The Instigator
jrardin12
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Atheism

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 679 times Debate No: 119535
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

jrardin12

Con

Atheism prohibits every imaginable mechanism whereby rational justification is possible. It is arbitrary. It is inconsistent and borrows absolute morality, Laws of logic and uniformity of nature from the Bible. It is a path to absurdity and it is anti-science.
Sonofcharl

Pro

Poetic rhetoric indeed.

Atheism Theism.
Imagination Rationality.
Justification Morality.
Logic Nature Science.
Conceptual Constructs all.

Con's right.
It's all absurdity.
That's the reality.
Take your pick.
Believe it or not.

But the men in the clouds.
Are always hiding.
Debate Round No. 1
jrardin12

Con

That is it? I like how atheism can be proven with just a poem.

Let me start with what rational justification is.

From the moment we begin to draw conclusions as individual human beings, We already know how to learn. Knowledge of the basic and fundamental process of learning is already well established in our minds before we begin using it to draw conclusions. Before we learn anything at all, We assume (or presuppose) a method of learning. This initial knowledge of how to learn is not itself learned, Rather, Acceptance of the method is a precondition of our usage of it.
When we begin at drawing conclusions, When we first start learning things, We do so with certain presupposed assumptions or "first principles. " For example:

Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same way.

This is known as the law of non-contradiction. Before we can learn anything at all, We must first presuppose this rule of thought. Evidence, Assertions, Conclusions, And thinking itself would all be completely meaningless to us if we did not initially grant that all of reality is non contradictory.
That we have this initial assumption is true for all humans from the time we begin to think. The infant knows that milk is milk. Milk is not non-milk. If the infant allows the possibility that milk were non-milk, He would have no reason to believe that he had received what he had been crying for, Even as it fills his mouth. The infant simply grants or assumes-the infant knows-that the law of noncontradiction is universal and invariant.
It is not my claim that the infant can articulate the law of non-contradiction, Or teach it, Or defend it, But rather that he inherently believes and operates in accordance with the law even if he has never consciously pondered it.
And so do you.
Further, Every single correct conclusion the infant ever comes to, And every single correct conclusion the adult ever comes to, Is based upon this assumption that the law of non-contradiction is universally valid, Both now and forever. We not only start off believing it without ever actually learning it, But everything we ever conclude is founded on or grounded in that initial assumption.
But what if we're wrong? Is that initial assumption justified? Is there a good reason for us to hold to it? Is it a blind invention of random chance? Is the author of our initial assumptions rational? Is this universal truth claim merely an unfounded, Dogmatic assertion made by someone without authority over the entire universe such that the universe is not bound to fulfill his dogmatic claims? Could the law of non-contradiction fail to work in some parts of the universe? And what connects our own thoughts with our environment? Why should there be any similarity at all between your own internally presupposed rules of thought and the way that our external environment behaves?
If genuine contradictions could actually exist, It would be impossible for anyone to know anything at all. If contradictions were viable, Then even if a conclusion were accurate, It may not be accurate. Assertions would not necessarily be any different than their exact negations. Even if it were true that you are reading this, It may not be true that you're reading this.
That last sentence is completely meaningless and impossible to understand because it asserts a contradictory proposition. If it were possible for a reality itself to be contradictory, Like that sentence, Reality itself would be equally impossible to understand. It's would not be possible to know anything at all. But this is not the case. We all automatically believe that reality is not contradictory.

Rational Though Requires Rational Justification

In order for an idea to be rational, Holding the belief must be rationally justified. Even if a belief happened to be accurate or factual, This alone is not enough to make that belief rational. The process by which the person came to hold that belief is actually more important than the belief's truth value in terms of whether or not the belief is rationally held. A belief may be true, Yet still be irrational.
For example, Any wishful thinker may assert without grounds that there are exactly 501, 043 pink flying unicorns on a planet in the next galaxy. For that individual to believe such a thing would be irrational, Because they themselves have asserted it groundlessly or without reason. Even if this bizarre, Groundless assertion happened to be true, Its factuality would not make belief in the assertion anymore rational, Since it was asserted groundlessly-without justification or reason.
On the other hand, A belief may be false while being perfectly rational. For example, Consider the man who believes that pushing the brake pedal in his car will slow the car and eventually bring it to a complete stop. He believes this because he has been told this is true by his parents and friends, And he tested their claims on thousands of occasions. 100% of the time, The car behaved exactly as he expected. But then one day it didn't, And the man died.
He was wrong to believe his car would stop when you pushed the brakes on that day, But nonetheless, Based on all of the evidence, He held to this false belief rationally. He had testimony from multiple witnesses, Observations, And lots of experience upon which he grounded his belief. It was rationally justified in spite of being incorrect.
Now, Is our belief that all reality is non-contradictory rationally justified? Or are we irrationally, Without reason, Holding to an idea that is only asserted groundlessly?

