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

God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,185 times Debate No: 119868
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




First round is for acceptance or argument making if you prefer.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I will present my case using a three pronged argument
1. The argument from probability
2. The argument from philosophy
3. The argument from science.

subpoint A As to probability, When discussing the probability of the existence of a life supporting universe, One needs to consider all of the variables working against life. Indeed, The odds of even the universe as we know it existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that our existence appears to defy the laws of mathematics. For example, We now know that electromagnetism separated from the other fundamental forces roughly ten picoseconds after the Universe as we know it came into being. Had the electromagnetic force been off by the tiniest most inconceivable fraction, Stars could not form and the universe would not exist.

Subpoint B. Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. Clarendon Press, 2014.

Ockhams razor would indicate the existence of god via probability. Swinburne observes that it is simpler to postulate an unlimited force than a limited force. If one postulates a limited force then one is postulating two things, The force and whatever constrains it. If one postulates an unlimited force, Then one is only postulating one thing, The force; there is, By definition, Nothing that constrains an infinite force.

For this reason, Scientists constructing theories will, Unless there is good reason not to, Prefer to use zeroes or infinities in those theories. Scientists recognize that an infinite force is intrinsically more probable than any great but finite force.

This methodology, Swinburne suggests, Can be generalized; an infinite being, He urges, Is the most probable kind of being. Ockham"s razor, If he is correct, Far from implying that God"s existence is less likely than any other explanatory hypothesis, Implies that it is more likely than any other explanatory hypothesis; the intrinsic probability of theism is relatively high.

Moving on to philosophy.

subpoint A objective morality suggests the existence of God. Some things in this world are good, Some are evil. If objective moral reality exists, Then moral law exists, If moral law exists then we must posit the existence of an objective moral lawgiver. Neither the individual, Society, Or nature has the capacity to bestow upon anything moral objectivity.

Subpoint B The Aristotelian unmoved mover suggests the existence of God. No matter can justify its own existence. Everything that exists has something with the causal power to bring it into existence. Everything that is, Except for the first cause. The very first thing to ever cause a reaction must be primordial. To deny this fact places the timeline into a state of infinite regression which makes no mathematical or logical sense. IE what caused that? Then what caused that? Etc.

Subpoint C Pascals wager. The following isn't necessarily a proof for god but rather a defense of Theism. Pascals wager states that it is a wiser logical choice to believe in god for the following reason: If I choose to believe in god then one of two things can happen 1. I'm right and I get to go to heaven. 2. I'm wrong and nothing happens. On the other hand, If I choose to not believe in God one of two things can happen: 1. I'm right and nothing happens. 2. I'm wrong and I go to Hell. It's clear that the first option is the better choice because there is no room for something horrifically bad to happen which is not true of the second choice.

Next the argument from science.

The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That"s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it! The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, "a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, As well as with chemistry and biology. " The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides. No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, And the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Moreover, The coding regions of DNA exhibit sequential arrangements of bases that are necessary to produce functional proteins. In other words, They are highly specified with respect to the independent requirements of protein function and protein synthesis. Thus, As nearly all molecular biologists now recognize, The coding regions of DNA possess a high "information content" where "information content" in a biological context means precisely "complexity and specificity. " Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. " Atheists like Dawkins believe that unguided natural processes did all the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content, " experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role. " The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, Hypothesis, Experiments, And conclusion. In this regard, ID uses the scientific method to claim that many features of life are designed"not just the information in DNA. After starting with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI), Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, It will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, Which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, They conclude that such structures were designed.

This method has been used to detect irreducible complexity in a variety of biochemical systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Moreover, The more we discover about the cell, The more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, Replete with motors, Powerhouses, Garbage disposals, Guarded gates, Transportation corridors, And most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. Many fundamental biochemical systems won't function unless their basic machinery is intact, So how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, Successive, Slight modifications? Since cellular language requires an author, And microbiological machines require an engineer, And genetically encoded programs require a programmer, Increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design.

While there are more arguments I could pose, I don't have the characters to due them justice. I may bring them up later. Good luck.


