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

Does god exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 4/23/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 113067
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Note to people who would like to take part in the debate:only athetist can join this debate as I"d like to read your arguments.

Argument:William Lane Craig"is one of the sharpest Christian apologists today,"especially on issues surrounding God"s existence, Jesus" Resurrection, and objective morality. The PhD theologian and philosopher travels around the country giving lectures, but he"s best known for his public debates with well-known atheists and skeptics. (You can watch many of them online through his excellent"Reasonable Faith"website.)
During these debates, Craig has a very short time to make a clear and compelling case for God. One of his favorite arguments, on which he wrote his doctoral dissertation, is the"kalam cosmological argument. Christians have"many arguments for God, but the kalam has become increasingly popular because it is straightforward, easy-to-remember, and modern physics affirms one of its crucial premises (note: the argument doesn"t"depend"on science, but the latest science strongly affirms it.)
The kalam argument is fairly simple:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being, outside of itself.
Craig released a short five-minute video covering the basic argument."Watch it a few times, remember the in"s and out"s: (I believe that video says it all.)


I am sorry that it took longer for the arguments to come. I was both busy and wanted to make sure that I really address the argument thoroughly.

You brought up the cosmological argument as presented by Dr. Craig, but sadly haven"t expanded yourself on it. I hope to hear your argumentation in favor of your position in the following rounds. But for the time I will address kalam cosmological argument and Dr. Craig"s standard argumentation in favor of it.

1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore the universe has a cause.

Let"s first look at what this argument does for the thesis that a god exists. The thing it says if you accept the primacies" is, that the universe has a cause of its existence. The thing it doesn"t do is give us any indication as to what this cause could be. The maximum you can get is to a vague deism with just a cause. You can"t extrapolate any properties of this deist god such as him being good, or especially interested in the welfare of humans or something of that kind. I see that you don"t claim that, but I want to be sure to make clear what the argument actually states.

Now let"s go to the primacies themselves on which the argument is based. I am happy to say that I don"t agree with either of them.

Let"s begin with the first. The argument given is purely based on a common sense notion that coming into existence requires a cause. The problem is that as it comes to the fundamental things about reality we have seen over and over again that common sense is not a good way to come to scientific conclusions (you just have to look as far as quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity to see that). Now to get away from those common sense claims we have to look at what we are actually talking about.
First what makes up a cause? A cause is made up of several parts: We have an efficient cause, which is the entity doing the causing, a material cause, which is the stuff being caused, the formal cause, which is the change in itself and a final cause, which is what the thing caused is for. Important for the case at hand are the efficient cause and the material cause. All causations have at least those two (it becomes rather obvious if you try to think of a cause that doesn"t include either). Therefore, if we accept causation and want to build an argument upon it, we have to fix the first primacy to be: Everything that begins to exist has an efficient and a material cause. The notion of a causation with just the efficient cause can therefore be dismissed (first primacy).
And secondly it is important to say what the beginning of existence means in the context of a cause. The beginning of existence is not an everyday causation. If you say the table began to exist as the carpenter build it, this doesn"t actually constitute the beginning of existence. The carpenter merely rearranged already existent material into the new shape of a table. To say it in the terms of causation we have an efficient cause in the carpenter and a material cause in the wood. The important point here is that in everything we describe by the concept of causation we actually have a material cause which is effected by the efficient cause. Now let"s look at the beginning of the universe, if the universe is, as it is, defined as all physical reality. For a causation you would need both an efficient cause (you postulate god) and a material cause. The problem is that there is no material cause. Therefore we aren"t, if we are talking about the beginning of the physical existence, talking about a coming into existence by the common sense way of a rearrangement of stuff. What we are talking about here is a process that lacks a material cause and therefore breaks the laws of causation. The only thing we can say is that the beginning of existence is not and can"t possibly be described by causation. Therefore we can also dismiss the version of the first primacy that is aligned with causation itself.

From here we have to go even further. The actual beginning of existence as postulated in the beginning of the universe is, as it is a phenomenon unlike anything we see in our daily lives and also unlike anything seen in science, is something of which we have no experience at all, making it impossible to say how it worked and why it worked. We for example have no grounds on which to say that it is more likely to be created out of nothing than to come out of nothing without a cause. We have no experience of either (to be clear we don"t actually have any nothing to test whether there would be anything "popping into existence") and we therefore can"t evaluate it. Therefore we can see that there is no way by which we can say that some common sense construct has to apply to it.

Now let"s come to the second primacy that the universe began to exist. Here I have to start by making some things clear. Firstly we have to say that we don"t know whether the universe had a beginning or not. We simply can"t know as we have no way of evaluating things before the beginning of the time in our universe. The only thing we can say is that 13,8 billion years ago there was a first moment in time which we call the big bang. This applies only to the universe we see. We have no idea what lies before or beyond it. The only way we can say anything about it is by setting up models which in order to be a possibility have to accord with the observations we make in our own universe. This has lead into different directions. Some see the universe as finite, but others show it to be infinite. One effect of it is the multiverse. It isn"t some wish of physicist to have more to think about but rather a prediction stemming from the equations describing our universe and which explains certain problems. One of which is the low entropy at the big bang. With the theory of eternal inflation for example we have through quantum fluctuations always new bubble universes. Those have starting conditions that vary and as there are infinitely many of them there has to be ours among them . This is just an example on how and why those theories are build. We can say most definitely though that we have some models with and some without a beginning and that we can be almost sure that we haven"t found the right one jet.
Now I am sure you will be bringing up the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and say that it proves that every universe that is on average expanding has to have a beginning. This is actually not what it shows. The only thing it shows is that all classical descriptions if on average expanding break down at some point in the past. This is no problem at all and we all recognize it in the big bang, which we can actually see. This doesn"t though mean that it is a beginning of the universe, as we know that physics isn"t classical but incorporates quantum mechanics and especially some form of quantum gravity, which applies at the very small scales, where the classical description breaks down. What happened before the classical description breaks down, we can"t say as we don"t have the laws of quantum gravity. Now you will say that Vilenkin himself says that it is eternal. I could just answer that Alan Guth says the opposite but it goes further. Vilenkin acknowledges that his theorem only works for classical universes, but says, that the other theories aren"t working. This is just not true. There are several theories based on inflation and quantum mechanics that would work. For example the ones of Alan Guth himself or the one of Steven Hawking. They may not suggest easy things but they are working models. The main point is that we just don"t know whether there is a working model or whether any of our current models even comes close. We miss especially a theory of quantum gravity to even evaluate this question.