Rationally Justifying Rational Justification

While it is true that some beliefs may be rationally justified while being completely false, The same cannot be said of every belief. Consider, For example, The following assertion:

Rational justification is possible.

In addition to the law of non-contradiction, The assertion above is another one of our initial starting points, Our "first principles. " As humans, We begin the learning process already believing that this assertion is true, That rational justification is possible. But note that this statement can only be rationally justified if it is also true; if it is false, Nothing can be rationally justified, Including the statement itself.
The idea that "rational justification is possible" must itself be true in order for it to be rationally justified. For any worldview to allow for rational human thought, It must not only allow for our initial assumptions about the non-contradictory nature of the universe to be true, But it must also allow for the possibility of rational justification itself. It's must allow for a mechanism whereby rational justification is possible.

Would you agree with this view of rational justification?
Sonofcharl

Pro

All words. It's all words.

And words do not prove anything. Words document thought and promote communication. What is documented and what is communicated, Might or might not represent reality.

So here is a documented assemblage of my thoughts which I will attempt to communicate to my opponent.

"The Law of Non-Contradiction".
A god exists and a god doesn't exist. This is a contradiction because the statement attempts to be both positively and negatively conclusive.
A god might exist and a god might not exist. The inclusion of the word might would now seem to render the statement non-contradictory. Introducing the word "might" now conveys a logical uncertainty to the statement rather than a conclusive certainty.
But once again this is all word play. Because we can easily present conclusive statements together in a non-contradictory fashion. I will eat my breakfast and I won't eat my breakfast, This might appear to be a contradictory statement but of course there will obviously be a perceivable outcome. We can therefore pre-determine that in this instance the will be a conclusive certainty. That is to say I will either eat my breakfast or I won't eat my breakfast.
Contradiction is as contradiction does and I suppose also non-contradiction is as non-contradiction does and I would therefore propose that contradiction and non-contradiction do not or cannot conform to a given law or principle.

"Rational Justification".
We can assume that we are rational and we can assume that we are justified. We can also assume that any justification that we might attempt to apply is rationally applied. But what sets the benchmark?
Any decision we make is as individual as every other thought we might have. Collectivity is only an agreement between individuals and certainly does not increase the certainty of any thought or decision. Ultimately we are limited by our own physiology, That is to say the reality of individual bodily function. Whether that be the function of conceptual thought or the function of going to the bathroom. Conceptual thoughts are individual and therefore variable and so by association justification and rationality are similarly variable.

The infant and the milk.
We acquire information in two ways, Physiological inheritance or sensory conditioning. The infant regards neither milk nor non-milk. Milk or not comes later as brain acquired and brain stored imagery. Survival is instinctive, If not then there has been a disfunction in the transfer of inherent information.

The man in the car.
The man in the car assumes that the brake will slow and stop the car. He assumes this because that is the purpose of the brake and the normal function of the brake. If the braking mechanism malfunctions then this is simply because of a fault in the braking mechanism. The brake should work but the brake might not work, Most of us have the ability and acquired knowledge to assume both outcomes. Our primary assumption that the brake will work is not based on belief but simply because the brake usually does work.
The brake could have worked but the brake didn't work, There is nothing contradictory or non-contradictory or irrational about this statement.

Pink Unicorns.
Wishful thinkers tend not to assert. And there may well be 501, 043 pink flying unicorns on a planet in the next galaxy.
But just as we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god we can also neither prove nor disprove the existence of 501. 034 pink flying unicorns. Imagination is one thing and perception is another and of course it must be pointed out that perception is just as bound in our physiology as is imagination. Therefore what we might imagine or what we might perceive are neither necessarily rationally justifiable.