Improbable just means less likely doesn't it? Life exists because certain conditions happened to be met, Even if unlikely it would happen. If it was more likely, Perhaps we would have Moon men and Martians for neighbors right now. (Not trying to be sarcastic there). Intelligent design of some type would be more believable to me if the conditions for life did not appear to be met. An oasis in the desert? Reasonable. A city with Hanging Gardens? That, Looks artificial.

Fish may rain from the sky, Does it really have to mean a deity?
SciTech mysteries rainingfrogs
nytimes world Americas Honduras rain fish

Unlimited force, Doesn't automatically mean deity does it? Also, Not sure I agree that it has been proven we live in an infinite energy universe.

I don't believe in objective morality. And the most I'd be willing to admit to it is that certain patterns of morality are likely to emerge in intelligent animals during certain times under certain conditions.

If Pascals wager makes you and other people happy, I think that's great.

At most 'if successful your science argument just means intelligent design, Which doesn't rule out "Aliens" - Giorgio A. Tsoukalos

If less successful, (as I see it). Maybe DNA and cells and everything are complicated. Just means to me that they are complicated. Water doesn't have to led and controlled to carve a canyon, It just has to follow it's nature, Over a long period of time.

DNA, Animals, And cells don't need to do more to create and do amazing wonders, Than, Follow their own nature.

Sorry it took a bit of time to reply, Busy at work, Sleep, And other. Also what type of God are you trying to define?
Debate Round No. 2


As both leaning and Missmedic aptly pointed out, I have neglected to define God.
God will be defined as the omniscient and omnipotent being responsible for creating the Universe.

I will go down my opponents arguments and refute his points one by one.

First, He claims that improbable just means less likely and that it is still possible that God does not exist and that the conditions could have "just happened to be met. " To put that in perspective, He is arguing that the basis for accepting his belief structure as true rests on the premise that the universe somehow managed to beat odds that as my case stated were less than one part in 1010^123. That number is so impossibly large there isn't even an analogy that I can use to accurately describe it. I can still try though. The closest I can get is to point out that there are only (at an aggressive estimate) 10^82 atoms in the observable universe. The argument that it all "just happened" is not only laughably insane but requires a degree of faith that I simply don't possess. It requires far LESS faith to believe that an intelligent force ensured that all of the criteria were met than to assume what my opponent believes. To further put the odds into perspective when I put that number (1010^123) into my calculator is just read "infinity" those odds don't get beaten on their own.

Secondly, He states that an unlimited force doesn't necessarily mean deity. True. However, It would necessitate an intelligent force that exists in an infinity to make sure that all criteria for a life supporting universe are met. Taking into account my argument about the unmoved mover gives this argument greater context.

next he says that objective morality doesn't exist. However, The idea of an amoral universe is existentially self-refuting.

The concept of an amoral universe, Thought not logically self-refuting, Is existentially self-refuting. There is no logical incoherence in the statement "No objective moral values and duties exist. " The problem arises when one attempts to describe how one should live in such a universe" for the instant one makes such an attempt, They have invalidated the concept. In an amoral universe, "how one should live" is meaningless" no standard exists to describe how one should live.

Without considering the implications of such a universe deeply, It"s easy to claim, "Objective moral truths do not exist; I have the right to do as I please! " Yet, This statement makes a moral claim to a "right" while denying moral reality. If you believe that others ought to allow you to live according to the dictates of your own will and your own conscience, Then you are appealing to objective morality to justify what others "ought" to do. For example, If you've ever told a religious person to "stop imposing our beliefs on you. " then you have appealed to objectivity and refuted your own point by stating what we SHOULD do. Further exampled, If you believe that one should not commit an ethnic genocide that is again an appeal to objective moral law. And if you don't believe that one should not commit a genocide then something has gone horrendously wrong in your philosophy. And don't bother telling me that you think there's nothing wrong with genocide unless you're a sociopath you know on an instinctive level that it's wrong. Or think of it this way; we are beings who can conceive and consider many different possible courses of action. Does any course of action exist that should always happen, If possible? Does any course of action exist that ought never to happen? Ought theists never torture atheists for fun? Ought atheists rebut theists who claim that objective moral categories exist?