In this light the only thing we can say is that we don"t know whether the universe had a beginning or not. We can"t say which of the two possibilities is more likely true or even how we would know that as we lack the necessary theory of quantum gravity. Therefore we can conclude that also the second primacy is not supported by science what so ever.

Another point which Dr. Craig often raises is the thought that infinities are not a real concept and therefore an infinite past wouldn"t work. Firstly it is unimportant whether we can calculate with infinity. The thing is that we actually can as we see that transfinite arithmetic is just a little different in its rules. The operation of subtraction is here not defined with a single value. Which means that infinity minus infinity may have different results. Also we have to take into account that not all infinities are of the same size. We know for example that the set of all positive numbers is infinite but it is a smaller infinity then the set of all real numbers. This is no problem what so ever as we just acknowledge that the rules aren"t the same. Also the philosophical point that an infinite past doesn"t work as you wouldn"t reach the now is flawed. It is based on a linear understanding of time or A-theory of time which says that there is past, present and future, which is for everyone the same. This aligns with common sense but fails to explain relativity of time where time is not static for all. To accommodate for that A-theory posits one "right" frame of time and all other frames of time to be illusory. While this would in theory work, it still has a problem as it is based on god for the "right frame". But if you need god for you"re A-theory and need A-theory to postulate god you argue circular. If we now come to the B-theory of time which aligns with science and especially relativity, we have time being just like space a dimension. If you see it this way you will recognize that there is no problem to be at one point of a dimension if it is infinite making an infinite past no problem.

Therefore we can see that the kalam cosmological argument isn"t a valid argument as both primacies fail.
Debate Round No. 1


Everyone can agree with me that religious belief is widespread throughout human history. But the question arises: Does this undisputed fact amount to evidence in favor of the truth of religious claims? Even a skeptic will admit that the testimony we have is deeply impressive: the vast majority of humans have believed in an ultimate Being to whom the proper response could only be reverence and worship. No one disputes the reality of our feelings of reverence, attitudes of worship, acts of adoration. But if God does not exist, then these things have never once"never once"had a real object. Is it really plausible to believe that?
The capacity for reverence and worship certainly seems to belong to us by nature. And it is hard to believe that this natural capacity can never, in the nature of things, be fulfilled, especially when so many testify that it has been. True enough, it is conceivable that this side of our nature is doomed to frustration; it is thinkable that those millions upon millions who claim to have found the Holy One who is worthy of reverence and worship were deluded. But is it likely?
It seems far more likely that those who refuse to believe are the ones suffering from deprivation and delusion"like the tone-deaf person who denies the existence of music, or the frightened tenant who tells herself she doesn't hear cries of terror and distress coming from the street below and, when her children awaken to the sounds and ask her, "Why is that lady screaming, Mommy?" tells them, "Nobody's screaming: it's just the wind, that's all. Go back to sleep."

As you might be thinking:But the majority is not infallible. Most people were wrong about the movements of the sun and earth. So why not about the existence of God?
Reply: If people were wrong about the theory of heliocentrism, they still experienced the sun and earth and motion. They were simply mistaken in thinking that the motion they perceived was the sun's. But if God does not exist, what is it that believers have been experiencing? The level of illusion goes far beyond any other example of collective error. It really amounts to collective psychosis.

For believing in God is like having a relationship with a person. If God never existed, neither did this relationship. You were responding with reverence and love to no one; and no one was there to receive and answer your response. It's as if you believe yourself happily married when in fact you live alone in a dingy apartment.
Now we grant that such mass delusion is conceivable, but what is the likely story? If there were no other bits of experience which, taken together with our perceptions of the sun and earth, make it most likely that the earth goes round the sun, it would be foolish to interpret our experience that way. How much more so here, where what we experience is a relationship involving reverence and worship and, sometimes, love. It is most reasonable to believe that God really is there, given such widespread belief in him"unless atheists can come up with a very persuasive explanation for religious belief, one that takes full account of the experience of believers and shows that their experience is best explained as delusion and not insight. But atheists have never done so.

This then brings you to another question:But isn't there a very plausible psychological account of religious belief? Many nonbelievers hold that belief in God is the result of childhood fears; that God is in fact a projection of our human fathers: someone "up there" who can protect us from natural forces we consider hostile.
Reply A: This is not really a naturalistic explanation of religious belief. It is no more than a statement, dressed in psychological jargon, that religious belief is false. You begin from the assumption that God does not exist. Then you figure that since the closest earthly symbol for the Creator is a father, God must be a cosmic projection of our human fathers. But apart from the assumption of atheism, there is no compelling evidence at all that God is a mere projection.
In fact, the argument begs the question. We seek psychological explanation only for ideas we already know (or presume) to be false, not those we think to be true. We ask, "Why do you think black dogs are out to kill you? Were you frightened by one when you were small?" But we never ask, "Why do you think black dogs aren't out to kill you? Did you have a nice black puppy once?"
Reply B: Though there must be something of God that is reflected in human fathers (otherwise our symbolism for him would be inexplicable), Christians realize that the symbolism is ultimately inadequate. And if the Ultimate Being is mysterious in a way that transcends all symbolism, how can he be a mere projection of what the symbol represents? The truth seems to be"and if God exists, the truth is"the other way around: our earthly fathers are pale projections of the Heavenly Father. It should be noted that several writers (e.g., Paul Vitz) have analyzed atheism as itself a psychic pathology: an alienation from the human father that results in rejection of God.


"Firstly we have to say that we don"t know whether the universe had a beginning or not. " So what are you trying to imply exactly? That somehow boom the universe came about? It had to start from somewhere. And the thing I dont understand about athetists is you guys say that the universe has been around forever. Where or specifically which year did "forever" start? And assuming there wasnt a begining of the universe,who created it? Somehow magically with voodoo magic it appeared just like that?

Big bang:
So lets all assume that big bang did happen. Those who dont know what big bang is,heres a link: Id like to draw your attention to something about this article:

-"small particles drew together, bound by the force of gravity"

So gravity was part of the process of the creation of earth. I question my opponent:who or what created gravity? The answer is definetly not the:we dont even know whether it had a begining in the first place. Thats like you saying you dont even know if life had a begining because it is pretty obvious everything has a begining.

