The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

An all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,472 times Debate No: 115737
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)




Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!


In this debate, BertrandsTeapot, will try to counter the arguments, which I think, are evidence that there is a theistic god. This means, a space less, immaterial, powerful, personal, infinite, intelligent being. This does not necessary prove the god of the Bible, although I do believe he is real. First, I will start by showing evidence that God is real by using the cosmological argument. I will use the acronym C.R.I.M.E.S. This not only shows evidence for the theistic god but shows how evolution is flawed. I"m not sure what is it that BertrandsTeapot believes in. If he"s an atheist, evolutionist, or materialist, these arguments counter those beliefs very well. Here we go.

C - Creation
You'd be surprised to know that as a Christian I believe in the Big Bang. Over the recent years, the Big Bang has been proven to be the best explanation for our reality. We know that the Big Bang and everything had a beginning from the evidence. NASA's Hubble has shown clear evidence that the heat from the Big Bang is slowly cooling down. If it's cooling down, something must have started it. Even atheists admit this. Stephen Hawkins agreed with this idea, although I also believe that space, time, and matter came from nothing. Not only that, the Big Bang is highly tuned. Stephen Hawkins put it this way: "If the expansion rate was different by one part in a thousand, million, million a second after the Big Bang, the universe would have collapsed back on itself or never developed galaxies." You can't use evolutionary laws in this because this is where everything came from. Whatever caused the Big Bang must be spaceless, immaterial, and timeless. Did nothing create something out of nothing? Or did someone create something out of nothing? There's more evidence regarding this topic, but I'll show this for now.

R - Reason
If evolution is real, you cannot justify reason. More surprisingly, Darwin himself knew this. "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the minds lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there were at all any convictions in such mind?" (Charles Darwin). If we our minds evolved from RANDOM, UNGUIDED processes, why should we trust anything we think? If we are just molecules in motion, we shouldn't believe in our minds. We merely react, we don't REASON. Evolution cannot explain minds. If evolution is real, are we just molecular machines? Then, we don't have free will, we don't reason, we react, therefore we shouldn"t trust ANY of our thoughts, INCLUDING THE IDEA THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE. Atheists call themselves free thinkers, yet, their own argument falls on its own foundation. I think that's the fatal flaw in atheism.

I - Information
This takes us to the very basis of life. Evolution says we all evolved from one-celled amoebas. This is the macro-evolution argument. You know it. From swimming worms, to moral, intelligent humans. Now know that amoebas do not say "Made by God" or "Made by Evolution". So, what you have to do is make an interpretation. You need to look at the data and come to a logical conclusion. This is why science doesn't say anything, scientists do. All data needs to be interpreted. What data? Today, we know what's in a cell. Let's suppose for a moment that you like alphabet cereal. You're a teenager and one day you come downstairs and see that the cereal is knocked over on the table and the letters spell "Take out the garbage - Mom" What are you going to think? The cat knocked it over? The wind did it? Bacterial evolution? No, you're going to say that is intelligent design from an intelligent mind, because we KNOW that messages only come from minds; they don't come from repetitive, random forces. If that's true, then where does the message for DNA come from? Every living thing has DNA. What IS DNA? Bill Gates (who is not a Christian) put it like this: "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." DNA is an immaterial code and message. It IS expressed in materials but can only be interpreted by minds and the letters and order by which is appears is NOT determined by any chemical, or physical process. As far as I know, codes only come from coders. Messages only come from minds. DNA is like a message. It's like "Take out the garbage - Mom" expect is far larger and complex. Your DNA has about 3 billion characters in it. ALL in the right order. although we know it"s not always perfect because we live in a fallen world. Now you can say that the amoeba's DNA maybe evolved and started small. Problem is, in an amoeba there is about 1,000 volumes of an encyclopedia worth of information in there. To believe that resulted by natural forces like evolution is like saying that the Library of Congress came up from an explosion in a printing shop. Life and information seem to need an intelligent cause. You know who said this? Not a Christian, but Richard Dawkins himself.

M - Morality
68 years ago, the Allies liberated the camp which contained dead bodies. If God is not real, saying killing and torturing humans is just an opinion. Why? Because if there is no standard (God) that is beyond humanity and human opinion, then that is your opinion against Hitler's opinion. There are no objective moral right, or objective more wrongs. In fact, if God does not exist, the Nazis were not wrong. If there is no god, love is no better than rape. Not in an objective way at least. You may not like it, but its not really wrong. If god is not real, blowing up people watching a marathon is no better than feeding the poor. If god is not real, religious crusades are not wrong, because there is no standard of righteousness. There are no human rights if there is no god. It's all an opinion. If we're just overgrown germs, that got here by evolution, then we are no different than another animal. I'm not saying atheists don't know morality, I"m just saying that they can't justify morality. There is no purpose in evolution. It just say what survives, not what OUGHT to survive.

E - Evil
The atheists were supposed to bring this one, however, I believe evil is actually EVIDENCE that God is real, here is why. If God exists, we have creation and design of the universe, reason, laws and logic, morality, free will, laws of nature. The Laws of Nature shows that God not only created everything but sustains it. We know how it works and it"s so precise. That's why we can take space shuttles to mars. Now evil is for God, why? Because objective evil presupposes objective good. And objective good requires God. C.S. Lewis before turning into a Christian had a doubt about evil and thought it was a case against God. One day, he realized that argument didn't make sense. In Mere Christianity he wrote this after becoming a Christian: "(As an atheist) my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?". There is no such thing as injustice unless there is justice. And there is no such thing as justice unless there's a standard outside of us known that is objective and does not change. Look at it this way. The shadows prove the sunshine. There would be no shadows unless there was sunshine. You can have sunshine without shadows, but there wouldn't be shadows unless there was sunshine. And the sun, the origin of sunshine, could be seen as God. Same goes for evil. You can't have evil without good. You can have good, but we wouldn't know what evil is unless we knew what good is. And finally, the last letter.

S - Science
I thought the atheist was supposed to bring up science. "Christians don't do science. They don't believe in evidence." Actually, we do. In fact, science is against evolution and atheism. If there is no God, we wouldn't even have science. This is what Einstein said about why we can do science: "The most comprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible." Why can we look at the world and draw conclusions about everything? Only if theism is true or any immaterial realm is true, we can do science; because science is built on a foundation of immaterial realities that theism, not atheism, can explain. Here's some of the things science needs to work but can't be explained by evolution or atheism. Orderly natural laws, causality (You can't prove the law of causality by using a science experiment, you have to assume it exists. Science only searches for causes.) Laws of Logic (that, by the way, we are using right now to understand each other through words. Science can't explain that.) reason, free will (you have to freely evaluate data to understand it because science won't tell you, only scientists do.) realism (The idea that we can appropriate, through our senses, truth) and morality. We can't even trust scientists unless they are ethical and tell us the results of their experiments truthfully and honestly. These are all laws, or things, that are immaterial and cannot be explained by matter or materialism. You can't get honesty through a test tube. Honesty is not a molecule, it's a human value.