If one single course of action ought never to happen, Then objective morality must exist. But let"s not get ahead of the evidence; whether it is immoral to torture atheists for fun (a question of epistemology) is irrelevant to the point"the only way that such a statement can logically be true is if there is an applicable objective standard by which we can judge the action in question. While we certainly conceive of ideas that are fictional, Most, If not all of these fictional concepts have their roots in reality; unicorns are an extension of horses; werewolves are a blending of human and animal, A cyclops is an oversized human with a single eye. None of these concepts are completely manufactured out of nothingness.

Yet for the concept of subjective morality to appear in an amoral universe is similar to the idea of blue and green appearing in a colorless universe. It is impossible to convey the richness and experience of color to a man blind from birth, Because such a man has no basis on which to relate to such a description. While you might explain that blue is a certain wavelength of light, That doesn"t convey to the blind man what light is, Or the experience of seeing blue. To the blind man, Color and light do not exist in his experience.

But in an amoral universe, Moral categories have no basis of existence in reality. In a world where color had no basis of existence in reality, All would be as the blind man above, Completely incapable of understanding the concept of color. Even if one conceived of such a thing as green or red in their imagination, They could never communicate this idea to others without a shared reference point. For purely subjective concepts, Such shared reference points cannot exist.

He states that intelligent design doesn't rule out aliens. No. But you ignored my argument about Ockhams razor. You are assuming without evidence that the force that brought about the human species is an alien. However, You are assuming the existence of a finite force which through Ockham's Razor we can determine that I am most likely correct. Your aliens argument also miserably fails to address the existence of the Universe at large. For your next relevant point, You ignore the fact that my original argument pointed out that no natural law necessitates for example the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, And the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Evolution doesn't function like a river drifting along a path. It is caused by countless, Random, Beneficial mutations in genetic code the basis for which is not determined by any law. All of this CSI (complex specified information) coming about by chance as I stated is highly unlikely. Your analogy of a river is fundamentally flawed in that a river follows a course predetermined by natural law. Evolution does not.

Lewis, Terry. "Do Objective Moral Truths Exist in Reality? " Cross Examined - Christian Apologetic Ministry | Frank Turek | Christian Apologetics | Christian Apologetics Speakers, 5 Feb. 2016, Crossexamined. Org/do-objective-moral-truths-exist-in-reality/


"Never tell me the odds! " - Han Solo.

Well, Really tell me the odds, I just enjoy old pop culture sometimes. I say again, Improbable events do happen. Most babies are born normal and healthy, Just because some are born with deformities now and then doesn't mean there was some supernatural intervention or cause. Also the raining fish thing again.

I don't see why infinity would need an intelligent force to cause the prerequisites of life. If existence repeats for infinity, Eventually it'll hit that improbable double zero and meet the requirements for life.

The way objective morality appears to fail logically does lead to absurdism, But hey, That's why there's a philosophy on it.

Intrinsic? Sure, Maybe by DNA, But certainly in culture. DNA however, Changes. Culture, Changes. It does not exist perfectly now and forever. People are born 'evil, If you like. Same problem Tolkien worried about with his orcs, Already exists. There just isn't (I think) a deity responsible for it. Psychopaths.

The color argument isn't bad, But doesn't upset my view of common held morality simply being patterns that emerge during certain times under certain conditions. There spectrums that you and I cannot see, And plenty of colorblind people in the world. One might argue that this does not stop objective morality from existing, And they're right. But they miss the rest of the colors. Our worlds in the front, Back, And sides start in black and white, We look up at a ceiling that saturates with orange, Green, Purple as we gain knowledge of the world, Concepts, And people within. But then, When a person glances down. . A void is seen, A fate, And a truth. Unavoidable, And waiting it's time. Bleh, Too emo, But anyway.

I think we are all blind men in a fashion. Admiring the elephant. When we come across other cultures, They to are blind men. The elephant you might claim from this is objective morality, But more I say it's simply reality. In which horror can exist and be seen as right in the same existence in which justice can be seen as right. Even if we were to come across aliens, We both exist in reality to share as a common ground, But that is not so much morality.