"Those have starting conditions that vary and as there are infinitely many of them there has to be ours among them . "Who allowed these conditions to occur? I question my opponent:is it pure coincidence that the starting conditions just happened like that and no one allowed such things to happen? Proove it to me that it was pure coincidence then.

"Therefore we can see that the kalam cosmological argument isn"t a valid argument as both primacies fail." So everything ended up perfect just by such a coincidence? How is it that you are still living on this earth and possibly living a good life? Just by coincidence? Please enlighten me because I dont think such coincidences can lead to such perfect results.

P.S:if you want to forefeit one round,just state:I forefeit(to save time).


Firstly if you don"t want to take that much time you should just have adjusted the settings accordingly. In the way it is set up I will try and go on to try to actually answer your point in the depth necessary.

Let"s therefore begin with your rebuttal:

The thing I am implying is that we actually do not know if the universe had a beginning or not and that the only way we can make any statements about the question is by building models. Those models have to fit some criterion of selection, which is whether or not they explain the observations inside our universe. Then I argued that there are such models of which some posit a beginning and some say that the universe is infinite in the past. We can be pretty sure that we haven"t found the right model because as I have said we lack important knowledge to even decide such as quantum gravity. Therefore I argue that the second primacy of the kalam cosmological argument is not based upon science as science so far does not say that it began or is infinite. Therefore there is no evidence in favor of the second primacy being true which fails the argument. I affirm this further by showing that there is also no philosophical problem with an infinite past. As the argument affirms the conclusion only if both primacies are more likely true than not, this shows that this argument fails as it is not more likely that the universe began to exist, as we have no grounds on which to say it.

Besides this point I think also that infinite models of the universe are in light of quantum mechanics having in the Schroedinger equation a time parameter form " to +infinity, more likely true, but this isn"t even needed to refute the cosmological argument.

Now to your point concerning the big bang. Here you seem to confuse something. The quote you brought up talks about the formation of the earth, which is inside our physical universe. Obviously no one questions whether gravity is part of our universe as it makes up one of the four fundamental forces and we even know that it was there at the big bang. To explain the way gravity works, physicists have build models to account for it and again some of them are infinite and some are finite. We just don"t know up to the current state. What we do know is that we can"t know so far how gravity worked at the beginning of our observable universe as we lack a theory of quantum gravity. But in an infinite universe or even in a finite one we have actually ways of accounting for gravity. For such a model you actually have to account only for a few things. Those are the four forces which are a pattern of physical reality and could well have originated if at all by chance. The important thing is that we can"t know that so far. You can"t know it either. The only difference it that you don"t know it and claim to know it and science just that it doesn"t know it.
To make it absolutely clear. We don"t need agency in order for things to happen, just as we do not need a god to push the earth around the sun. There are certain patterns of reality which we have discovered over the cause of science which we now call the laws of physics. Those are all based and combined in very few simple basic patterns. How those very simple patterns came about, or whether this is even a reasonable question to ask, we don"t know so far. Important is that all day common sense absolutely definitely doesn"t answer those question concerning either a possible beginning or the possible reason for certain patterns, as we know that even in the theories we have now and we know are correct such as quantum mechanics it goes against common sense. Therefore some common sense claim that it had to be a certain way are useless which is why science says if it doesn"t know certain thing.

Your last point can be answered by my first remark about what the kalam cosmological argument does for your case. I have refuted both primacies (the first you haven"t responded to). Therefore by definition I have refuted the argument. Why there is our world in the way it is, is a question that would take up all the rest of the space I have, which is why I will only scratch at the surface. Why we have certain conditions in our observable universe, which began with the big bang can actually be explained by different theories of a multiverse. It wasn"t build in order to explain those problems away but is actually a result of applying two things. Inflation, which is a rapid expansion and quantum mechanics. What it predicts is that there will be an infinite expansion and through quantum fluctuations it builds new baby universes. Those have different conditions (basic fundamental constants). As there are infinitely many we will get to have every possible one, of which one is ours. We don"t know whether this or another of its kind is correct. We can"t know as we do not know things like a unified theory of gravity and also so far lack the ability to test those hypotheses. From the beginning with right conditions it is "easy" to come through the laws of physics and later evolution (very brief) to the things we see. How it exactly all happened we can"t definitely say, but we come closer and actually have evidence for the truth of the things we say.

Now I will come to your argument:

There is no question that the vast majority had a religious belief, but the truth of a claim has nothing to do with the number of people subscribing to it. Nearly all thought once that the earth is the center and the sun moved around the earth, but this hasn"t made it true. The problem of god can"t be broken down to everyone experiencing the moon or the sun as this is not at all similar to religious believe. It is not the case that everyone experiences a god, but draw different conclusions. Firstly there is a growing number who say that they don"t have this experience. This can be explained if we look at what actually makes people believe in god. With almost all of them it is the factor of having been brought up in the religion. This can be seen especially well if we look at the regional differences. If you are born in India you are most likely a Hindu, if you are born in America you are most likely a Christian and especially if you are born to e.g. Christian parents you are by far the most likely to be a Christian yourself. If you are born to atheist parent you are the most likely to be an atheist yourself. This connection shows that most of us aren"t religious, because of a religious experience, but because of our heritage. This is very much plausible as it is clear in all cases that a belief you have been raised in is hard to abandon and will most likely stay. From the presupposition of religious belief through indoctrination as a child it is no wonder that people say they have a religious experience. This is to be expected and not at all surprising as we can see that through believe in something you will interpret almost everything in favor of it.

The observation that societies and the majority of human population had religious believes can be explained by something you have stated yourself. It is a part of the nature of being human. This can be explained by the evolutionary benefit. Religion first came up with society and was used to control people in a growing society. From there it expanded into being part of the social norm. We can see this possible evolutionary benefit of being able to control bigger groups and also it being a possible side effect of another development, which therefore ingrained the tendency of religious believe in humanity. We are hardwired both by society through the development of it as a positive impact and also most likely by evolution to accept a religious believe. In addition to this it is also our first attempt at a system to explain phenomena in the world around us, which also makes it important. Therefore it is easy to see how it came to the influence it currently has in our society. From here it is also on a psychological level no surprise at all that people experience religious things as it is ingrained in them. From the position of already having a strong believe which also isn"t questioned we see also in different contexts that a person will interpret all experiences in a way that accord with the belief. Now as we can see the basis of religion in society and how this leads through unquestioned believe to people having experiences, we can conclude that the fact that many claim religious experience is explained by science and therefore doesn"t constitute evidence in favor of the claim that a god exists.