To conclude this, we know that C.R.I.M.E.S. is an acronym showing evidence for God. All these aspects of reality are immaterial, and are only explained by the realm that is outside of what we can see, and is above humanity, and are unchanging laws which are objective regardless of human opinion; therefore, when atheists use them to explain the world, they are stealing from God to make their case. And stealing is a CRIME. These are the reasons, among many more, why reality is better explained by a theistic god.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you so much for this answer. It's very well-organized, which I greatly appreciate.

As I believe is best practice, I will attempt to go through the C.R.I.M.E.S. arguments one-by-one. First, however, I'd like to explain my issue with a general belief in God, particularly as described here, as well as the cosmological argument.

If you're saying that the universe must have been created by God, where did God come from?

I define the cosmological argument as "an argument for the existence of God that claims that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence (i.e., are contingent), and that the whole cosmos must therefore itself depend on a being that exists independently or necessarily." There are 3 fundamental problems with this argument, first described by Hume:
  1. Structure - I disagree with the assumption that existent things need reasons for their existence. Just because every link in the cause-and-effect chain that followed the Big Bang has a cause, that doesn't mean the chain itself has a cause. As an example, consider a hypothetical collection of 20 hydrogen atoms. Suppose we find an explanation for each individual atom. It shouldn't stand to reason that we need an explanation for the whole collection. This is called the fallacy of composition made famous by Russell who stated that just because every man has a mother, it doesn't mean there is a mother of the human race.
  2. Causality - To speak about the origin of the universe is to attempt to delve beyond the entire scope of understanding, as we know it, as well as observation. This is completely uncharted and unavailable territory. The entire nature of empiricism is founded in our ability to take observations and use them to explain the causes of things. However, this is only possible for particular aspects of the universe.
  3. Necessity - Any being that exists could also not exist and there is "not a contradiction implied in conceiving its non-existence, but this is exactly what would have to be the case, if its existence were necessary." From there, we can see that the term 'necessary being' is totally non-sensical from an a posteriori sense.
As Hume said, "All existentialist propositions are synthetic."

C - Creation
It is nice to hear that you believe in the Big Bang since it is well-established scientific fact at this point. Also, I agree that the Big Bang had a "beginning". I also agree that NASA's Hubble telescope has made an important observation, though the more important part is its place in the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. In all spontaneous processes, the total entropy always increases and the process is irreversible (Atkins and de Paula). Since you invoke Stephen Hawking as part of your argument, let's see some of the other things he says on this topic:
  • "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
  • "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Beyond that, to your point about asking what came before the Big Bang, I would first urge you to learn a bit about spacetime in order to best understand my thoughts on what came before the Big Bang, which coincidentally came from Hawking ( Once you understand that space and time are interwoven, you'll see that one cannot and does not exist without the other. Gravity is not just a warping of space, but a warping of spacetime. This is why light that has to pass by a massive body will take additional time to reach an observer as compared to the time it would take had there not been such a body.

With this, you can try to rewind the universe back to its beginnings 13.8 billion years ago when it was infinitely small and infinitely dense. It doesn't really make sense to use a word like "before" when asking what there was "prior" to the Big Bang's occurrence because time itself did not exist. Without the existence of time, a word like "before" is completely meaningless and thus not relevant to any discussion. As Hawking put it, "Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang."

R - Reason

There is absolutely no reason to decouple evolution and reason. Rather, we should be looking at how humans evolved to develop and use reason. Here are the thoughts of some pre eminent scholars:
  • "(Humans evolved reason because) reasoning contributes to the effectiveness and reliability of communication by enabling communicators to argue for their claim and..." - Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber
  • "Of all the faculties of the human mind...Reason stands at the summit. The more the habits of any particular animal are studied by a naturalist, the more he attributes to reason and the less to unlearnt instincts..." - Charles Darwin
  • "The foundations of logical theory are biological." - William S. Cooper
But, that is not the most glaring issue with this argument. You say that "if evolution is real, you cannot justify reason." But then you go on and use classic reasoning and logic to prove your point. This is a classic example of the logical fallacy, begging the question. You are stating that a given conclusion can't be true by very virtue of the fact that your conclusion is correct.

Beyond that, this whole line of thinking disregards biochemical and neuroanatomical facts. It's a basic tenet of chemistry that multiple constituent parts can form something completely different. Just like a collection of transistors can be arranged to create a digital environment, so too can brain cells fuse together to give rise to consciousness.

Yes, evolution is real and yes we are just molecular machines. I don't know if I see why this means we shouldn't trust "ANY" of our thoughts. We trust the outputs of our calculators when we type "2+2=" and we trust our computers when they tell us that Donald Trump is our current president. How is it different to trust the molecular computers in our heads?

I - Information

I agree with the sentiment, "look at the data."

You ask about the hypothetical of spilling out the cereal. This couldn't be a more perfect illustration of trap Creationists get caught in. If I saw my cereal knocked over as such, I would never for a nanosecond think, "that is intelligent design from an intelligent mind." Rather, I would think, "wow, what an unlikely occurrence, I wonder what the probability of such an occurrence is."

I would then calculate the actual odds of this happening. Let's remove spaces (let me know if you'd like a comment with them included). For any given message with one specific character out of a possible 27 occurring for each of the 21 characters, the probability of a specific message would equal (1/27)^21 = 8.7E-31. Improbable? Sure. Calculably possible? Yup! You may be saying, "BertrandsTeapot, what if the alphabet cereal spilled out a number of characters that wasn't 21?" This would be a valid question. Ideally, we'd run a Monte Carlo simulation here. I think N = 10,000 would suffice. Or, we could calculate this probability using the power set based on the number of cereal pieces in the bowl. Still calculably possible? You bet!

A response to a lot of your incredulity may be indulged by the Infinite Monkey Theorem, which states that a monkey hitting keys on a keyboard at random for an infinite amount of time will absolutely, 100% type the complete works of William Shakespeare (eventually). Saying that "life and information seem to need an intelligent cause" is not a good reason for assuming a Creationism standpoint. I never said Richard Dawkins was a source of authority here.

M - Morality

"...saying killing and torturing humans is just an opinion." That sentence doesn't make any sense in English. Did you mean "...humans is bad is...". You claim that since without God there would be no objective morality, there must be a God. I never said there was such thing as objective morality, though, so this entire point should be disregarded.

E - Evil

"We know how it works and it's so precise." Can you please elaborate as to our knowing exactly how God works in his infinite precision?