Something imperceptible cannot be proved to exist simply because we want to prove it's existence and simply because we say it must exist, No matter how cleverly we believe we are able to string words together. This approach to theism has been employed many times throughout the years and has achieved very little other than a continuation of the usual discourse.

They are so ultimately clever, Yet the men in the clouds still hide. Words alone cannot rationally justify this behaviour.
Debate Round No. 2
jrardin12

Con

jrardin12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
jrardin12

Con

Atheism

Atheism prohibits every imaginable mechanism whereby rational justification is possible. Truth claims from atheists demand that there is no sovereign rational author of the universe. No one exists who has authority over the universe. No one exists who is justified in claiming that the entire universe is, And always will be, Non-contradictory. No person can guarantee these things. Therefore, By whatever random mechanism the bizarre and groundless notion of a non-contradictory universe got into our heads to begin with, That initial assumption of ours is necessarily irrational. All our conclusions are based upon this rationally unjustified starting point, Making all of our conclusions rationally unjustified, Or irrational.
If our initial assumptions about reality don't find their origin in a rational sovereign author of the universe, They are rationally unjustified. In other words, If there is no sovereign rational author of the universe, If the claims of atheism are accurate, Then all human conclusions are irrational or without reason.
"But what about observable evidence? " one may ask. In the example of the man hitting the brake pedal, He couldn't absolutely guarantee that would work, Yet he was rationally justified in believing it would. Here, No one can guarantee that the universe is non-contradictory, But can't we still be rationally justified in believing that it is, Just like the man with the brake pedal?
Surely, Even if we initially believe in the complete universality of the law of non-contradiction without having any rational justification for our initial belief (a claim no atheist could rationally dispute), Our present-day usage of that belief can be justified after-the-fact by observing the world around us and recognizing the non-contradictory nature of things, Can't it? The more we observe non contradictory behavior, Surely the more justification we have for asserting the universality of the rule.
This inductive argument could be described as follows:

1. We would expect that in a non-contradictory universe we would never find any true contradiction.
2. Thus far, We have never found any true contradiction.
3. Therefore, We rationally conclude that the universe is most probably non-contradictory.

But note that points (1) and (2) can only be meaningfully accepted if we first presuppose that the universe is invariantly non-contradictory, Making the argument wholly circular in all its points. While circular arguments can be perfectly valid, This one is still founded upon an indisputably irrational starting point, The unjustified initial assumption of non-contradiction. The admitted irrationality of the foundation upon which the circular argument is built negates all possibility of rationality in the conclusion.
The man with the faulty brake pedal believeD what he believed as a result of meaningful experience, And was therefore justified. On the other hand, We consider our experiences meaningful as a result of our belief in the law of non-contradiction, Not the other way around. It is the exact reverse of the brake pedal example.
The atheist has put the cart before the horse. To see what I mean, Let's assume for a moment that the universe is not bound by the law of non-contradiction. Let's assume that contradictions are perfectly acceptable statements of truth. There would then be no reason to reject the following argument:

1. We would expect that in a non-contradictory universe we would never find any true contradiction.
2. Thus far, We have never found any true contradiction.
3. Therefore, We rationally conclude that the universe is full of contradictions.

"Wait, That doesn't make any sense! " you shout. The conclusion contradicts the premises-it can't be right!
Remember when we formulated the above argument we assumed contradictions could be acceptable statements of truth. The only way the conclusion above could possibly be meaningfully rejected is if we presuppose that the universe is non-contradictory before we even attempt the argument, And since, Under atheistic premises, We have absolutely no rational justification for making that initial assumption about the universe before observing it, The entire process, And indeed inductive inference itself, Is reduced to meaningless irrationality.
There is, Under atheism, No greater reason to prefer the coherent conclusion then to prefer the incoherent one. They are equally unjustified. In short, The absence of any universal and invariant rational authority under atheistic premises demands a lack of rational justification for any kind of universal or invariant claim.
If God doesn't exist, We simply cannot think.
This nonsense can be described via the following deductive syllogism:

1. Conclusions are irrational if they are built upon unjustified premises.
2. Under atheism, All of our conclusions are built upon unjustified initial premises.
3. Under atheism, All of our conclusions are irrational.