The question also would be how religious experience works on a neurological level. You would for it to be true need a way of experience that is additional to the ones everyone has. The thing is that religious experience is correlated to brain activity and this brain activity can be explained by purely physical mechanisms. There is no way that something else that would be in contact with a god could actually influence the brain as we know that the brain is made up of physical particles and we know how they work. There is no space for the needed additional sense making up a soul.

With all that in place we can actually see that it is clear that religion can be best explained by natural processes arising from evolutionary benefits in society and the appeal of explaining mysterious things. This builds strong believes and therefore a confirmation bias leading to people interpreting everything in accordance with their already held believes. This therefore makes them think of normal thoughts and experiences as being in accordance with the believe as some religious experience. Combined with our knowledge of neurology and the impossibility of anything supernatural affecting the brain it can be concluded that neither the big number of religious affiliates nor the seeming sincerity of their testimony shows the truth of the said claims at all.
Debate Round No. 2


I"d like to draw your attention to 3 miracles:the miracle of lanciano,the staircase of saint joseph and the incorruptable bodies of certain saints.

The miracle of lanciano is a eucharistic miracle, purported to have occured in the eighth century in lanciano itally. In a nutshell,a monk had doubts of the real presence of christ in the eucharist. When he said the words if consecration"this is my body and this is my blood." The bread and wine turned into actual flesh and blood. And this flesh ladies and gentlemen was a piece of flesh near the heart where during that time,there was no way at all to slice that musscle out.

The staircase of saint joseph is something which till today still cannot be explained is a miracle which occured in mexico. In a nutshell, there was a group of sisters who were sent fron kentucky to mexico to found a school for girls. By order of the bishop, a chapel was to be built and to be placed under the care of the sisters. Ater its construction,the builders were faced with a problem:there was no way to climb up from the ground floor to the choir loft. A staircase wouldve been impossible to build and a ladder wouldve taken up too muh room. The builders insised to demolish the choir but instead the nuns prayed a novena to saint joseph. After the novena, a mysterious man said that he could build a staircase on one condition:he"d be granted total privacy.

For three months the man was locked in the chapel and no one was seen entering or leaving the chapel. When the staircase was built, the man left without asking for any reward. The staircase itself is weird as it seems. A spiral staircase with no centeral support!? You got that right. A spiral staircase,6 meters long, no centeral support snd 200 years old. Bear in mind it has been used alot of times. Till today the staircase is surrounded by 3 mysteries:the physics if its structure,the buders identity and the type of spruce wood the builder used. As we all know spruce has alot of species but this species of wood till today is still unidentified.

The incorruptable bodies in a nutshell is very simple. We all know when you die your body starts decomposition immediately. Even under special care the body does not stop decomposition, however way you treat it the body will decompose just at a slower rate. One particular saint I want to look at is saint bernadette. It has been if Im not mistaken 150 years since she died and till today not a single sign on decomposition has been spotted on her. There has been hundreds of cases like these. And till today there still has not been any scientific evidence for this to happen. If youre going to tell me science is responsible for this,according to google,heres the definition:an event inexplicable by natural or scientific laws and attributed to divine agency.

"Therefore I argue that the second primacy of the kalam cosmological argument is not based upon science..."

Its common sense not science. Please enlighten me:coincidences lead to perfect results. Is that what youre trying to imply?

"as science so far does not say that it began..." so youre saying without a carpenter a table can end up created with such perfection?

On your point on my misunderstanding:I did not question gravitys existence of course it does. Im asking you(which you didnt reply):without a who or what,how did gravity come about? Dont use the:we dont even know if it had a begining or not excuse on me. Because without a carpenter,the wood would still be on the ground on the floor and not a table.

"There are certain patterns of reality which we have discovered over the cause of science" Answer me:who made all scientific discoveries possible? Isit plausible to say it was just by coincidence?

"From the beginning with right conditions..."Read this again. SLOWLY. I thought you said things like the universe never had a begining?

"Religion first came up with society and was used to control people in a growing society. " They had laws back then. So laws were the things that controlled society. Its like today when athetists dont believe in beings which make laws on their own still follow laws. I wonder why.

"...shows the truth of the said claims at all." Let me tell you the truth:there have been events(like the miracles mentioned above) which arent explicable by science so can we have an explanation for that?


I will again begin by addressing your rebuttal:

"Its common sense not science." This is exactly the point. I have explained already in my first remarks that common sense is no way of assessing the question, because the beginning in the common sense term is not the same as the beginning which is discussed as the ultimate beginning of physical reality. Your example of the carpenter shows that the beginning you are talking about always has a material cause (e.g. the wood), which the beginning of all reality would not have. Therefore it can"t be assessed by causation making the first primacy of the kalam cosmological argument fail (I elaborate in my first remarks).

Furthermore we have to see that the question whether the universe had a beginning is not answered by common sense. Our common sense perception is adapted to medium sized objects with low velocity. It shows that the biases from this level of observation can"t be applied if we go into the category of very small objects and high velocity. Small objects act according with quantum mechanics which is in every way counterintuitive and fast objects have the effects of relativity which are also counterintuitive. It shows that those common sense perceptions aren"t applicable to the fundamental ways nature works. Our experience teaches us that we can expect in our medium sized surroundings to experience certain "normal" things, but as we see we can"t apply those expectations to the fundamentals of reality. The question of whether or not the universe had a beginning or is infinite is exactly such a question that can"t be answered by just saying it has to be some way. Therefore we have to turn to science which is in its foundations a method to overcome the common sense expectations and look what is actually there. If we apply it and build models to explain the observations in our universe we see that we don"t come to a clear view about the question of whether or not the universe is infinite. Therefore we can"t make any claims about it making also the second primacy fall.