First of all, I never claimed there was such a thing as objective evil. Second, you spent all this time telling about dualist aspects of the universe, somehow arriving at the conclusion that there must be a God. Without invoking one of your other arguments, there is no way this will stand on its own. This should also be disregarded until another argument is accepted.

S - Science

Let's just agree not to use the phrase, "do science" anymore. It helps no one.

Please explain "science is against evolution and atheism." I don't have enough characters remaining to list just 0.001% of the scholarly articles and science journals that say the opposite. You reference that quote of Einstein's, which I love as well. I agree, the world is all comprehensible. You know what isn't? God. Where did he come from? Why does he exist? The inability to answer these questions shows exactly why your argument is invalid. I can't tell if you're serious when you say that the existence of orderly natural laws, logic, and reason are evidence of God and can't be "explained by evolution or atheism." What untrustworthy, unethical scientists are you referring to in this next point? "Honesty is not a molecule, it's a human value." Well, that's just plain silly.

I feel I have sufficiently defeated each of Con's arguments, in one or multiple ways. There were also a few that completely didn't apply. Looking forward to the next round!


You ask an excellent question. "Where did God come from?"
The God of the Bible is not affected by time, space, and matter. If He was, he wouldn't be God, because then he would have limits. Space, time, and matter is a continuum. They have to come to existence at the same time. So, whatever caused these forces, must be outside of space, time, and matter. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. God is not physical. If you're timeless, do you have a beginning? No. God always existed because He is outside space, matter, and time. He created the continuum.
Structure - You say that there's things that don't need reasons for their existence. Well, first of all, that would be known as God. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the hydrogen example though. Perhaps I'm not understanding it. But all things need an origin and a beginning. Matter, space, and time. Solid, liquid, and gas. Height, length, width. Past, present, future. You say that human race doesn't necessarily need a mother, but there would be no human race unless there was a beginning. Human race has origins.
Causality - BertrandsTeapot, I am not making these arguments from things we don't know, rather from things we do know. In fact, we will never find a natural cause for the Big Bang, because again, matter, space, and time had a beginning. If they had a beginning, whatever started them, cannot be neither of those things. We don't need to observe the rest of the universe because we understand how things within it do. To say there's something out there that might explain something we yet don't know is pure faith, for now.
Necessity - God is necessary because if the cause is outside of space, matter, and time, God cannot be those things. God must also be powerful, to create something out of nothing, intelligent, to create the universe with such precision, and personal, to choose to create, because what's stopping him or forcing him to create if there's nothing.
C - Creation
You mention the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. This is the First Law of Thermodynamics. However, this is just an idealization. Hubble discovered that the radiation afterglow is cooling down. And the universe is not an isolated system, in fact, there are no known 100% isolated universes. The idea that heat death will happen is very respected too. It is also possible that the entropy production can cease. In fact, I would say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports my argument, as we are running down of usable energy. Useful energy, into less useful energy.
Many scientists and atheists point out that the Big Bang could've started with gravity and hot density coming to one point. But that only creates more questions that answers. If that's the case, where did the gravity come from in the first place? I'll be fair by not using the word "before" to reference before the creation of all things. But something needs to start it either way, they can't just be infinite. Allow me to further support my point. I will now provide the acronym S.U.R.G.E.

S " Second Law of Thermodynamics: This explains that the universe is running down of usable energy. As time goes on, energy goes down. One day the sun will burn out. What does this show? The universe had a beginning. If the universe was infinite, the sun would always have energy; however, we know that this is not the case because all things wear down.
U " Universe is expanding: Again, when Hubble discovered in 1929 that the universe is expanding, it also noticed how all the galaxies slowly moved away from us. If you reverse that image and watch it backwards, we could see how they all go into one point. This is where time, space, and matter go to 0. Once, the universe was nothing, and to this day scientists still believe that the universe came from a great explosion.
R " Radiation Afterglow: As mentioned before, the Hubble found radiation from the explosion in the universe cooling down, as two scientists discovered it by accident. If heat is cooling down, something must"ve heated it up. These two scientists won Nobel Prizes in 1978.
G " Great Galaxy Seeds: These are very fine temperature variations in the radiation afterglow that allow the galaxies to form.
E " Einstein"s General Relativity: Einstein knew that space, time, and matter were correlative, and came into existence together. At some point, it all had a beginning. In fact, Einstein wasn"t the only one who understood this idea. These are some scientists who also won Noble Prizes for finding evidence supporting this idea: Arno Penzias ("The best data we have, concerning the Big Bang, are exactly what I would have predicted had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole."), Robert Wilson ("Certainly there was something that set it all off" I can"t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis."), George Smoot ("There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.")

R - Reason
Reason is immaterial. Evolution does not explain reason because it does not care about order, and does not create beyond immaterial. How could an unintelligent process create an intelligent product. It doesn't quite make sense. You quote Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, and they say "...because reasoning contributes to the effectiveness and reliability of communication..." But evolution does NOT care about effectiveness and reliability of anything. It says what survives, not what ought to survive. It merely creates randomly, it does not care about order. Why would it care about effectiveness? It has no mind, it just reacts and that's it. The moment you say evolution MEANT to create reason and mind, you're saying it had to be intelligent to order and CARE. Why do animals care about reason if evolution doesn't care? Why do they attribute more to reason?
We are making a hypothetical world in which evolution is real. I say we have reason because it is an immaterial ability that we have which was given by God because He is beyond all nature and matter. You then mention that immaterial matter can create a digital realm. Like a router to create WiFi I agree. Here's the problem, not only our bodies are made up of living cells, but there there would be no router unless it was created by someONE, because it needs a mind in order to be created. Not a random process like evolution. Evolution doesn't create brain and mind because it is random. Chips in a computer don't come up by themselves and randomly. If evolution is real and we are molecular machines, then we don't reason, we react. Because matter reacts, it doesn't think. Evolution doesn't have a mind, it just creates randomly. There would be no calculators unless a mind made them. Evolution doesn't create calculators. To say that the brain is created by evolution is to say that routers were created randomly.

I - Information
BertrandsTeapot, chance is not a force, it is a mathematical probability. There is no power or force out there known as "chance". It all has a cause. To believe that the message DNA came by "random forces" is completely illogical. More than that, there's no evidence supporting the idea that a sand castle can be created by the ocean waves by "chance", because when you look at a sand castle, you know it was created by minds. People, mind you. Intelligent design (castle) by intelligent mind (person). Because when an acorn seed falls from a tree does it sit there and think "alright, what do I have to do here to become an acorn tree? I guess I'll just trust in chance and hope it works" No, it has the message of DNA. I guess we just live in the universe where DNA, messages, sand castles, computers, routers, reason, and minds just came from random forces. Let's us see how the almost impossible mathematical probability happens all the time around us. To believe everything came from "chance" would need a lot of faith on your part, BertrandsTeapot.