This, Of course, Does not mean that everything an atheist says is wrong or false; rather, It means that his worldview cannot justify rationality. When we say that atheism renders everything meaningless, We are not simply referring to some kind of greater purpose in life that appears to be lacking under atheism, Or some kind of eternal value that we hope and wish humans had that seems absent without some kind of God. No, Indeed, Atheism renders every sentence meaningless. Every word. Every thought. Absolutely every concept.

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God. " They are corrupt, And have done abominable iniquity; there is none who does good (Psalm 53:1).

The religion of atheism is nothing new. The godly have dealt with it since sin took a foothold in a fallen world. King David dealt with it in the Old Testament; the Apostle Paul dealt with it in the New Testament when he argued against the the atheistic Epicureans in Acts 17.
Professor Richard Dawkins, A well-known atheist and former professor at Oxford University in England, Openly argues against gods-especially the Christian God-and claims he doesn't believe in the God of the Bible. Nor does he believe in the Easter Bunny, Dionysus (an alleged Greek god), Or the Tooth Fairy! Although, Dawkins gets nervous about being critical of the Allah of the Koran.
Interestingly enough, Dr. Dawkins doesn't spend his energy and effort arguing against the Easter Bunny, Dionysus, Or the Tooth Fairy. Instead, He has spent much of his life writing books and articles and offering interviews and commentary arguing against the God of the Bible. Why the inconsistency?
Have you ever stopped to think about why Dr. Dawkins and other professing atheist spend so much of their waking hours arguing against God's existence? It is because in his heart of hearts (innermost part of his mind) Dr. Dawkins knows God exists and he is trying to suppress that knowledge and justify his denial of the obvious. It is an easy task to let go of the alleged existence of the Easter bunny, Tooth Fairy, And so on. But the god of the Bible is not so easily cast aside. And there are good reasons.
Romans 1:18-25 says

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, Who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Because what may be known of God is manifest in them, For God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, Being understood by the things that are made, Even His eternal power and Godhead, So that they are without excuse, Because, Although they knew God, They did not glorify him as God, Nor were thankful, But became futile in their thoughts, And their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, They became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, In the lusts of their hearts, To dishonor their bodies among themselves, Who exchanged the truth of God for the light, And worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen.

The Bible gives a consistent witness to the fact that God's existence as the eternal and divine Creator is obvious from the creation He has made, Including man himself.
He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, Except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

Who show the work of the Lord written in their hearts, Their conscience also bearing witness, And between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them (Romans 2:15).

The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world (Psalm 19:1-4).

Dr. Dawkins and others are trying to suppress their knowledge of God, Which God has made evident to them. However, They cannot escape it, So they do what they can to hide from it, Seeking to justify that God doesn't exist - with bold, Yet bad, Arguments no less. But there is no escaping that fact that God exists.

Next we will see why this is significant.
Sonofcharl

Pro

It's still all words.

Rational justification of non-contradiction or non-rational contradiction of justice, Or something similar.

Brain derived utterances and symbolism.

We take information in and swirl it all about and then spew it back out again in all sorts of random fashion.

We have spewed out gods, Those sovereign authors of the universe, For generations in response to our ignorance.

Some still continue to retch in this ignorance, Whereas others are now able to rest easier in the contentment of their own reality.

And the men in the clouds are still hiding. And Con believes that if they vomit gobbledegook for long enough that one day they might see them.
Debate Round No. 4
jrardin12

Con

You say it is all words, But I just conclude you can't refute it.
Sonofcharl

Pro

Refute what?
What has Con actually said?

Con was conditioned with theistic information and so responds accordingly.
I was not conditioned with theistic information so I do not respond in the same way as Con
If you wish you can refer to me as an atheist. But this is meaningless.
We were born without labels and we will die without labels.

Non-justifiable laws of rationally contradictory gobbledegook or something like that. . . ". . Bizarre.

And Con still hasn't found the men in the clouds. And they probably never will.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
You can't forfeit. I wanted more of a fight.