Now to make it absolutely clear: If the universe is infinite gravity didn"t "come about", but is just a part of the e.g. the infinite multiverse. Only if it is not in fact infinite, we can say that gravity began, but even here there is no reason to invoke a god. Things do not need an agent behind them as our whole universe shows. This is very important and also addresses you next point. You don"t need anyone to make something possible, which we know since we know that there is no one pushing the moon around the earth. The patterns in reality actually allow for it to happen. Now the question how our fundamental laws came about of which one is gravity so far hasn"t been answered. As they are pretty simple pattern of our universe it could well be that the patterns we describe as laws of physics could have come about by chance. Maybe there is a necessity for such laws. We don"t know and we openly say that we don"t know. You do not know either, which is very important. Therefore you have to provide evidence to the same standard as science in order to show that only a god can explain the emergence of those patterns. You would have to disprove all theories posited by theoretical physicist and show for all of them and all the possible once that we could devise that they can"t be true in order for you to say with the certainty that you show that it could only be god. As you can"t do this (if you thing that you can I think that all physicists would be interested) you also have to face that your attempt at explaining the observation (our physical laws) has to withstand the scrutiny in light of all our scientific knowledge. It so obviously fails and is also so badly defined (what is your god exactly and especially how does he or the process work) that physics can dismiss them without hesitation as absolutely laughable. To conclude we see that while science doesn"t know all the answers, you can"t claim to have it either. To do so is using a god of the gaps argument.

The thing controlling society was religion. This can easily be understood as you look at what religion does. Religion is a set of rules which is combined with an invisible eye in the sky to enforce them. It goes by the thought that if you think you got away with something you haven"t, as there is a god seeing it and also punishing you for it. This is needed as soon as the society grows to a point where it can"t monitor itself in order to keep order. Religion is then used to enforce the law if there is a lack of enforcement by the ruling group, which makes everyone move inside the boundaries. This is an advantage as it allows the formation of societies and is therefore favored. It changed in modern society with the advent of the enlightenment and the institution of human rights which taught people the values with which a society works. We don"t have therefore the need for religion to do this job anymore as we also see that our modern model works way better, but at the beginning of society it was very much needed and has through this position acquired its influence.

Let"s now turn to miracles.

I want to begin with some general points which will shorten the later treatment of your examples. Miracles are defined in the Oxford dictionary as "An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.". The important thing is that you have to establish that both some event is not explicable by natural or scientific law and also actually occurred. Let"s begin with the first. As a miracle is obviously the least likely event as we have all sensory evidence of every human being telling us that they do not occur and also every physical law telling us that they can"t be possible, you have to show by a very high standard of evidence that a certain thing actually happened. This means that you would need at least a good array of sources which are independent, at best some direct archeological evidence and if not that old also some kind of photo or video. Even if there were all kinds of evidence they also have to be compelling enough to actually show the truth of the claim that a certain event actually occurred in the miraculous way. Now if you have shown that it actually occurred by a miraculous way, you then have to prove that there is no possible natural explanation for the event as this one would obviously be by definition more compelling, as it is not the by definition least likely explanation which would be the miracle. You have to refute any rival hypothesis again on the basis of clear evidence. Those standards have to be the basis of assessing miracle claims as they are by all of our observed data the least likely occurrence. If you have then brought forth all of the above you could actually say that something is a miracle and would then have to show why this actually proves you particular supreme being and not some other.

From her I will quickly go over your examples of things you evaluate to be miracles:

The first, the miracle of lanciano, pretty obviously doesn"t hold up to the necessary standard. We do not have multiple independent sources especially not from eye witnesses, we do not actually know who the monk was, we do not have clear cut examinations of what actually exactly happened, we do not have any way of confirming that it is not a legend and we do not have any way of affirming the claim that the reliquary comes from it. In the second category we also do not know whether it is not just a preserved piece of flesh and we see that the piece we have shows signs of mummification. Also we have no evidence at all that a there is no possible natural cause. We do therefore have neither a way of ensuring that it actually happened nor that the evidence brought up holds up and we therefore have no reason to believe that it is in some way supernatural.

With the second we see again that there is no evidence given that it is in fact the work of a saint. The only thing we have is the staircase itself and we have no way of knowing who build it. Now we know that the staircase doesn"t defy physical laws. As researchers assessed it they came to the conclusion that while highly unusual it is not impossible. Actually it works much like a straight staircase does as well with the stringers just being turned in a helix. It holds because of the low radius in the middle, which makes the inner edge hold similarly to a center support. To conclude it shows that there is neither a way of knowing how true the story told about the church actually is and even if true it does not defy physical law as we can explain why it work. Also there are other staircases of the kind from a similar time such as the one in the town hall of Gdansk Poland.

And lastly I come to the incorruptible bodies of certain saints. Here your example is an obvious fraught. We know that the body is actually made of wax. The original body had decomposed already by 1919 to a good extend and was only preserved this long as it was covered with calcium salts for preservation. What can now actually be seen is a wax mask made by Pierre Imans in Paris. The corpses of the other "saints" have similar explanations if they actually are the bodies. This shows nicely how far the Catholic Church goes to deceive people. We can see again that this does not constitute a miracle.

From all those examples I think it becomes rather clear. The examples brought up do not satisfy any standards of evidence for either there actual occurrence or their divine nature, which is why it is obvious that so called miracles do not demonstrate the existence of a god.
Debate Round No. 3


Im not going to write much but heres a link for you that god exists. Oh and look! Its written by athetists!

"The thing controlling society was religion." What evidence do you have to support this claim? Religion came after laws. Read your history books bruv. Also,you athetists dont believe in any religion and follow laws. I wonder why.

"We do not have multiple independent sources especially not from eye witnesses"So you want to interview dead people? Plus you can goto itally itself and you can see the miracle for yourself.

"The original body had decomposed already by 1919 to a good extend and was only preserved this long as it was covered with calcium salts for preservation. " Do you have any evidence they used calcium salts to preserve it in the 1700"s? Maybe yes they did not last that long but from the 1700"s to the 1900"s? Thats already pretty long.


First it would be nice for you to right your arguments yourself, because this way I it is almost impossible to answer in just 10000 characters a text of nearly twice the length.

Let"s again start with a short rebuttal:
- It is absolutely clear that there has been no society without religion. The position is well explained in this article: . The point about the impact on society and the development is made a little further down in two paragraphs of which the first starts with "Religion and Social Progress. """. I think the article explains well how religion had an impact and was developed far from the basis of religious experience. I also explained that today our morality and also the fact that we abide by laws is based upon the enlightenment and free thought.
- I do not expect to interview them now, but if there were a remarkable event up to something miraculous it could be expected that someone there in person would have given an eyewitness report. For a miracle you would expect several. There are non which is why it is not a something that can be taken seriously.
- We have a note from a doctor who was there and who saw it and reports the calcium salts. It is highly improbable to claim that they came there in another way. Additionally already then the body was partly decomposed. You can read further on this here: . If it were somehow godly I would expect a little better conservation skills on his part.