M - Morality
If there's no objective morality, then it is all a matter of opinions. If evolution is real, then Hitler wasn't really wrong. In fact, he was doing the exact right thing. If we're building our way up the ladder of evolution, then when Hitler killed the gypsies, gays, and Jews, he was just evolving and stepping higher from all the lower beings. There either is objective morality, or not. If you agree with me, you know that there's a standard and a lawgiver outside of humanity we should all follow. That is known as God.

E - Evil
By "we know how it works and it's so precise" I meant that the world we live in is absolutely understandable by us, and we can draw conclusions that explain it with great precision. Second, I don't see why objective evil doesn't point to God. You know there's objective evil, or not. Why do you say that this argument should be disregarded? It is a point that further proves the existence of a theistic God, which is what we're discussing about here.

S - Science
I made a mistake with Einstein's quote. It is incomprehensible that the world is comprehensible. Unethical scientists like Josef Mangele. Which scientist is more moral? Einstein or Mengele? Science won't tell you. Science explains why things harm, not if you should harm. You need to interpret the data. Atheism and evolution won't tell you because they can't explain the immaterial realm. You also have to import a moral standard to come to a conclusion. Of course the idea of putting honesty in a test tube is stupid. That's the point. It's not material. You must believe in an immaterial realm with (reason, free will, morality, gravity, causality, etc...) because atheism and evolution cannot explain those things because these cannot be seen in the physical realm. So you must believe that there's something outside of humanity to explain these things or give up your common sense. I don't have any space left, but I think I talked about almost everything
Debate Round No. 2


I worry that voters will be tricked into agreeing with your arguments by way of your improper referencing of scientific concepts. I will do my best to expose the rampant use of fallacious logic and incongruent beliefs. Nearly every point made here can be reduced to a single, invalid claim. I should note that these are all points that Frank Turek made which you, in turn, ripped off and tried to put forth as your own. Much of your argument was lifted word-for-word from Turek. He is infamous for cherry-picking quotes that suit his narrative and completely disregarding context.

One overarching flaw stems from your point that 'reason' could not have arisen from evolution and therefore there must be God. However, this is a completely vacuous statement as it gives rise to an infinite loop of nonsense:
  1. God gave rise to reason
  2. I make use of reason
  3. Therefore, there must be God (1, 2)
  4. If there is a God, evolution can't be true
  5. Evolution is not true (3, 4)
  6. Reason is the only source of objective truth
  7. I use reason to prove the truth of evolution
  8. Evolution is true (6, 7)
  9. Contradiction (5, 8)
This illustrates the fact that your assertion that reason can only arise from God is a complete non starter. Also, Einstein believed in "reason that manifests itself in nature."

Part of your argument (i.e. Frank Turek's argument that you've plagiarized without citation) revolves around the idea that whatever created the universe must not be affected by time, space, or matter. I tried to explain that these concepts are completely irrelevant in discussing what preceded the big bang as they connote things in the 4-dimensional universe we currently exist in. That aside, suppose that there was a being that transcended spacetime. With what modicum of certainty can we state that this must be the God of the Bible? Why not a Muslim or Hindu God? Surely it seems extremely presumptuous to state that your God is the only true God and the Gods defined by scriptures subscribed to by billions of people are false. Even if this God were proven true, what evidence is there that light was created on the first day, fruit-tree bearing fruit on the third, etc? Why could it not have been done in another order? Why could it not have been spread over 14 days?

I am not even trying to espouse the general mindset you take here, but using your own arguments against you to reflect the lack of consistency end logic.

The first law of thermodynamics is the law of conservation of energy, not related to entropy.

Let's clarify for everyone exactly why your referencing the scientific community within SURGE is completely invalid:

S - First, you just contradicted yourself because you previously stated that this was the First Law of Thermodynamics (which it is not). Does the fact that the sun will one day burn out show the universe had a beginning? Not at all. Is it true that 'if the universe was infinite, the sun would always have energy'? The universe could hypothetically be infinitely large or infinitely expanding or infinitely timeless without the sun itself being eternal. This certainly does not prove the existence of any God, let alone Creationism.

U - Yes, the universe is expanding. Yes, Edwin Hubble made this discovery at CalTech in 1929. However, it is not at all true that all galaxies are slowly moving away from us. Rather, they are rapidly moving away from us, faster than the speed of light. Yes, you're right, scientists still believe that the universe came from a great explosion...scientists. I would hope that in any logical debate, we favor scientists over theologians. Again, this certainly does not prove the existence of any God, let alone Creationism.

R - Yes, the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics was won by scientists who discovered cosmic background radiation. When you say, "something must've heated it up", I am tempted to agree, but there are a lot of ways to "heat things up" aside from God. Again, this certainly does not prove the existence of any God, let alone Creationism.

G - Does the existence of temperature variations in any way show that God created the universe in its current form? Again, this certainly does not prove the existence of any God, let alone Creationism.

E - Einstein, who you invoked, said the following:
  • "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
  • "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."
  • "A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
  • "The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously."

Since your argument is based purely on the contentions of Frank Turek, who I say again, you failed to credit, let's look closer at just one of his arguments and faulty logic:

  • The 'sunshine' analogy you've brought is completely flawed. Shadows are caused by the blocking or absence of (sun)light in an area where there would otherwise be (sun)light. However, evil is not at all what happens when good is removed or blocked. Suppose a charity whose directive you oppose is short on funding. Donating would be "good", but not donating (and thus blocking the "good") would by no means be evil. This analogy is invalid. Also, in a more literal sense, there can clearly be shadows without sunshine. Shadows can be caused by light bulbs, fires, projectors, etc.
This, of course, doesn't mean the collapse of his entire acronym schema, it just reflects a fundamental gap in understanding of logic and reason. Let's go through objections to Turek's claims (not yours):

C - Turek is famous for saying, "I believe in the big bang. I just know who banged it." Does the universe need a "who" banged it? Does an ocean need someone who ocean-ed it? Does a cloud need someone who cloud-ed it? As Bob Seidensticker observed, Turek loves to take quotes out of context. He cites Vilenkin: "With the proof now in place...they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." However, on the next page, Vilenkin says, "The theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist."

R - Turek (and therefore you) cites Darwin agreeing with this point on reason. This is not a history lesson. It is a discourse on scientific fact. We are not confined to what Darwin says about evolution in any way. Turek: "If you’re an atheist, you can’t justify reason.” So...Christians can? You criticized the point that reason could've evolved to effect communication. This very illogical based on your further premises. I didn't say evolution "meant" to create reason. I said that reason and effective communication were tools that allows our ancestors to survive better. The basic tenet of evolution is that genes expressed in such a way as to promote survival and procreation are the ones that become widespread.