I highly doubt I would have made you a non-theist but it was worth a try.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
I have to say, I did loose to this debate. I cannot find no more claims that could contradict your claims nor will I bring up any claims, Seeing that they will be easily rebuted once I say them.

So good job. I say this debate was pretty fair
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
1. You already agreed that it was an argument of ignorance and the evidence was what you said which I did quote. I used it as the source to explain how it was an argument of ignorance.

2. "How can you not accept your own definition as your foundation? That doesn't make sense. "
I cannot accept God existing on such faulty evidence not the definition itself.

"Let me put it in better term. The Bible supports the acting of learning/studying about the world. "
So no evidence for God's existence? God is capable of doing so yet does not. God supposedly bring Jesus into the world but giving evidence for Its existence is too much.

"When he gave to the wind its weight and apportioned the waters by measure, " Job 28:25
That is too vague. If it was straight forward why aren't the people who first read the Bible the first scientists that tested this claim. It wasn't like that. Religion restricted less of what scientists could do and that allowed for many tests to occur. Christians did not find this out it was scientists. Yet you give props to a vague claim. What is so difficult in saying gravity exists?

"The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, And on its circuits the wind returns. " Ecclesiastes 1:6
What if the wind blows in a different direction? I am sure this is relative to where the Bible is created. The wind returns? That is faulty. Wind does not return from the other direction. If that was the case if it is windy in USA it should also be windy in the same direction in the UK if found out that both are in the direction of the wind. That is not the case.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
1. There are no evidences to your rebuttals, So how do I know your rebutalls are correct?

2. Well, Using step-by-step logic, You first stated that God was " the creator and ruler of the universe. . . " From there, I said that God created mankind, Which includes the term"unvierse", And matter in a complex manner if which we cannot understand. From there, You said, "The thing is I cannot accept that". How can you not accept your own definition as your foundation? That doesn't make sense.

You've also stated "God cannot be perceived using our 5 senses". Well, How about substances in gaseous states, Such as carbon dioxide? Of course, You cannot precieve it using your 5 senses. A better example may be sitting in your chair. How do you know you the chair won't collapse whenever you sit on it? Well, There goes the action of faith. This faith is the same for God.

""The Bible shows clear science" I require evidence of this. "
Let me put it in better term. The Bible supports the acting of learning/studying about the world.
"It is the glory of God to conceal things, But the glory of kings is to search things out. " Proverbs 25:2
"Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, And be wise. " Proverbs 6:6

Not only that, There are many claims in the Bible which is approved by science.
"When he gave to the wind its weight and apportioned the waters by measure, " Job 28:25
- Air has weight
"The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, And on its circuits the wind returns. " Ecclesiastes 1:6
- Wind Current
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@himkeshin

1. I do not need to show my side arguments to show how your arguments are flawed. That is simple. Apply it to whatever and realise I do not require it.

2. "And it somewhat contradicts itself. " Can you tell me how?
"Thus I was further emphasizing the point that God has a complex way of creating life and other matter. " You say this as if you know the guy. God cannot be perceived using our 5 senses so how can you justify these claims of God?
"The Bible shows clear science" I require evidence of this.

4. Okay. Good to see where are getting somewhere.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
@omar2345

#1) "My position is I don't know what started everything but I will not take a leap of faith and say God" Interesting, So what do you believe in that causes you to make such claims? Obviously, You do understand that whenever you rebut my claim, You, Too, Do not have solid evidences. So how do we know that your rebuttals are correct?

#2) Objection #2 doesn't answer my question, And it somewhat contradicts itself. You gave out a definition, "the creator and ruler of the universe. . . ", Thus I was further emphasizing the point that God has a complex way of creating life and other matter. How do you do you not accept that? Not only that, The Bible shows clear science. Even though it didn't coin the term "science", Considering that it didn't exist at that time, It did encourage to study and learn about the world. There are several verses in the Bible which supports my claim.

#4) I do agree with your agruement. I cannot necessarily go against it.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@hmikeshin

1. "So does this mean that this objection is a draw, Considering that no solid evidence was seen? "
The burden of proof lies on you. I am not saying God exists. My side it rebutting your claims. If you claims do not hold up to scrutiny then it is a flawed claim. My position is I don't know what started everything but I will not take a leap of faith and say God.