Now to the text. Firstly to say that you have to want to know god in order to experience him and to say that this explains why some don"t experience him is stupid. There are people and many known atheist who wish there was a god and who have searched (some where even priests), but haven"t found it. It is just the case that there are people who have no religious experience and I have explained that they are way more numerous

The 1. point on complexity is also no argument in favor of a god, as all the phenomena presented are well attested by our scientific law, which describe certain patterns in the universe. From the same starting conditions and these laws of physics our universe is predestined to be as it is. Also quantum mechanics fits in with this if you interpret it in Everett"s way with each decision splitting up the universe in two which develop in different directions. Now quickly to the examples. The earth is specific in order to support life which is called the anthropic principle. It is obvious that we would observe the universe from some place that is able to support our life as we wouldn"t else have evolved here. Therefore it is to be expected that the earth is a rather rare phenomenon considering the necessary conditions for our existence. But as there are so many possible galaxies with so many possible planets it is not surprising that there is one fitting the requirements. To go on it is not the case that the earth can"t be at a different distance to the sun as we change the distance all the time over the cause of a year as the orbit is an ellipse. Water is indeed special but all the said properties can again be explained by the chemical properties of the molecule. It is clear why we need the properties and also why water has them. The human brain is by far the most complex structure, but it developed by evolution. The mechanism can explain both how the brain and also our eyes came about. To conclude we see that complexity can be explained in terms of simple underlying rules, which are the laws of physics and our position in this complexity is to be expected by the anthropic principle.

The second point I have already shown to be flawed in my earlier remarks.

Thirdly we come to the question why the universe operates in accordance with uniform laws. We can say right of the bet that I don"t know and science so far doesn"t know either. What we are talking about is that on the fundamental level of reality our universe follows certain patterns, which we can describe by laws. Those patterns could be due to necessity that they couldn"t be different, or be just an accident as they do not seem to be that complex on the fundamental level. It could also be introduced from an earlier universe by chance or something of this kind. We do not know but it is important to see that you and religious people do not know either. To just say god did it doesn"t explain it. You have to prove that it isn"t possible without a god and that again we can"t that say what so ever. Also you have to explain how the god you propose works in order to explain anything. All in all we can say without a problem in science that we do not know it as we do not expect to at the current point of our knowledge, but to just say that we don"t know it, is not an argument in favor of your position.

In the fourth case it just compares two things that aren"t comparable with on the one hand an instruction manual, which is obviously build an agent as it obviously has been written by one and on the other hand a biological molecule that is described by us as using a language. There is no need for such code to come about by agency. We can explain the information in DNA by the mechanism of evolution. The pattern of the DNA brings about the actual role of the sequence in the organism and evolution shows that positive traits are ingrained in the DNA as they are passed on to the offspring. Biology therefore explains very well why there is DNA, how and why it works and how it developed up to the state we have now and for all of that we do not need an agent.

The fifth point is also nonsense. No god is pushing someone to speak out against him, but the religious people do so. There is no atheist in the world that would care about the topic if there wasn"t the impact of those who are religious. It is similar to the thought of golf. If there is no one bringing it up all the time the people who do not golf don"t care about it. But if now everyone who played golf felt the obligation in him to bring everyone else to golf, if golfers were influencing laws and if playing golf where a necessary quality for someone to be elected into office, non-golfers would work just as strictly and maybe even more so against this, then golfers would work in favor of it. This is because it infringes on our freedom and impacts all of us. Religion is just this. It is an influence on politics and the people believing it also want to convert each other. Religion has so many direct and often adverse effects that it is clear that atheist will work against it even thought they actually don"t care what someone believes and wouldn"t act or even think about it, if there wasn"t this incentive (similar to a non-golfer not thinking of his active non-golfing). There is nothing that would bring me to the issue of religion aside from the affects. Also if there are those amazing amounts of evidence and a god pressing to present himself to me I really would like to know what exactly you are talking about. I would like to know just this amazing evidence from believers and this time please not just things we already know from science that you just didn"t understand. Also it is of no interest if someone just chooses to think that there is a god as this doesn"t show that he is right.

For the sixth point I have to ask whether if I said that I were gods" son and then would preach something after that, would it make it more likely true? This is what is claimed of Jesus. He was just as much a preacher as other religious figures, but was different as he claimed to be the son of god. As you see that claiming something is no evidence I now ask what constitutes the evidence for the claim that he was god? I can"t see any reason what so ever for the truth of this claim, especially not in things he supposedly said or did according to scripture wrote some 50 years later. I want clear evidence for the claim which is both convincing and absolutely clear in its interpretation.
Now what follows is an account of the "miracles" Jesus supposedly did. As I have already explained earlier you have to show up to a high standard of evidence that both the thing actually happened and that it happened in a supernatural way and can"t be explained by natural causes. The first part of assertions of Jesus supposed actions are just what is written in the bible. There is no evidence at all that these stories are actually true. They lack eye-witness testimony as no gospel is an actual eye-witness account, they are written well after the events in a Greece and not Jerusalem, by well educated people. There is no reason at all to think that they report anything but a propaganda story for their faith. Same goes for Jesus death and resurrection. Therefore I would first like to see evidence for your claims that the bible tells us facts up to the extent that Jesus performed the things claimed. From there we can go on and then assess the second criterion for miracles.