Yes, I use terms such as horror, Implying I believe in objective morality. But I am human after all. Raised by a similar culture after all. I can no more easily remove it than my arm. But still, My arm is only meat, Bone, And blood. And morality existence, Culture, And development. I still deny the existence of objective morality, But I do exist in a bubble of subjective morality.

I did not mean to ignore it, But as I am so undereducated in that field, My reply boils down to it's complicated that's all. Not a good reply, But what I have. DNA, Evolution has rules I imagine. How else could we practice selective breeding, View natural selection, Or marvel at the Galapagos islands?

Source Google Absurdism
Debate Round No. 3


I'm going to briefly explain again just how impossible the odds of a life supporting universe are. So, In statistics a mathematical impossibility is at one part in 10^50 the odds of a life supporting universe are one trillion trillion trillion times smaller than that. Odds that low don't even bear enough worth to be mentioned in a rational statistical argument. In fact, Karen Masters from Harvard University writes that with infinitesimal odds of something happening, Even in infinity it is more likely that there will only be a finite or zero number of those things in existence.

With that information we can see that an intelligent force is necessary because of the sheer precision evident in the universe. The universe hit the jackpot not just once but over and over and over again not just with each prerequisite for life, But with the ratios of the prerequisites to each other.

My opponent then makes the claim that morality exists in culture and DNA. Morality exists intrinsically in neither of those places without a God. First, Let's talk about DNA. This View Defies the Evidence
Sociologists and psychologists have been conducting baby studies for several years now in an effort to discover which moral traits (if any) are inherent and common to the human species. A Yale study referenced in a 60 Minutes episode revealed the problem. In one part of the experiment, 5 month old babies were given a "puppet play" to watch. In the play, A stuffed animal attempts to open a box and is either assisted by a white teddy bear that gently comes to its aid, Or defeated by a blue teddy bear that brusquely pounces on the box lid. Afterward, Babies most often choose to embrace the white teddy bear. The researchers (naturalists who would certainly reject the notion moral truths are grounded in the nature of God) initially attempt to explain the behavior as an evidence of the babies innate (genetic) sense of justice, Arguing that the babies reward the well-intended effort of the white bear by favoring it. A better explanation, However, Is simply that the baby fears the ill-behaved, Brutal blue bear as a matter of self-preservation. This also seems consistent with the second findings of the study. When babies were given an opportunity to discover a common interest with a stuffed animal (i. E. Both like the same snack food), They then favored this animal and held a bias against other stuffed animals that did not share this interest. They even favored this stuffed animal when it acted brutally. Researchers concluded that we are innately biased toward people who share our interests and biased against those who are different. An altruistic concern for others appears to be missing from our genetic coding. This really shouldn"t come as a surprise to any of us who have been raising children. Infants are inherently impatient, Selfish and quick to throw a tantrum. Parenting is often simply the exercise of helping children overcome their innate nature by applying principles missing from their genetic encoding.

If Morality doesn't exist in DNA, Then without God it can't exist in culture because of a lack of a reference point as I outlined in my last post.

As for his argument against my colorless universe argument. He says that common morality is just patterns that emerge in certain times and conditions. But HOW. With no objective reference point we have no way to come up with the concept of moral reality any more than a blind man has a reference point to come up with the concept of color. Even if there are differences in morality across cultures that doesn't remove the need for an objective moral truth for a reference point. Look at your example of colorblind people. Just because some people may mix up blues and greens or may not experience colors at all doesn't mean that those colors don't objectively exist and have an objective identity. Interpreting moral law differently or getting moral law wrong or merely choosing not to follow it does not change that it exists.

I must apologize in that I don't quite follow your point about the void and all that.

Evolution does have rules. But those rules are not predetermined by any known natural law. DNA gives the appearance of having been programmed to follow its own rules in a highly improbable way. Thus suggesting the existence of a programmer.


Barbossa : It's not possible!
Jack Sparrow : Not *probable*.
-Pirates of the Caribbean

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on that. Though, I'll reiterate them in round 5 for the summation.

My subjective view of morality certainly exists in DNA and culture. Though it might be better to call it Nature and Nurture. My objective view of morality isn't so much that there is one certain 'correct morality, But acknowledgement that certain patterns are more likely to emerge during certain times. Which isn't really what people tend to mean by objective morality. They mean, I take it, That one certain pattern is the one true pattern, Above all others. I don't.