I - You mentioned that scientists think we evolved "from" single-celled amoeba. This isn't exactly true. They say we share a "common ancestor" with them. Beyond that, this is the place from where you lifted the alphabet cereal, Library of Congress, and "code comes from coders" part of your argument. This all speaks to both your and his misconception that evolution is based primarily on randomness, whereas it's actually based on mutation and natural selection (which is by no means random).

M - Turek says there can't be morality (especially universal morality) without some sort of intelligent creator. I don't have the space to elaborate, but I would urge you to look into universally held moral programming. I'm a bit confused as to how the Holocaust supports your/Turek's notion of morality. Also, how is it that God created objective morality when we have things like slavery being abolished even though it was condoned by scripture. It seems Turek possesses a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between morality and absolute or objective morality. More in this in future rounds. Oh, and this is also the place you stole the overgrown germs quote from, again without citation.

E - Again, this entire argument is based on the assumption that objective morality exists, which I never said it does. If you remove this assumption, there is no argument.

S - This is a very curious one. Turek, in a mind-boggling, absurd claim, states that science proves God. This is interesting given that less than one-third of the scientific community believes in God, which is a) way less than the rest of the population and b) all gods, not just the Christian one (Pew Research Center). Scientific fact is, practically by definition, a consensus among well-reasoned, logical observationists. Religion, clearly, is not. You need look no further than the abundance of contradictory religions that exist in the world today, many of whose adherents are at war.

It is now clear that you have stolen practically all of your argument from someone else without giving credit. This includes word-for-word plagiarism that you pretend you came up with. Even within that framework, I believe I have made clear just a few of the many inherent inconsistencies and logically invalid claims made in the service of proving Creationism to be true.



You say that I plagiarized and "stole" Frank Turek"s information. However, not only Turek himself has said that we can use all of this information for ourselves, but he even provides it in That is an organization he has made to teach and support other apologists. Second, these are all things that are true regardless of Turek"s opinion. You don"t need Turek to say all these things because they"re all backed up from scientific evidence. Yes, Frank Turek said them. And yes, I did use them. But he provides the information, and gives it to other people freely. HE didn"t come up with the evidence. In fact, most of what he has said, is not his. I only used Turek"s specific arguments because those are the ones that I think better show that there"s a theistic god.

I explain that reason can only exist if there"s a god that controls the immaterial realm that cannot he supported by atheist, evolution, and materialism, because these deny the existence of immaterial realm. If you don"t deny it, then you realize that there are forces outside of humanity, that are true no matter what. That"s known as God. The standard by which we judge all things and is true regardless of human opinion. Objective.

Then you mention "Turek"s" argument that the cause must be spaceless, immaterial, and timeless. It"s only true if Turek says so, because no one else can come to that conclusion expect him. I"m fact, he didn"t come up with that either. I don"t see how any of your claims disproves a space less, timeless, and immaterial creator. You just say it doesn"t make sense to you. I believe I"ve refuted your points well. Now you ask another excellent question. Why the God of the Bible? You"re right, these claims, by no means, prove the existence of the God of the Bible, not yet at least. To prove the existence of the biblical God, I would need to give evidence for that. But I don"t think we"ll have any space or time to do so. The order by which all things are created matter too. Genesis is a poetic historical account of the world, but much of it matters in order as it explains why things are the way they are. In fact, your asking another great question? Why seven days? Remembering that Genesis is a poetic account of the world, it is possible too, that the days are a metaphor. It could mean 24 hours. It could"ve been 12 hours. Because he called light day, and night, dark. It could"ve been a determined amount of time. Like, Mike Tyson was an excellent boxer back in his day. A certain period of time. Or it could be that the seventh day is actually going on right now. Since the seventh day is God"s rest, we are in there at the moment, since the sacrifice of Jesus has happened, and the work has been done. Either way, seven days is enough. No more, no less.

S - I agree, this is not the First Law of Thermodynamics. I made a mistake. If the universe didn"t have a beginning, everything would be eternal because it wouldn"t have come up from anywhere. No beginning, because it"s all eternal. So the fact that they sun will one day burn out, is evidence that at one point it had more than before. I"m fact, it had to have something to "burn" in the first place. This proves the existence of a theistic god, because it shows that everything had a beginning. Something must start it.

U - Same thing goes for S. It all had a beginning and comes into one point. So everything had a beginning.

R - If matter, space, and time started from the Bug Bang, the cause cannot be either of those things. What can be space less, immaterial, and timeless? Surely nothing in our universe. So it must be a force outside of time and space. God is that because he is above all these things.

R - So only Turek can say that if you"re an atheist you can"t justify reason? Look, this is true either way. Turek didn"t come up with it. You only have to think in order to come up with that conclusion. Theists can, since we recognize that there is an immaterial realm. If you"re an atheist, materialist, and evolutionist, immaterial realms don"t exist. IF you said they did, you would recognize the fact that there"s something outside of humanity that does not change. It is above us. It is objective regardless of human opinion. God is in the immaterial realm as well. No physical thing is in it. So if God is doesn"t change and is above all things, that makes him God. He is the authority. You said evolution doesn"t "mean" to create reason. In that case, what do you mean when you say that it "promotes" survival. What do you mean to survive "better". Evolution does not care if you survive better. If it did, it would have a mind to realize this. It doesn"t promote anything. It does not care, and we are bound by its forces whether we like it or not. Better? You say that there"s a standard by which we judge all things and compare things? So there is something above humanity then.

G - The temperature must"ve come from somewhere. The cause cannot matter, space, and time, because this is a product and effect of the Big Bang. So the cause is outside of these things. Simple. You just quoted Einstein, who is not a Christian, admitting that the universe is so precise that it supports a creator. Laws of Nature started in the Big Bang. Fear of punishment? Jesus" death happened so that we wouldn"t take punishment. What is sympathy in an evolutionist worldview? In atheism? What needs?

I - Common ancestors or not, they too, came from something. Whether it was an amoeba or not. If we share a common ancestor then I suppose it"s safe to say we came from a banana. We share 60% of the same DNA as a banana. If evolution then, is not random, something controls it and orders it. What is that force? Is it God? The being above all things that has authority over everything? What do you mean mutations aren"t random? Perhaps it affects a specific part of DNA. But it could be any. Natural selection. Survival of the fittest. Let me agree that animals change depending of environmental changes. I suppose it"s not random because it has specific requirements. But if it"s true, again, Hitler was doing the exact right thing by climbing up the ladder of evolution.

M - So only Turek can say morality needs a standard. It"s only true if he says so. You mention universally held moral programming. It says we have ethics because it"s "better" for our survival. Our actions have consequences and we know it. Here"s the problem. If it"s better for our survival, who cares if it"s for the consequence of others? Survival of the fittest. If I"m Josef Stalin, why do I care about other people? Why cooperate when not cooperating is often more beneficial? It"s better for him. What consequences if he"s the one being benefited. If there"s no judgement, who cares?

