bible and die, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief and will be rewarded by gaining a life everlasting with God."

"If I believe in the God of the Bible and die and rejected Buddhism, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief or anything else because I will re-incarnate. I have nothing to worry about. If a Buddhist dies, and the God of the Bible exists, then he or she will be held accountable for disbelief in the God and will be judged accordingly. Something to worry about.
If a Buddhist die, and the God of the Bible do not exist, then he or she will re-incarnate and will not be held accountable for anything. Nothing to worry about."

By a process of illumination the billions of gods can be eliminated to leave only one that is more logical to follow than the others. This is not Pascal"s wager and it is something I came up with for myself to make sense of it all.

2. Why God is morally good?

The God of the Bible says that He is Holy; therefore, He has to adhere to a moral code and cannot do whatever He wants that is in accordance with what HE DETERMINES to be HOLY. It is not a limitation but a choice that many atheists do not comprehend. One can only be all powerful if you can choose (and not be forced by anyone else) not to do something. Most atheists want to impose on God some moral view that is generally accepted today. They fail to see the fallacies in their reasoning and often the SITUATIONAL logic in what God commanded. For example: God chose Israel to become a nation. To do this you need people who will have babies. Can two men having sex have babies? Can two woman having sex have babies? No they cannot, and therefore it is counter productive to allow homosexuality when you are trying to build a nation. It is logical and requires a little common sense to comprehend and goes against public opinion today. I can also point out the diseases more common under homosexual couples that claimed many lives before awareness and modern technology helped to mitigate it. Definitely not the type of thing you want when trying to build a nation. Secondly, if there is no God, who are you, myself or anyone to say to someone else that they must adhere to a particular moral view? It is quite obvious that there are no homosexual nations, because of the simple fact that they cannot procreate. In spite of this logic, people cries out against the God of the Bible saying that he is immoral and bla bla bla.

Looking at different societies and comparing it with nature it becomes evident that moral standards vary too much to be a process of natural selection. Natural selection determines conformity which is not found when comparing morals. Why is it ok for a young lion to challenge and kill/banish the old one, kill all his babies, mate with all his females and not for a human to do the same in our society? I have heard many atheists say that we are all animals after all, so why the big difference? This also varies between societies. Some ancient societies never saw anything wrong with child sacrifice; atheists in China and Russia did not see anything wrong with killing millions who did not bow to their policies. Perhaps you can explain exactly what you mean by morally good in order to answer the question better and who determined what you consider morally good or the authority behind your idea of morally good that will compel everyone to accept your view of what is morally good.

3. Who goes to heaven and what exactly is there?

It is a principle found in every society that when you go to "Rome you do as the Romans do". Every country demands something of anyone who wants to live there. There is no free ride, come on over and do what ever you want in any country. Everyone has rules and these rules must be obeyed in order to stay in a particular country. The same is applicable to God and Heaven. If you want to go to Heaven you must do what God requires of you. It is not an unfair principle according to our societies today and common sense. Therefore, those who do what God requires of them go to heaven. To answer the second part; God made everything good but because sin entered into the world BY MAN'S DOING things changed. Heaven is a restoration of what God had in mind for humankind before sin entered.
Debate Round No. 1
MrBurns2017

Pro

1#
The first point of "accountability" is a bit off the subject. The world had 10,000s of religions in its history. In fact, the Hebrews, who originated in the area of Mesopotamia and Sumer, encountered around 2,200 different religions on their way to Israel (That was before the Torah/Old Testment was written). Scripts in Mesopotamia, which is today Iraq, were found to also describe stories that are in the Old Testment such as Adam & Eve tale and Noahs story (A reference to this statement is a book which is called 'The Human Story: Our History, from the Stone Age to Today').
Henceforth, I dont know why you deviated to the "accountability" argument, but, the only way you say that you go to heaven and not a Jihadist is that if you say that your religion is superior to most of other religions and religion teachings. Did you you know that a few of the 9/11 attackers were indoctrinated in Saudi Arabia. Saudi's education is known for Islamic indoctrination. A Jihadist would tell you that those attackers are in heaven now, but you would disagree. So unless there is some reliable/valid test or measure applied to your belief, there is no way to know..
In addition to all that, if you look at the world today and recent history. Palestinians (Muslims) fight the Israelis, partially for religious reasons, Protestants fought the Catholics in Northern Ireland for many years, 15th century Christian hatred in Spain towards other religions specifically judiasm lead to antisimist that led to the Inquisition, America's war on Islamic countries are also god related (look how many times American politicians mention God.. George Bush was famous for his Bible related sayings). So do you see, if one religious warrior declares war on another religious warrior.. one of them must go to hell and the other heaven.. or both go to one or the other. So basically, your "accountability" argument was badly perceived.