To conclude we see that nothing of the claimed evidence actually is evidence and can therefore again affirm the position that there is no evidence of the existence of a god rendering religion to be dependent upon mere faith in something without any evidence.
Debate Round No. 4


Argument:Before attempting to explain and assess moral arguments for the existence of God, it would be helpful to have some perspective on the goals of arguments for God's existence. (I shall generically term arguments for God's existence "theistic arguments.") Of course views about this are diverse, but most contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted "proofs," in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard. More reasonable questions to ask about theistic arguments would seem to be the following: Are there valid arguments for the conclusion that God exists that have premises that are known or reasonably believed by some people? Are the premises of such arguments more reasonable than their denials, at least for some reasonable people? Arguments that met these standards could have value in making belief in God reasonable for some people, or even giving some people knowledge of God's existence, even if it turns out that some of the premises of the arguments can be reasonably denied by other people, and thus that the arguments fail as proofs.
It is of course possible that an argument for God's existence could provide some evidence for God's existence, in the sense that the argument increases the probability or plausibility of the claim that God exists, even if the argument does not provide enough support by itself for full-fledged belief that God exists. A proponent of the moral argument who viewed the argument in this way might in that case regard the argument as part of a cumulative case for theism, and hold that the moral argument must be supplemented by other possible arguments, such as the "fine-tuning" argument from the physical constants of the universe, or an argument from religious experience. A non-believer might even concede some version of a theistic argument has some evidential force, but claim that the overall balance of evidence does not support belief.
A major issue that cannot be settled here concerns the question of where the burden of proof lies with respect to theistic arguments. Many secular philosophers follow Antony Flew (1976) in holding that there is a "presumption of atheism." Believing in God is like believing in the Loch Ness Monster or leprechauns, something that reasonable people do not do without sufficient evidence. If such evidence is lacking, the proper stance is atheism rather than agnosticism.
This "presumption of atheism" has been challenged in a number of ways. Alvin Plantinga (2000) has argued that reasonable belief in God does not have to be based on propositional evidence, but can be "properly basic." On this view, reasonable belief in God can be the outcome of a basic faculty (called the sensus divinitatis by theologian John Calvin) and thus needs no support from arguments at all. In response some would argue that even if theistic belief is not grounded in propositional evidence, it still might require non-propositional evidence (such as experience), so it is not clear that Plantinga's view by itself removes the burden of proof challenge.
A second way to challenge the presumption of atheism is to question an implicit assumption made by those who defend such a presumption, which is that belief in God is epistemologically more risky than unbelief. The assumption might be defended in the following way: One might think that theists and atheists share a belief in many entities: atoms, middle-sized physical objects, animals, and stars, for example. Someone, however, who believes in leprechauns or sea monsters in addition to these commonly accepted objects thereby incurs a burden of proof. Such a person believes in "one additional thing" and thus seems to incur additional epistemological risk. One might think that belief in God is relevantly like belief in a leprechaun or sea monster, and thus that the theist also bears an additional burden of proof. Without good evidence in favor of belief in God the safe option is to refrain from belief.
However, the theist may hold that this account does not accurately represent the situation. Instead, the theist may argue that the debate between atheism and theism is not simply an argument about whether "one more thing" exists in the world. In fact, God is not to be understood as an entity in the world at all; any such entity would by definition not be God. The debate is rather a debate about the character of the universe. The theist believes that every object in the natural world exists because God creates and conserves that object; every finite thing has the character of being dependent on God. The atheist denies this and affirms that the basic entities in the natural world have the character of existing "on their own." If this is the right way to think about the debate, then it is not obvious that atheism is safer than theism. The debate is not about the existence of one object, but the character of the universe as a whole. Both parties are making claims about the character of everything in the natural world, and both claims seem risky. This point is especially important in dealing with moral arguments for theism, since one of the questions raised by such arguments is the adequacy of a naturalistic worldview in explaining morality. Evidentialists may properly ask about the evidence for theism, but it also seems proper to ask about the evidence for atheism if the atheist is committed to a rival metaphysic such as naturalism.

In the link you pasted in your argument it says,"An early religious notion..." Plus the title says:the development of religion. Although it says an early religious notion, it does not mean that laws werent the first things that controlled society. Plus the title does not say something like:Religion or laws first? It says the development of a society. Yes I can agree with the fact religion is a big factor that controlls society but that does not mean that it controlls society 100%. If it does,why are athetists under control when they dont believe in any religion?

"I do not expect to interview them now, but if there were a remarkable event up to something miraculous it could be expected that someone there in person would have given an eyewitness report. For a miracle you would expect several. There are non which is why it is not a something that can be taken seriously. " To save you the trouble just go to itally yourself instead of trying to revive peole who died in the 8th century.

On your rebuttal on the first point,third point and fourth point,you stated all these stuff which for me a 13 year old kid cant exactly understand. But I ask you:who or what made these? If you are going to say a creator isnt necessary,apart from what we mentioned,name me one thing you see on earth(eg cars,buildings,etc.) which does not need a creator.

"As you see that claiming something is no evidence I now ask what constitutes the evidence for the claim that he was god?" The stone which closed the tomb of jesus(if you read the bible) weighed god knows how heavy. Jesus"s tomb was inside and there was no way to roll the stone from the inside to get out. If you are going to deny that happened,as far as Im concerned archeologists affirmed it.

"I can"t see any reason what so ever for the truth of this claim, especially not in things he supposedly said or did according to scripture wrote some 50 years later. I want clear evidence for the claim which is both convincing and absolutely clear in its interpretation. " We can agree on the fact that jesus claimed to be real in the bible but you dont believe it. Hes mentioned in another religion as a saviour in the quran. So two religions linking with the same person. Coincidence? I think not.

"Therefore I would first like to see evidence for your claims that the bible tells us facts up to the extent that Jesus performed the things claimed. " Can you tell me what jesus ate for breakfast on christmas day when he turned 15? That was over 2000 years ago and science has not found a way to time travel. But anyways,assuming I cant proove what happened in the bible,can you proove to me they were a big fairy tale? Considering the fact we found noahs ark and jesus"s tomb and maybe more.

Statement:Ladies and gentlemen I also want to bring up the fact that throughout this entire debate my opponent did not give an argument about why god does not exist and just has been counteracting whatever I say. Which brings me to question ladies and gentlemen:does my opponent have a solid argument which one cannot counteract?


First to your rebuttal. I am not claiming that religion is the sole mechanism by which society was controlled. The thing I was saying and with which you seemingly agree is that religion was one institution with the task of controlling society. One further task of religion was to explain certain phenomena in nature. This shows that the basis of religion was not some mysterious miracle or the necessity of religious experience, but its effect on society. With this we can see that the element of religious experience is therefore way smaller then described, in today"s religion as well. Also I have explained several times, why atheists accord to certain laws without a god watching. It is because our (yours as well as mine) values are actually build upon the enlightenment and the thought that people have certain rights. We abide by them in a kind of social contract, which works through our ability of empathy for the others feelings and also to an extend self interest as living in a society is beneficial to us

You can"t see from this scrap of flesh what happened at the time. Therefore we can"t say from it that some miraculous thing happened, because the reliquary itself is nothing special. To show that it actually comes from a miracle you would need eyewitness reports to confirm it and we do not have any. As there is nothing particularly special about the piece of flesh that couldn"t be explained, it is no evidence of a miracle.