You ask another excellent question. Why slavery in the Bible?
In the Old Testament, slavery had nothing to do with race, and it was not forced. It was completely voluntary. Not only they would work for someone, but they were also considered as family. Second, the trade of salves is condemned in the Bible. For example, in Exodus 21:16. Third, slave and master are valuable, since they both have the image of God. Exodus 21:20. And fourthly, Jesus came to set the captives free in Luke 4:18. Frank Turek also said these points, like many other people. It is true regardless of opinion. It"s in the Bible itself. Then you mention the "quote" of overgrown germs. I thought that was true in evolution, but i suppose it"s only true if Frank Turek says so.

E - There either is objective morality, or not. Simple. You either agree, or disagree.

S - I don"t see how less than one third of scientific community believing in God disproves anything. Why is religion not supposed by reason? Theism explains the immaterial realm that science can"t. You must believe in an immaterial realm, of not, where are the molecules for justice? These are immaterial things that you need to believe in because without them we couldn"t even do science. Reason doesn"t come from evolution. How is evolution going to tell you what to do if it"s just reacting to previous natural forces you have no control over?

I never said that I came up with this information, much less, Frank Turek came up with this evidence. All I"ve been doing is quote non-Christian sources to demonstrate it"s all backed up by science, no matter what you think. Again, Frank Turek gives information that has evidence through books and He didn"t come up with the evidence, anyone can make these claims, any scientist, anyone who looks at the data, not just Frank Turek. It"s evident. Perhaps he"s the one who put it in C.R.I.M.E.S., which I agree, perhaps I should"ve given credit to him for ordering them like that. But the claims themselves don"t come from him at all. The only reason why I didn"t cite all this information as "his", is because it isn"t. I also haven"t quoted him without giving him credit. I am very careful with what I say. I believe I talked about all the points, of not, you can bring them up again.
Debate Round No. 3


I fear this debate is quickly devolving to the point that one side is so deeply entrenched in their illogical views they are unable to see reason. I'd imagine that Con will say this is my side, while I will say it is theirs. The problem is that my side is backed up by thorough, researched, scientific evidence that forms a consensus among thousands and thousands of established scientists across the world. Con, on the other hand, offers nothing of the variety and is simply spewing conjecture, invalid circumstantial evidence, and generally illogical claims.

I want to particular point to the part where Con says, "To prove the existence of the biblical God, I would need to give evidence for that. But I don"t think we"ll have any space or time to do so." This point is absolutely essential to Con's entire argument for the existence of God as he/she defines him. Declining to prove this by saying there isn't space or time to do so is a remarkable failure in discourse. I would urge anyone voting to suspend all consideration for Con's arguments until he/she puts forth at least a summary of a satisfactory answer to this point.

An overwhelming majority of Con's arguments take the form of: X cannot currently be explained --> It can only be explained by God --> the God I believe in must be the creator of the universe. I don't think it will take anything more than a cursory examination for readers to realize that Con completely fails to even attempt to speak to bridging the most important gap in their logic.

Nonetheless, let's go step-by-step:

"not only Turek himself has said that we can use all of this information for ourselves, but he even provides it in"

I never said that you committed a crime by passing off Turek's arguments as your own. I simply said it was disingenuous, fraudulent, and generally disrespectful to this entire community

"These are all things that are true regardless of Turek's opinion"

Seeing as you have not done a mildly satisfactory job of proving any of these things to be true, this seems a bit presumptuous.

"That"s known as God. The standard by which we judge all things and is true regardless of human opinion. Objective."

There are, quite literally, hundreds of millions, if not billions of people who disagree with your view on God. That is practically the antithesis of objectivity.

"Then you mention "Turek"s" argument that the cause must be spaceless, immaterial, and timeless. It"s only true if Turek says so..."

I am quite certain I said nothing of the sort.

"I believe I"ve refuted your points well."

I couldn't disagree more.

"To prove the existence of the biblical God, I would need to give evidence for that. But I don"t think we"ll have any space or time to do so."

I would urge anyone voting to suspend all consideration for Con's arguments until he/she puts forth at least a summary of a satisfactory answer to this point. (As stated above)

"Genesis is a poetic account of the world..."

If by poetic, you mean falsifiably contradictory, I would agree. Let's, for a second, ignore the litany of evidence found in palaeontology, evolutionary biology, fundamental geology, archaeology, etc. Let's just look at some of the inherent flaws of the story of Creation within the Good Book.

  • As anyone familiar with the Bible knows, there are actually two Creation stories within Genesis (Genesis 1:1-2:3 ; Genesis 2:4-25). Between these 2 accounts, there are 2 different orders given for the days of creation. Surely a divine creator who was all-knowing and all-powerful would have ensured that the accounts present in a holy book, just a few pages apart, would be compatible
  • We know that God created the Sun in the middle of the "week" (16: So God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule over the day and the moon to rule over the night; he also made the stars). Here we run into some issues:
    • Without a sun, how were the first 3 days measured? Without a sun, the Earth's rotation would be meaningless from a temporal sense. There would be no "night" and there would be no "morning".
    • According to Genesis, plants were created before the Sun. I don't think there is a biologist in the world who feels that all plants can live sufficiently long without sunlight. Con later states that it's possible we are currently in the 7th day i.e. God's rest. If that were the case, and each "day" of creation was actually billions of years, how would plants have survived long enough to obtain sunlight?
    • I must ask at this point, why did God create the Sun at all? Did we not have light already from the 1st day of creation?
    • Perhaps you say that in all of God's glory, he does not need a Sun to measure time and give light and grow plants. I don't know how the logical community would feel about this, but I would then have to ask why it was created at all of its purpose was already being fulfilled
  • God allegedly "rested" on the "7th day". Why would an all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent being require such rest?
    • Perhaps to this you argue that God did not actually need "rest", he just wanted the 7th day set aside as a holy day. But, I thought God was all-powerful, all-knowing, and the source of absolute truth. Surely, if this were the case, he wouldn't have actually had to "rest" himself in order to establish the 7th day as being holy
"Since the sacrifice of Jesus has happened, and the work has been done"

Is the suggestive of Con believing, scientifically and logically, in the crucifixion, death, and subsequent resurrection of Jesus? As a debater, you must agree that, based on the principle of proportionality, extraordinary evidence should be required for extraordinary claims with the amount of the former being in proportion to the degree of the latter. Approximately 100 billion people have lived between the inception of humanity and modern day. Except for the ~7 billion people currently alive, all of them have died. Of those that died, none have returned or been resurrected. As such, the claim that a specific person, Jesus, who just so happens to be the son of the exact God that Con defends, should require enormous, well-verified, scientific evidence to be supported. If Con could kindly provide, that would be greatly appreciated.