2#
I understand your point that you think we are atheists who have our own definition of good morality. I will make a much broader definition of morality: "infliction of excessive mental or physical pain on an individual without a reasonable just cause". So for example, condemning someone to burn in hell for being skeptical of the bible is immoral.
But let me focus on God and the role the he took in the bible. Lets take the "Moses story" as an example.
Moses killed a Gypsy guard to defend a slave, got scared and run into the desert. There he talked with God, where God showed interest in saving the jews from their masters in Egypt. God, as if I remember, used a progressive strike system to put pressure on Pariah to agree to release the jews. I dont remember all the steps. But I do remember the last one. The last one involved the jews marking their homes with goats'es blood as an identifier that those are Jewish homes. Then when this is done, the role of God is to cause death (basically murder) the oldest child that exists in every Egyptian family.
That means that if the oldest son was 5 years old, for instance, he would be dead.
The way the story ended, is that Gods cold-blooded ruthlessness won, and the jews were released.
Then, Moses became their leader and mislead them for 40 years in the desert before trying to enter Israel. He also had the time to marry a 9 year old girl.
As for God murder is really not such a big deal, he decided to deliver the 10 commandments to Moses, who is a second-degree murderer, child exploiter and a deceiver.
You would think that Jews were good people, since they received the 10 commandments from God and were selected by him... But look carefully mostly at the third chapter of the bible. Jews were zealots back then. They supported stoning homosexuals, beating their children and women under certain circumstances and enslaving people nearby who werent jews (the jews gave them a name 'Goi').
You would then think, why did God select them. Were they the best selection or were they even selected or did they select themselves?
Why not to choose the Phoenicians (located themselves mainly in Tyre and north of Israel) who were back then a relatively peaceful, civilized society that focused on commerce? a civilization who first invented the alphabet and build Carthage?

3#
Basically, what you are saying is that there are rules to abide by same as in any society. The problem with that if you put God in every ones shoes.. you dont know how he would react. People are different. A child or a person from an affluent family would struggle less than a person from a poor family in some derelict area.. Even when the person in the affluent family is a complete psychotic sociopath. He wouldnt show bad behavior that would be enough to prevent him from entering heaven and be put in hell, if he wasnt challenged in a particular way.
... And why assisted suicide or euthanasia is not allowed for people who want to a dignifying death, such as people who were paralyzed from stroke. Why not to follow Canada or Switzerland who do have such law?
So God, according to your ideology, would put those Canadian/Swiss victims of disease into hell? didnt he create hell for them from the very start? Since you dont believe in evolution... why do all those diseases and imperfections exist and why did they come to existence.
In short, if there is judgement in the after life, it would be very complex and not like it is described by the bible in order to appear just and fair.

To finish that round, I would just say, there is no proof that there one God, since it is risky to rely on very few testimonies. God morality is dubious by his acts in the old testament and no one knows if there is after life, because no one came back.
kwagga_la

Con

1# Rebuttal
The Accountability argument was mentioned because you asked why one instead of billions. I also stated "By a process of illumination the billions of gods can be eliminated to leave only one that is more logical to follow than the others. " By examining the logic in their teaching you eliminate the billions of gods in the Hindu system (who are the only reason there is probably a billion gods around) that also teaches reincarnation to end up with one logical path to follow. There is only one God for Israel because that was what God and Israel agreed to in a covenant. In fact, atheist again misunderstands the god concept. There are in fact many gods that exist in various forms. Satan is called the god of this world. The Roman emperors and Persian kings were worshiped as gods. The Emperor of Japan is believed to be divine etc. Therefore many gods do exist because they have the power in SOME MEASURE to perform acts that a God would have. What distinguishes the God of the Bible from the rest as the only true God is because the other gods are created and has to bow to the will of the supreme un-created God. This is seen in the prophecies recorded in the Bible where God decrees something and it comes to pass just like He said. No one is more powerful to stop what He decrees. My religious orientation is not based on supremacy but logic, as stated in my opening round.