I have directly in my first remarks explained why our universe is qualitatively different from our common sense and everyday surroundings. I advise you to go ahead and study science. You do not have to abandon your faith in order to do that, but it would open your eyes on many things that are obvious in the light of our knowledge. As soon as you have understood at least to a certain level what science is about and what it has to says about questions at hand, you can again judge whether or not science explains something or not and only if it doesn"t you have actually a position from which to question it. Therefore please learn what the stuff you dismiss so easily actually is, before you do so.

No one has ever affirmed any of your claims. It is true that it is written in the bible, but again this has nothing to do with being true. We don"t even know if the one most often thought of as his tomb actually is the one. There is no direct evidence for this claim. We do neither know whether he was ever put inside it. We also don"t know where the stone was that supposedly had to be shifted. Therefore as soon as we have actual evidence of the truth both of the claim that he was buried and the tomb proposed actually is his tomb, we can go on and assess whether or not the stone is evidence of his divinity. As long as we lack any of the evidence above I have to say that this is no evidence of Jesus divinity.

It is obvious that Jesus is mentioned in the Quran as it is based upon the bible and was written by people who already knew of Christianity. It is seven hundred years later and therefore no evidence for the supposed truth of any claim of the bible. What I say is that it is very much likely that Jesus existed, but from here we can"t be sure about pretty much anything. What Jesus said and did, we don"t know as we know that parts of the gospel account isn"t factual as it was written at least some 50 years later. We don"t know what the historical Jesus was, but the development of legend and our knowledge about the gospels suggest that little of what is written in the gospels is actually factual. I can recommend Bart Ehrmans book "Did Jesus exist: The historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth" on the subject.

Now I have to again urge you to learn what actually constitutes evidence. We do not have found "Noah"s ark" and we know it never existed, as we know that there was no flood and we haven"t found Jesus tomb either with certainty. The thing is that through historical analysis it is possible to evaluate what probably happened and through that evaluation we can see that the claims of the gospel most likely aren"t true. No one can prove either position but the important thing is to look at where the currently available evidence points us and it is obvious that it doesn"t affirm any of the miraculous claims you made.

And lastly it is important to be very clear about this: You can"t prove a negative. It is just impossible. I give you an example: Try to disprove that there are unicorns out there somewhere in the universe. It is impossible. The same goes for a god hypothesis. It is even worse as your god hypothesis is so loosely defined that you can square all observation with it (e.g.: the problem of evil, the number of different religions, the obvious fact that prayer doesn"t work, the fact that our brain is purely physical and that there is no such thing as a soul etc.). You can say that all of this somehow fits which makes arguing against it pointless. Therefore as soon as I have disproven all of your arguments I can affirm that on the basis that there are no arguments in favour, we are right to dismiss the proposition of a god (You do not believe any other thing with absolutely no evidence).

Now to the argument. Again it doesn"t help if you just copy some passage out of an article. It isn"t really an argument and most parts of the things talked about haven"t even been breached by your argumentation.

But some brief points: I agree that almost no possible argument is capable of proving something, which is why I do not expect such arguments from theists. I also agree that the arguments have to be logical arguments with primacies that are more likely true then not. I do not agree that you just need some people to think that they are true. The important thing about empirical evidence and all evidence if we are talking about out observable universe has to be empirical, is that it can be evaluated on whether or not it shows a certain claim to be true or not. If your primacy makes a certain claim than you need to build an experiment with which you show that the primacy you proposed fits with the data while all others fail. This has nothing to do with someone"s opinion and doesn"t regard the wishes and presumptions of certain people. I have shown for all arguments proposed, from the kalam cosmological argument at the start over the argument from experience to the argument of miracles that there is no such empirical evidence that shows them to be true. This also holds for the argument from morality, which I won"t address anymore as you haven"t even written it out. Therefore we see that there is neither a cumulative case nor even any case for the existence of a god.
And also it is clear that there is a burden of proof on the theist and that the theist is the one making a claim about the reality of our universe. As always in science you have to show some evidence of the truth of that claim. Therefore there is no wiggling out of that position by just saying that it is a claim that doesn"t need arguments in favor of it. This can"t be achieved by changing the debate to the topic of the "character of the universe" as this character either has a supernatural entity in it or it doesn"t. This is a claim about the universe we observe and it is a claim with just the described additional thing bringing about added epistemological risk. This shows that it is still the case that without evidence you can dismiss a claim. It is the question whether naturalism or naturalism plus a god is true and this is not just a different character of the universe but it is a question about the existence of further things, which therefore makes the claim that there is no additional thing more likely true without evidence. And additionally we have lots and lots of evidence for the truth of naturalism as every single observation of our surrounding shows and we have as I have shown no evidence of a supernatural part of the universe.

Therefore I can comprehend that we heard arguments concerning cosmology, experience and miracles. I have shown with all of them that they are not based in science and that they do not have evidence to back up their assumptions. Also I described the mainstream view of those topics in active science if they are even taken seriously. As we have therefore seen no argument that was able to provide the necessary evidence for gods existence we can affirm that the rational choice is, as with every claim that isn"t backed up with evidence, the denial of the claim. There is no reason to think that there is a god. Therefore there is no god.

I thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Percivil 3 years ago
Its pretty simple:if it wasnt recorded,no one wouldve mentioned a thing about it. But for the fact that scientists have examined it,its pretty clear that the miracle actually happened
Posted by tfroitz1 3 years ago
Read what I have wrote in my arguments. If there was a miracle actually happening, and there was someone to witness it, you would expect that one of the people or more likely several would write down what they saw, especially if it was something memorable and special. Therefore you expect to find written records of people who were there. This is called an eyewitness report and the absence of those kind of writings makes it more likely that there was nothing worth writing about.
Posted by Percivil 3 years ago
tfroitz1,are you actually wanting to interview dead people? Because the miracle of lanciano did occur in the 8th interviewing witnesses who first witnessed the event is pretty much impossible...
Posted by Percivil 3 years ago
Can you not forefeit? Thx
Posted by Percivil 3 years ago
Any year now @tfroitz1
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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