Of course, if Con opts to say that the story of the resurrection of Jesus was not accurate in some way, that would lend to the issue of why any of us should believe that the story of Creation is completely accurate.

"If the universe didn't"t have a beginning"

I never said it didn't have a beginning. I said that it did not begin with an invisible deity designing the whole of the cosmos.

"So the fact that they sun will one day burn out, is evidence that at one point it had more than before."

Let's consider the case of an unused light bulb, fresh out of a box, never turned on. I place it in a lamp and get ready to turn it on. At the instant the light first flickers on, it will begin its descendence toward burning out. However, in no way would anyone think that, at the exact moment it was turned on, there somehow was a preceding point when it had more potential energy.

"So everything had a beginning."

As with almost all of your points, this doesn't prove the existence of God and most definitely does not specifically prove the God of the Bible.

"What can be space less, immaterial, and timeless? Surely nothing in our universe. So it must be a force outside of time and space."

I say again, as with almost all of your points, this doesn't prove the existence of God and most definitely does not specifically prove the God of the Bible.

"So there is something above humanity then."

This also does not prove the existence of the God of the Bible (if any God at all)

"You just quoted Einstein, who is not a Christian, admitting that the universe is so precise that it supports a creator."

It is highly concerning to me that you took my Einstein quote and somehow took it to be evidence of the existence of God. I think this is the most disturbing quality displayed by religious people today.

"But if it"s true, again, Hitler was doing the exact right thing by climbing up the ladder of evolution."

It seems like a gross mischaracterization of moral relativism to say that Hitler was doing the "exact" right thing. Perhaps (in the eyes of proponents of that theory), he was doing the correct thing in a local sense in the particular context and culture he lived in. But I don't think there are any philosophers or ethicists who would take kindly to your assertion here.

"If there"s no judgement, who cares?"

(Broken record alert) - This also does not prove the existence of the God of the Bible

"slavery had nothing to do with race, and it was not forced. It was completely voluntary."

Slavery is almost, by definition, involuntary. Though there were some rare cases of voluntary debt-servitude in the Old Testament, that was not the norm and it only applied to Hebrew males.

"There either is objective morality, or not. Simple. You either agree, or disagree."

Neither side of this coin proves the existence of God, let alone your God, so I move to strike.

"How is evolution going to tell you what to do if it"s just reacting to previous natural forces you have no control over?"

Again, I ask how this proves the existence of the God you believe in.

"I also haven"t quoted him without giving him credit."

Here are just two of the many times you quoted him without giving credit:
  • "The shadows prove the sunshine. There would be no shadows unless there was sunshine. You can have sunshine without shadows, but there wouldn't be shadows unless there was sunshine"
  • "If we're just overgrown germs, that got here by evolution, then we are no different than another animal."
There are a lot of fallacious arguments here. However, the biggest overarching theme is: how do any of Con's points prove that his God exists?

Thank you.


Again, I don't see how my views are illogical. I have given explanation as to why they are logical. However, what you're doing is simply disagree without actually supporting your claims in any way. What part of your side is backed-up by scientific evidence? I have refuted your arguments, and what you respond by saying that my claims simply don't prove the existence of God. You just make assumptions. I would say my side is supported by evidence. The cause of the Big Bang cannot be space-less, immaterial, and timeless. Everything had a beginning. Chance is not a force. Evolution doesn't explain reason because we merely react. Our thoughts are the product of previous natural laws we have no control over, so why should any of our thoughts be true if they're determined by mindless processes. And science. You need a mind to make science because science doesn't say anything, scientists do. Mind is an immaterial thing in the immaterial realm. Believing in the immaterial realm makes you a theist. I will now provide evidence for the God of the Bible.

Are miracles possible?
If we look back at the cosmological argument, we now know that the first verse of the Bible (In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (immaterial realm) and earth(matter)) is at least possible. If this verse is true, ALL the other verses in the Bible are at least possible. Since God is the creator of the universe, he has authority over it. He can do anything. Same thing goes with bringing people from the dead. He made life, he can do anything He wants with it. Well, evidence shows the first verse is true. There was a beginning, and the cause cannot be spaceless, immaterial, and timeless.

Early Testimony
Many New Testament documents are written prior to 70 A.D. We have eye witness accounts. Specific and sharp details that could only be written by eye witness accounts. In the Book of Acts there is about 84 eye witness testimonies from chapter 13 to chapter 28. Gospel of John has about 59 of these as well. These eye witness testimonies are highly accurate historically and in detail. Denying the New Testament is reliable by looking at the eye witness accounts is like saying the Titanic never sunk. How do we know that the Titanic sank? None of us saw it sink. The oldest person to have seen it sink is no longer alive. Well, we have eye witness testimonies that have deep detail about the event, we have archaeological evidence this happened, and we have the Titanic at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. Or is like saying George Washington never existed. Yet we have eye witness testimonies and historical records.

Embarrassing Testimony
Embarrassing testimonies would not be made up. For example, all disciples run away from Jesus, who they thought they trusted, now of the crucifixion. And while they were running away, the women took their place, being braver and facing danger. You don't lie to make yourself look bad. Sure, maybe we've done it a few moments under specific conditions, but never enough to write a whole book about your mistakes and who you really are. Both in the New and Old Testament are filled with the most sinful persons. For example, King David. He is supposed to be a figure we all look up to. He is a man after God. But what does he do? He lies, he commits adultery, he commits rape, he murders one of his soldiers because of fear that his evil deeds are seen. He"s supposed to be a good figure. God tells the sins, brokenness, mistakes, flaws, and darkest of deeds of every character in the Bible. This shows you this is not invented.

True Testimony
Looking at all the historical eye witness testimonies, we know that all the apostles and followers of Jesus are tortured and killed in the most horrific ways. And they could have all avoided their death by simply denying that Jesus didn't raise from the death. Or at least, they could've prolonged their lives. If Christianity isn't true and it's just a joke, or a lie, why would they risk everything they have? Including their lives? In fact, let me give you a quick summary of the evidence that shows how these events happened, to some of the apostles.
Matthew - Killed by stabbing as ordered by King Hircanus.
Mark - Burned during Roman Emperor Trajan's reign.
Peter - Crucified upside-down by the gardens Nero on the Vatican Hill circa 64 A.D.
Andrew - crucified on an "X" shaped cross by Aegeas, governor of the Edessenes, around 80 A.D.