2. "This means that God has a complex way of creating life and other matter. This means that the dimension He lives by is totally different from ours. It's as if 3-dimensional human being trying to analyze a 4-dimensional being. We can't because they live in a totally different environment. Thus, We can't fully understand who He really is but believe in what the Bible tells us, By the action of faith. "
The thing is I cannot accept that. Science has done many great things like increase our life expectancy in such a short time which Religion for how long it has been around hasn't given the same increase. Your claims are assumptions or filling in the gaps when the Bible was not clear. If the Bible was clear science would have something to work with but since God forgot to put that in leaves you with assumptions not facts.

3. Yes.

4. "Objection 4 is basing off of bias thoughts and stereotypes. "
It can be a stereotype but where does the evidence from the Bible point to? Creationism or evolution. Christians who believe in evolution I consider not a Christian. The 7 days story goes against evolution therefore evolution and Christianity contradict each other. Theistic evolution is basically just moving the goalpost. Instead of saying God created everything. You are instead saying God created evolution. Still the same problem that is God and theistic evolutions should really read the holy book of their Religion.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
@omar2345

Rebuttals:

#1) Fair enough. I do agree that my claim was an argument of ignorance. However, Such problematic questions soon arise. Then how did the universe began? From your side, Neither do you have actual evidence of how the universe began. So does this mean that this objection is a draw, Considering that no solid evidence was seen?

#2) As you wish, We'll go with your definition of God. Your definition did state, " the creator and ruler of the universe". By the logic of assumption, This means that God has a complex way of creating life and other matter. This means that the dimension He lives by is totally different from ours. It's as if 3-dimensional human being trying to analyze a 4-dimensional being. We can't because they live in a totally different environment. Thus, We can't fully understand who He really is but believe in what the Bible tells us, By the action of faith.

#3) I guess, This ties back to rebuttal #1

#4) Objection 4 is basing off of bias thoughts and stereotypes. From my understanding, Which could be wrong, There are different types of creationism. This includes theistic evolution, Which includes modern science (biological evolution) to religious teachings.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@hmikeshin

1. "This is not an argument of ignorance. "
Do you know how the universe began? Any proof or evidence? That is why I call it an argument of ignorance. To be honest with each other we do not know how the universe so your argument would sound like I don't know therefore God.

2. "Then it is then stated that God has its own way for its causes. "
Don't know what you mean so I am guessing what you meant. God definition: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being (Google: God define)
From the definition nothing states that God is the God of all. Meaning God can only be the creator of our universe not if there was one before or the God which started everything.

3. Same rebuttal to number 1.

4. "I am not talking about 2018. In a scientific sense, I am talking about 13. 7 billion years, In which scientist has agreed upon. "
Do you know Christianity does not believe this universe is that old. They believe in creationism. Which I think states that the universe is 6, 000 years old and God created every in the first 7 days. Science states 13. 7 billion years and creationism states a lot less.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
@omar2345

Rebuttal:

#1) Yes, I'm assuming (or should I say "know") that God has created our universe. However, To my understanding, The definition of God is anybody who has the power to create mankind. Now, If you were to agree to my logic that some supernatural being was to create the universe, Including the human race, This would mean that this supernatural being is God. Thus, This is not an argument of ignorance.

#2) Assuming that objection 2 acknowledges that God exists, Then it is then stated that God has its own way for its causes. This means that He must be 'living in a universe' where we can't understand its algorithm nor its mathematics of how His dimension behaves.

#3) Frankly, I do not understand what objection 3 is talking about. But I'll try my best to understand it. You did mention, ". . . Highly doubt you any information on how the universe began. . . " Well, Science has some theories of how the universe began as a 'cause' in a scientific sense. However, Currently, There is no right way as for how the universe began. I was basing my logic off the Big Bang Theory, As it is the most common theory among the scientific community. However, As for you, You, As well, Do not have any information of how the universe began as well. Therefore, Objection 3 is irrelevant.

#4) I am not talking about 2018. In a scientific sense, I am talking about 13. 7 billion years, In which scientist has agreed upon.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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