The Torah recounts history and simply finding writings that predates it does not mean that because it was written in Mesopotamia or somewhere else that the story itself is therefore older and more valid. In the book of Job he states that he HEARD and kept the LAWS of Israel by only HEARING of them. Job is believed to be the oldest book in the OT. It is a logical fallacy to assume origin based on first appearance in some record found because they could have also recounted the Israel story based on oral tradition like Job did.

Your point regarding people fighting each other does not prove much. Muslims fight Muslims (Sunni and Shiite), Christians fight Christians; Atheists fight each other and so on. All it proves is people will use whatever reason to engage in war. Some reasons more valid than others I suppose.

2# Rebuttal
How many times have you told a lie that inflicted mental or physical pain on someone? How many times did a simple white lie to someone affect another person in a bad way? How many times have you cheated someone or stolen someone"s property that affected their material wealth? You add the words "excessive" in your definition. Whether excessive or not, stealing lying, cheating causes pain and loss to someone else no matter how small. To show the absurdity of argument I will give an example. Should someone be caught and trialed for rape if he only did it once and suffer the full wrath of the law? After all, once is not excessive right? It is not like he did it many times before getting caught. We can list the ten commandments and you will be found guilty on many accounts I am sure. Does this mean you cannot exist because you are also "immoral"? Quite clearly morality does not determine existence. I always fail to see how anyone can use morality as an argument for existence. There are many many people who are moral and immoral to various degrees right now EXISTING on this earth.

Rejecting God is not being skeptical. Rejection is also not taken lightly in society. People being ignored can even be driven to murder. A situation where a father who rejects a child turns into hatred and resentment. The list goes on and on. I asked in the previous round to state what you deem moral and who your authority is in determining what is moral. I ask again because you stated that sending people to hell is immoral. Another question: Is it immoral to send a person to jail to live a life of suffering because he rejected a certain countries law? Is that immoral?

Moses did not marry a 9 year old girl, Mohammed did. He also did not kill a gypsy guard but an Egyptian guard. Moses also did not mislead the Hebrews for 40 years. He led them there because of their disobedience.

There are a number of things you do not consider. The Egyptians was forewarned what will happen when they choose to disobey God. They could have saved their children but chose not too. Secondly the Bible states that children up until a certain age are not held accountable and go to heaven regardless of their parents, or country born in, religious convictions.

The Bible states why God chose the Israelite's. It was not an accident and the reason you mention to discredit God actually shows His mercy and faithfulness to a disobedient people.

3# Rebuttal
Heaven is attained by trusting someone else and not yourself. This is the difference between true Bible teaching and the rest of the world"s religions. All religions and perversions of Christianity teach you can do some work to enter Heaven. The Bible teaches faith in Jesus Christ alone. So no, I am not basically saying what you state and it does not matter what your background or abilities are, everyone has the ability to believe and those who do not is excused as found in Romans 1 & 2.

Again something from another debate, proof for God: "Jesus Christ came to earth and was shown to be the Son of God. His life, miracles and legacy is well attested to by various Christian and non-Christian sources. The very word "Christ" designates the Messiah of the OT and when studying the term Christ in the OT it is clear that Christ was said to be God. Therefore, there is historical evidence for the existence of God who came to earth and made know his will to mankind. That makes sense to me that a loving Creator would do something like that. The limitations of science are evident in that it cannot conclusively prove or disprove historical evidence. Try doing an experiment to determine who your ancestor was 100 generations ago. It is a fact accepted that I must have had an ancestor because I am here today. Having said that and believing that based on logic, not material evidence, I must admit that I do not know what my ancestor looked like; I never met him and know absolutely nothing about him. I bet it is the same with just about everyone reading this right now."