Non-Biblical Testimony
There are many non-biblical testimonies about the Bible and Jesus that further prove the reliability of the Bible and the evidence. To give you a few examples: We have Flavius Jesephus. He was a Jewish historian born around 38 A.D. He also served the Roman commander who was Vespasian in Jerusalem until the destruction of the city came. He wrote "Antiquities of the Jews". This mentions data and historical testimonies that prove Bible verses. This is what he wrote: "At this time there was a wise man who called Jesus. And his conduct was good, as he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive..."

Prophetic Testimony
Prophecies of Jesus were written in the Old Testament that were before 700 years in advance. These prophecies further support the truth of the Bible because it stays congruent and claims something that will absolutely happen. The Old Testament is filled with prophecies because these would support the truth of the Bible. Jesus knew this. That's why he performed miracles. Jesus knew that anyone could claim to be the Son of God, and he used miracles and prophecies to prove that he was really the Messiah, since he had authority over evil, disease, natural disasters, evil.
He then claims that my arguments lack confirmation for something that should be explained. That's not true. I just gave evidence for each of my points. We know these things from what we do know, not what we don't know. BertrandsTeapot, you keep claiming my points lack logic. How do they lack logic? I've asked this question before already. You just say it's illogical without giving an explanation.

I didn't take arguments as my own. In fact, just like in a research paper, we compile information and add our thoughts to make it more original and avoid plagiarism. You just gave quotes from Frank Turek that are not found here. This means, I have changed some things to make it more original. Shadows prove sunshine isn't complete. It has some of my words there too. Overgrown germs isn't Turek's. Anyone can say that. It's evolution too.

You continue to say that my points don't prove anything. Yet, I don't understand why not. After refuting your points, you haven't provided anything else other than "I don't understand" or "I don't think so". However, I have defended my points.

You say many would disagree with me. How does that invalidate my claims? In fact, the most important advances in science were by people who said everyone was wrong. Einstein for example, when he challenged Newton's model by getting rid of Newtonian Physics. So just because everyone says otherwise, it means it's true. We must look at evidence. If objective truth is determined by how many people say something is true, then let's supposed Hitler had won World War 2 and had brainwashed everyone into believing killing gays and Jews was right. Would it still be right? No, because there's a moral value that is outside of humanity regardless of human opinion. Humans don't make objective standards because they don't have enough authority to do so. God, however, is the authority and doesn't look up to a different standard. If there's laws, there has to be a lawgiver. No science can make laws, you need a mind for that.

Now we talk about the Bible. I will talk about as many points as I can. I see no evidence against Genesis. Most misunderstandings come from not understanding the book. Chapter's shift from genre from time to time. Understanding which parts of Genesis are more poetic and more literal is important to understand the order and how it all blends in together. Chapter 1 and 2 are parts of a bigger story, and can't be understood by themselves. It's just a quick overview. Just like many history books give overviews before talking about the full story or material. Genesis 1 is about God's purpose for His creation and not about science or/and time. You misunderstand because you need to understand how to read Genesis.

You ask another great question. "Why did God have to rest on the seventh day?"
You're absolutely right when you say He doesn't need rest. Then, why? John Walton, in his book The Lost World of Adam and Eve, in page 68 said this: "...we can discern that resting retains to the security and stability found in equilibrium of an ordered system. When God rests, He is taking residence in the ordered system that He has brought about in the previous six days."

You make an excellent point. "None have returned or been resurrected." If people were being resurrected all this time, would it be a miracle? If it was common, would it really be special? We know Jesus rose from the dead because the New and Old Testament are true and reliable. Not only that, but God created everything that exists, so He can do anything he wants in it. Forces don't have minds and don't choose. Only minds choose. God chose to create, that's why he's personal. If there's nothing, how will something exist? He has to make it.
Something must start the light bulb anyways. The sun had a beginning. It didn't just come up from nowhere.
I don't any space left, but most of your arguments is you questioning mine. I answered the most important ones here, I believe. You say my evidence can be misunderstood and flawed? All you have to do is research it yourself.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thetruthwillout 3 years ago
Sorry about the repetition there xD i have no idea how to delete it i'm kinda new to his sight. Anyways you whoever is reading this, i recommend picking up a copy of the Quran in your language and just reading through it, it might give you an understanding of things like you've never felt :) Peace x
Posted by thetruthwillout 3 years ago

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small "g" that is fake god) but God (with a capital "G").

Surah Fussilat:

"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"

[Al-Quran 41:53]
Posted by thetruthwillout 3 years ago

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small "g" that is fake god) but God (with a capital "G").

Surah Fussilat:

"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"

[Al-Quran 41:53]
Posted by thetruthwillout 3 years ago

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small "g" that is fake god) but God (with a capital "G").

Surah Fussilat:

"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"

[Al-Quran 41:53]
Posted by thetruthwillout 3 years ago

The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the "CREATOR", the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is "God", or more appropriate in the Arabic language, "ALLAH".


Let me remind you that the Qur"an is not a book of Science, "S-C-I-E-N-C-E" but a book of Signs "S-I-G-N-S" i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur"an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. "signs", out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur"an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur"an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.

But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes "U" turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur"an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur"an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.
Posted by thetruthwillout 3 years ago

In mathematics there is a theory known as "Theory of Probability". If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12"%.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur"an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur"an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Qur"an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur"an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own li
Posted by thetruthwillout 3 years ago

The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the "Concept of God in Islam" to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur"an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, "the creator of that object." Some may say "the producer" while others may say "the manufacturer." What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don"t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.
Posted by thetruthwillout 3 years ago
My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that "this is a pen", for the opposite person to say, "it is not a pen", he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say "there is no God", he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.
Posted by CarlosRN 3 years ago
Matter began in the Big Bang, we know that because matter is part of the continuum, which also comes with space and time. Matter cannot be outside because if it had a beginning, it cannot be "before" the Big Bang. It is a product of it, and an effect. If matter was before the Big Bang, it would need a cause. Where did this matter come from if there was nothing? It's just a hypothetical question. Hopefully that makes some sense.
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 3 years ago
Con, so if God always existed, and he exists outside of space, time, and the universe, then what is stopping the matter that expanded in the Big Bang from existing in that same sense as God?

If God exists outside of space, then why not the matter in the Big Bang?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate can never be won by Theists because you can't prove that the God exists. The only way Con could have won this is to explain why the default is to believe rather than to doubt in the face of lack of evidence of said God (which is what the Kalam Cosmological Argument achieves) but instead Con goes for the explanation of how God could be all-knowing and all-powerful despite evidence pointing otherwise. I am a devout Theist who believes in a female Goddess that is a random number generator of binary code that has start-to-end the entire reality coded in it and we are living out a completely deterministic set of randomly coded events. I would never take this debate because I know that while I can fully justify my God as making sense and being plausible I can't prove them to exist by mortal means of evidence which is what formal debating is fundamentally rooted in. I also give conduct to Pro since Con attempted plagiarism.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.