inferring God's existence is reasonable
Debate Rounds (3)
-thermodynamics (or general laws of energy if i'm stating thermodynaics wrong) and uncaused cause. energy.... it goes from high to low. our universe is going to the low end. it started at the high end. where did that high end come from? from something other than a higher energy? and the same goes for the uncaused cause. something coming from something else makes more sense than something coming from nothing. is GOd the uncaused cause? if he is, why can't the uinverse? well, the universe is like a clock that was set to tick. something had to set it.... that's what it looks like. or a cue ball that is rolling to break the balls... it looks like there had to be a stick. the stick begs the question of where it came from, but we have to draw a line and say there's a mystery.... we infer the stick simply because somehitng coming from something else makes more sense than something coming from nothing. there was nothing then something happened to hte nothingness. that's what it looks like. for energy or the uncaused cause, as far as we can see there was nothing, then something. we can have theoeries about multiple universes etc or an accordian universe but these are just theories. what we see is that it was nothing then something.,,, that's our best observation. id say energy and uncaused causes both lend itself to saying there is a God to explain it.
-Near death experiences. most atheists are no longer atheist after these. it strikes me as the most straightforward explanation to say a person died and went to the after life if that's what they say happened, cause that's what looks like it happened. ive seen atheists who insist the most straightforward explaination is that there is a chemical thing going on. i dont agree. i dont think there's a version of the afterlife inbedded in people's genes, but that's what happens on a common scale. it'd be one thing if only some people experienced it that way, but everyone who has the eperience says the same thing. there's tunnels, people say "it's not your time to die" etc. how is this imbedded in our DNA? how is this common? some people say ketamine gives NDE's. but they dont. they give example which sometimes are like NDEs. so it's not reproducable as far as we know.
-what appear to be miracles. these things dont happen to atheists. the burden is on them to show similar things happening to them.
-complexity. look at an eye, or a watch, etc. this is the weakest point but it is evidence nonetheless. i realize evolution and billions of years could cause complexity that we see.
My opponent says in his first argument " energy.... it goes from high to low. our universe is going to the low end. it started at the high end. where did that high end come from? from something other than a higher energy", he then follows up those punches with " id say energy and uncaused causes both lend itself to saying there is a God to explain it " . First of all let me turn that question around to you, where did your god come from? Did he appear from no where one day? The bible says " he always existed", so he just poofed out of no where. Also the explanation that god created everything is a danger to our knowledge, we rely on the explanation of someone you can't see or know that he is there. We probably would be more advanced if it wasn't for religion. Anyways to sum this part up, there is a reason we have science, I think it's best if we let go of religion and find out how the universe was made. Religion just gives unreasonable explanations to everything, like " god made it".
My opponent talks about near death experience, he hits me hard when he says this " ive seen atheists who insist the most straightforward explanation is that there is a chemical thing going on. i dont agree. i dont think there's a version of the afterlife inbedded in people's genes, but that's what happens on a common scale". Alright children get on the magic school bus! We are going to take a trip into the brain! Dr.Susan states in her book " It is not because the dying person is traveling toward a beautiful afterlife, but because the neurotransmitters in the brain are shutting down and creating the same lovely illusions for all who are near-death.", yes this is a theory, but the afterlife is just a idea. You can't back it up with anything, but Susan's theory is backed up by evidence. Anyways what she means is that the neurotransmitters are shutting down, which creates that light illusion. I suggest you check this website out to see what she says http://www.near-death.com....
My opponent says " complexity. look at an eye, or a watch, etc. this is the weakest point but it is evidence nonetheless. i realize evolution and billions of years could cause complexity that we see.", sorry but I don't see the point your trying to make. Could you explain it to me? Evolution is a theory, kinda both. A theory and a fact, it's complicated let's just say it's a theory. This is the theory of evolution in a wiki page http://www.conservapedia.com... . Anyways yes it's a theory, but the idea that god created the world and evolution isn't real, is a idea. You can't back up that god created everything, but you can back up the theory of evolution.
Conclusion: God's existence is unreasonable. It can't be backed up with anything. Also with the growing number of atheist in America, why isn't god coming down to tell everyone in the world that he is still there. Now to top it all off with some cream, why is there so many gods? Clearly if the christian god did create the world, he would want everyone to know he did it, so why was he allowing all these other gods? These other gods are not other perceptions of him. What about the religions that have a entire different afterlife, morales, and so on. I don't believe of god because of that.
con just ignored the miracles point. has he no response?
con asks where God came from. good question, but we don't need an answer. all we need is the inference that it makes more sense that something came from something else, instead of from nothing, to have a decent answer. a cue stick is reasonable if we see a cue ball rolling to a bunch of balls. perhaps there's a person and another world behind that stick, but we have no way of knowing and it's really irrelvant.
NDEs. so con thinks there's a common story imbedded in our DNA for when we are near death? i think it's actually kinda silly, that idea. it's true that the dying brain is a great alternative theory for what it going on, but it doesn't explain the commonality.
But to be honest, in this response you just ignored most of my debate. How god isn't real, because if he was he would make sure everyone knows he is still there, with the growing number of atheist wouldn't you think he would want everyone to know he is still alive, then let everyone to forget about him? Also the large number of different gods, like I said they aren't other perceptions of the Christian gods, because there is different afterlives and different morale. So if there really is one god, why do all these other gods exist? Pretty sure I wouldn't like to be forgotten about and/or humans worshiping a other god. But guess what, he didn't do anything to stop this, weird god right? He is either fake, or the laziest god in the world. Also like I said, religion is making people dumb, instead of figuring out how the world is made you just rely on religion for explanation. Also I don't think it makes more sense that the universe came from a god you can't prove is real, there is a reason for science. We are trying to figure out how the universe was made, and religion is getting in the way by making random explanations that are false and have no evidence.
Also the NDE theory Susan made is silly? That is silly? Sorry, but it's hard to be civil when you believe in the explanation of a religion, and that religion's explanation about NDE can not be explained by evidence. Susan's theory can be explained by evidence, it's backed up. Your religion's theory is a random explanation that is backed up by nothing. I think your religion's explanation is more silly than Susan's theory. Actually if you read Susan's theory it does explain the commonality. I would show you the example, but it would be too long. It's pretty much the entire theory.
dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 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:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: ff last round
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.