You ask why do decease and all the evil exist? It is because of man"s choice. Disease does not determine whether you go to hell or not. But let me ask you a question too. Since God does not exist according to you, why does disease and suffering exist?
Debate Round No. 2
MrBurns2017

Pro

On the last round I will briefly go over the points account to counter you counter-arguments and introduce new points which werent mentioned. Before that I might have made a mistake about the creation of the universe.. it might have been created 13.8 bn years ago and the wordl 4.5 bn years ago (not 4.5 years ago, forgot the billion word).

1#
You talk about "logic" and testimonies. But my whole point is that you cant rely on that. I am not trying to counter your argument with a different logic and testimonies. Many religions have their own testimonies and every religion has its own logic. You have slightly different set of logic and testimonies from orthodox Jews. And that slight difference make you follow your religion completely differently. You dont dress like an orthodox Jews or live by strict rules that make you prey often, behave differently on the weekends and devote many hours to learning Torah, in addition to the other many strict rules that there are.
Muhammad heard the Angel of Gabriel talking to him in the desert. Then he accumulated enough followers to take over Mecca and start the Arab Empire which was spread across the middle east and North Africa. Its spread was stopped into Europe by a decisive battle/s by Charles Martel. Look at religion spread by geography since then to today. Europe has more Christian states and north Africa and the Middle East has more muslim states. Why is that?
It is because the rulers of those countries enforced or increased the influence of those religions. For example, Constantine the Great adapted Christianity after experiencing a dream where he saw a cross.. He recreated the place that was back then Istanbul to Constantinople, and spread Christianity through Eastern Roman Empire.
Even if you take a country like Israel. Religion was more adapted after King David who conquered much of Israel and maintained control of the 12 tribes through the Torah and also by marrying different women in different tribes (I believe that he had 20 wives). Jews had to rely on religion at the time, to give legitimate reason to stay in the country of Canaan. They were a nomad tribe in the middle east. Even until today, jews use that religious argument that Israel was given to them by God, and all other Gois are irrelevant.

And back to religion being distributed geographically. Why science isnt distributed geographically. Why one country such as France believes in the String theory and Germany doesnt? thats because scientific theories/assumptions are tested and doesnt rely on testimonies and distorted logic.

2#
You go into the topic of how the law works and politics. I dont think that any country supports laws that would send a person to burn for eternity, but God does.. for even trivial things as refusing to believe in him. Do you, now understand what I meant by my definition of morality? - "infliction of excessive mental or physical pain on an individual without a reasonable just cause is immoral".
As I said before, it is a broad definition. A narrower definition encompass more specific crimes. I personally believe that non-violent drug offenses should be lightly punished.. not like the laws in Thailand that condemn you to long jail sentences you guilty of drug distribution or possession, or they can also result in a death sentence.

To the other point. I dont consider any authority to be moral. I studied enough psychology to tell you that people also search for patterns to group things together. You religious people seek for some truth to organize your perception of the world. My perception is that there is no absolute morally right authority. All authorities are bad, but some are better and others are worse. Countries like N.Korea and Syria have governments that are bad, because such regimes need to be coercive, corrupt or even abusive to exist. Democracies masquerade themselves and who they operate. Many immoral laws exist within those democracies that suggest that that regime is not working the way it is being said. Why does America has such high rate of incarcerated citizens, and why they receive such long sentences for petty crimes like drug possession, and why the jail conditions are so awful?, and why the rate of recidivism is near 70%?

All of us came from the animals, which means we are human animals. Laws, regulations and also religion are made to control our potentially bad behavior. We have lived in more civilized societies relatively recently. 2 or more centuries back, countries invaded one another, built empires and repressed the occupied indigenous people, mostly for economic reasons and a few for political. If you go even further back, punishment was torture or execution. There was lack of innovation because there weren't enough sufficient liberal regimes for science to evolve (a regime like democracy).
Even today, the world seems to be closer another cold war. I have been following the headlines, there is more tension between Russia and US. And US recently announced to deploy its latest plane F-35 across Europe. About N.Korea, if US tries to invade it, it might drop its nuke on Seoul in half an hour.
There is no such thing as moral authority, but the strongest authority. A citizen of any country can become a victim of certain unjust and unfair law/s of his own country. More discussion on how the criminal justice system should work and who needs to be put in jail needs opening another debate.

Good Morality doesnt exist within religion. Religious morality doesnt aim for eutopia-like society but it aims for a certain order. I brought the example of costumes that belong to orthodox Jews. But I will now bring some of the rules that exist in Christianity. Before Protestant Christianity came to existence, there was a principle in Christianity that gave rise to the Spirit of Capitalism (in short, it gave rise to the campitalism), that christian ethic said that a christian person should devote himself to work because God desires him to. As Protestant Christianity came to existence, certain religious figures such as Mark Luther refuted the aforementioned ethic. And then there was a division in the ethics of the two sub religions. That division manifests itself in Northern Ireland which was torn by conflict for many years.

Another point regarding religious and current day political morality. I dont fully accept both, and even feel hostility towards the hypocrisy that they project. I am a vegan. On this planet if you are a certain animal, you get abused repetitively and sometimes through generations, in case if you are a chicken or a cow.
- Fish, chicken, cows, ducks get mass produced and eaten, including their discretion such as eggs, milk.
- Animal like foxes get skinned to produce fur clothing. Cows get skinned to produce leather clothes like shoes and belts.
- Horses are being participated in horse racings

Final point, this time about Moses, how disobedient were the Jews to not be able to walk to Israel in less than 40 years. It is a 2 weeks or at most a month travel on foot.

3#
You dont know how your ancestors told you. But genetic studies can point your genes to geographical areas such as western Africa, and tell you that your ancestors were dark in their skin color. Our ancestors are the homophones and some peoples ancestors are the neanderthals. There are genetic studies that show this.. there is no need for evidence fossils.

Thats why you religious people, are not that good in religious debates. You dont read many books such as physics, biology and history books. That results in many holes in your knowledge of the world and its history.
Why do you believe that the universe was created 6,000 years ago? Dont you all the archeological evidence behind the Dinosaurs, Ice age and other evidence?
Why not to believe in the evolution?
Dogs have very adaptive genes. It takes them only 3 generations to change significantly for the the dog to look different.

The problem is that you follow only one book.
kwagga_la

Con

1# Rebuttal

If you cannot rely on logic then how can we even Debate the topic? If we cannot rely on testimonies the judicial system in every known country falls to pieces. Science is supposed to be based on logical principles and if it is true we cannot rely on logic then we can also not rely on science. You basically just lost the debate by that statement.

My faith is based on the Bible and not just any Bible. History reveals that there is a corrupted and un-corrupted text. Your assertion is disproved in that Christian's through the centuries on DIFFERENT CONTINENTS was able to read the Bible and come to the same conclusions to believe the same doctrines. Some may vary a bit based on interpretation but they were all able to comprehend the essential doctrines.

"It is because the rulers of those countries enforced or increased the influence of those religions". I agree with this statement but not the conclusion. The Bible is the standard by which their actions are judged and based on that they stand guilty and not justified. Their actions do not overrule the Bible but must conform to it. The RC Church try to overcome the Scriptures by saying the Pope can overrule written revelation. That is an obvious fallacy because the standard you claim gives you authority can be overruled.

To deal with why they had many wives will require more than an 8000 character limitation. I have dealt with this point in other debates and the comments sections and so will only mention that God allowed things although he did not condone it. It was not intended for man to have many wives but God allowed it the same way He allows evil to continue until it's appointed time. The same goes for slavery.

"Why one country such as France believes in the String theory and Germany doesnt? thats because scientific theories/assumptions are tested and doesnt rely on testimonies and distorted logic." I agree again but not with the conclusion. The reason why some scientists reject something and others believe it is because the "evidence" allows different interpretations. Science is not so secure to be an authority on everything and most people fail to notice that. Hawking's theory of Black holes was proved to be wrong after 30 years when everyone considered it a fact, something to think about. The excuse that that science is always correcting itself and can admit when it is wrong is hypocritical. I have never heard "science" apologize to anyone for being wrong. Darwin's theory of evolution is considered incorrect in the details by many current scientists but the school textbooks still present his theory as if it was a fact. There is no disclaimer saying: "Darwin was wrong, modern scientific theory says so" or something to that effect. In fact, no one with a sane mind can label themselves "atheistic" under these unsure conditions caused by science refuting science. For example: Perhaps tomorrow "science" can find proof for the afterlife (for instance). At best one could claim agnosticism.

2# Rebuttal:

You stated: "My perception is that there is no absolute morally right authority". If that is the case then you have no standard to judge what is correct and wrong. It becomes a matter of personal opinion and since we are all animals your opinion is not worth more than mine. If I am immoral according to you then that is your opinion. There is no standard to back you up. The question then becomes meaningless whether God is morally good because who says your definition of morality to label God is the correct one? You can study Psychology all you want, I have too, and without moral absolutes Psychology also falls flat. What you might deem immoral is moral in another society and therefore who cares what you have to say? If there is an absolute standard then people need to pay attention because that entails accountability. Psychology generally only succeeds by providing excuses for those who can't handle the fact that they are actually not as good as they would like to think or subscribe drugs that suppress their ability to deal with the problem. A honest Psychologist should tell people to get of the drugs and buy alcohol if they really wanted to help, it's much cheaper but have the same effect. They will probably object to that because you cannot charge $500 dollars and hour for that simple but true advise. By your own admittance you have no moral authority and have no moral STANDARD. So leave God and the religious types alone. At least show some respect to others consistent with your personal ideology.

If there is no afterlife then sentencing someone to life imprisonment for rejecting some law is the same as eternal punishment. Is it morally permissible to imprison someone for life (basically an eternity if there is no afterlife) but not for God to do the same? You conveniently dodge the question regarding this point and for me it is obvious why you did it.

3# Rebuttal:

Genetics can point to but not proof the actual location. Genetics cannot tell what my ancestor looked like, what he liked, how he talked etc. The only LOGICAL fact is he existed. They determine genetics based on what they found. What they find is INTERPRETED and this is where so called science becomes shaky because the genetic origins cannot satisfy the scientific process based on a simple principle that you and everyone else cannot falsify their own existence. That is why you atheist's fail to convince us religious types and cannot produce FACTUAL data to make us believe otherwise. There are many holes in science like dark matter, dark energy and so on. Nobody knows what it is or has observed it. That is the definition of faith in the Bible - Believing in something not seen directly. If you are HONEST you will admit that, if you are only out to proof what you WANT to believe you will deny it. I have debated on this site and many Atheists have admitted everything is not "proof". They were honest enough to admit it. How do you know the universe was created 13.8 billion years ago. Are you aware that dating is circular? In order to make the formula work you have to ASSUME a age for the universe to begin with. No one knows how much radiation was present to begin with when the universe was formed or carbon and and and. So if you ASSUME a young age the formula gives a young age. If you ASSUME an old age the same formula gives a old age. So basically, you enter a old age based on assumption and then the formula confirms an old age that is supposed to prove your original assumption is correct.

The problem is that you follow only human opinion and fail to distinguish theory from fact.

Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rando5634 1 month ago
Rando5634
Let people believe what they want to believe. Just because you don't believe what they believe doesn't mean you should try to disprove it. It is no ones business what others beliefs are. Also, I am not saying this because I am Christian, I am actually an atheist but to let others believe what they want is no skin of my back.
Posted by Debating_Horse 7 months ago
Debating_Horse
Yeah I agree MrBurns2017!
Posted by kwagga_la 7 months ago
kwagga_la
Oh, and for anyone interested reading this....Evolution was a religious concept found in Hinduism way before Darwin. Evolution taken to it's logical conclusion leaves OPEN the possibility of a afterlife and evolving into a higher "soul" that may or may not be spiritual. Trying to separate evolution from religion is biased to say the least because the concept of evolution is conveniently limited by people with personal agendas like Darwin who did not want to accept the supernatural. However, the theory itself is not limited to scientific opinion and if that is really the way nature works then the supernatural must also be a reality.
Posted by kwagga_la 7 months ago
kwagga_la
@MrBurns2017 Ok, all the best to you in your other debates!
Posted by kwagga_la 7 months ago
kwagga_la
@MrBurns2017 There are many things I actually do agree with with what you state but sometimes come to different conclusions. I agree with you that science cannot prove something 100% at all times. The age of the earth was based on assumption. If you read the history of how the method was formulated it will be clear. I do not believe in evolution as it is taught today. Darwin and the variations that came about by his theory is a change in kinds. This has never been observed. The finks with the beaks that changed stayed birds. It was not a new kind but an adaption or variation within a kind. Microbes who develop resistance still stay microbes. There was no evolution of kinds so the theory lacks conclusive proof. So we religious types do not blindly follow a book and are capable of being critical just like everyone else. Looking at your example of a dog, did the dog become something else? No it stayed a dog. The kind did not change, there was an adaptation or variation WITHIN a species. This is not proof of Darwinian evolution or the branches that stem from it.
Posted by MrBurns2017 7 months ago
MrBurns2017
Finally, I am going to quit this debate, I want to participate in other debates.. you could participate with the commentators. I think some of them know more science then me, so they could be more knowledgeable/precise.
Posted by MrBurns2017 7 months ago
MrBurns2017
Science doesnt prove absoultely anything. It estimates the likelihood of something to happen. The likelihood that the world is round is very high.. nothing is proven 100%, there are scientists out there who try to refute the idea. There are scientist who try to refute the ideas that global warming is not man made, that 9/11 was a scam and the place crash doesnt obey the laws of physics and that there is no such thing as evolution. But the overwhelming scientific evidence shows that the world is round, 9/11 did happen and evolution does exist. I am not a scientist, but it is agreeable in the scientific community that there was a big bang (if i remember right they measure it by warmth distribution and call it inflation).
Do you really not believe in the dinosaurs? the ice age? evolution?
Perhaps the evolution of dogs. It takes a dog 3 generation to adapt its genetics, that would reflect on the next generations dog phenotype too.
Before opening the debate, I saw many debates where Richard Dawkins and Lawerence Kraus participated in. You can also view documentaries on youtube. A good documentary, https://www.youtube.com...

There is simply a lot of agreement that evolution does exist and the world is tens of billions old and not 6000 years old.
Posted by MrBurns2017 7 months ago
MrBurns2017
Science doesnt prove absoultely anything. It estimates the likelihood of something to happen. The likelihood that the world is round is very high.. nothing is proven 100%, there are scientists out there who try to refute the idea. There are scientist who try to refute the ideas that global warming is not man made, that 9/11 was a scam and the place crash doesnt obey the laws of physics and that there is no such thing as evolution. But the overwhelming scientific evidence shows that the world is round, 9/11 did happen and evolution does exist. I am not a scientist, but it is agreeable in the scientific community that there was a big bang (if i remember right they measure it by warmth distribution and call it inflation).
Do you really not believe in the dinosaurs? the ice age? evolution?
Perhaps the evolution of dogs. It takes a dog 3 generation to adapt its genetics, that would reflect on the next generations dog phenotype too.
Before opening the debate, I saw many debates where Richard Dawkins and Lawerence Kraus participated in. You can also view documentaries on youtube. A good documentary, https://www.youtube.com...

There is simply a lot of agreement that evolution does exist and the world is tens of billions old and not 6000 years old.
Posted by kwagga_la 7 months ago
kwagga_la
The technique of comparing the abundance ratio of a radioactive isotope to a reference isotope to determine the age of a material is called radioactive dating.

(My comment: In order to find the standard to compare you need the exact amount present in the beginning.)

The age of our galaxy and earth also can be estimated using radioactive dating. Using the decays of uranium and thorium, our galaxy has been found to be between 10 and 20 billion years old and the earth has been found to be 4.6 billion years old. The Universe must be older than our galaxy. Within experimental error, this estimate agrees with the 15 billion year estimate of the age of the Universe.

(My comment: You call a 5 billion years error rate scientific? The 15 billion years mentioned also contradicts the 13.8 billion years mentioned in the Debate. My point is, it's not very reliable.Decay can also be faster or slower under certain conditions.)

http://www2.lbl.gov...
Posted by kwagga_la 7 months ago
kwagga_la
@MrBurns2017 Since you would like to continue the debate, we can do so in the comments sections. Why don't you start by answering my questions based on your accusations against God?
No votes have been placed for this debate.