Sigh, Reference point, Reference point. We exist. Exist starting with our Nature/DNA. Come into a world Culture/Nurture. That is enough.

If everyone possessed the exact same DNA and exact same life experiences, Then morality, Likely would appear objective to me. But it is clear, As we 'do 'not, That we 'have 'not objective morality.

Should trees all grow objectively the same rate and shape by virtue of being trees? Should morality grow the same rate and shape by virtue of our humanity? No. Experiences vary. Environments vary. Cultures built for generations upon generations vary.
What reference point? We have the ground beneath our feet and ourselves. A human doesn't need anything else for morality. Granted, When we first exist life and morality will be primitive, But what of it. We did not build skyscrapers from the start. Did not build iron from the start. Not bronze. We started, With 'Stone.

Objective morality as it exists is useless in itself. Of course there are different colors that we can't see. Sure night vision might be 'useful at night.

But their existence does not place any one of them above the other. They simply exist as 'Forms. Material. Useless without a person to put them into practice. And even then. . Their meaning is limited to a bubble of existence. That pops, When an individual dies. Pops, When a history dies. Pops, When a species dies.

Sure, Altruism may be a useful method of organizing and succeeding in societies. But that is why it exists in we modern humans. It was useful. It made itself dear to us. But what value is a pattern any more than gold? It's just a colorful weave, Just a base metal. Useless without a person to give it value.

Eh, Ignore the void part, Just nihilism.

I don't agree with your programmer explanation. DNA simply follows it's nature, As with water.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent says that the universe is improbable but not impossible. Well, The odds are one trillion trillion trillion times below a statistical impossibility so. . .

He states that morality exists in DNA and culture. As for DNA, I've given evidence to point out that morality is in fact entirely absent from DNA. If morality existed human DNA then my argument would be bunk and my opponents next argument about my reference point argument would stand. But morality doesn't exist in DNA so the DNA reference point doesn't exist and it can't exist in culture without a preexistent reference point.

No, Trees do not have to be the same shape and have the same growth rate. But they are still objectively trees. And there are certain objective properties that are constant among trees. Again, Merely because some groups of people may get the morality inherent in the moral universe wrong doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If morality exists in any form then objective morality must exist. If morality is subjective then there is no morality because there can be no good reason for adhering to any moral philosophy. Therefore, If murder is bad at all, Then objective morality exists. Otherwise murder is just bad in your opinion which, For some reason, Is prevalent across all cultures and most people in the history of the world in the absence of any genetic component. Opinions don't work like that. You could make the argument that the idea that murder is bad rises from the concept of what's good for society. But this kind of Utilitarian argument rests even in itself on objective morality. Every Utilitarian system of morality needs to have an underlying hierarchy of objective values through which we measure what is best for society.

Next, My opponent argues that all humans need for a reference point in order to conceive morality is the ground and ourselves. Okay, Then why can't a blind man who has the ground and himself conceive color? It turns out that dirt is neither a reference point for morality or color and that the human mind is incapable of coming up with fictitious ideas from nowhere. Also, Sure we started building with stone, But stone had to exist before we could use it. In a way, We needed to have a reference point for stone. Much in the same way, Morality had to exist before we could start using it.

As for my opponents next point that morality is just an idea, Useless without a person and that dies when an individual dies. First as to the idea that systems of morality are useless without people. Okay. So is a pencil. Does that mean that it's not objectively a pencil? That the absence of a hand to use it to write then makes the pencil not exist? If a God exists, Then he developed an objective morality not just on a whim but to be put into practice by his creation. Morality is, In a sense, A utility. Something to be used to form the bedrock of a civilization.

He also argues that morality dies when a civilization dies or an individual dies. Except it doesn't. The same patterns continuously appear throughout history regardless of any civilizations contact with another. Ideas don't die. Sometimes they go dormant, But that doesn't mean they don't exist. This is especially true for systems of morality which, Due to the existence of a reference point, Can be conceived by any civilization. Now, No religious person will argue that just because objective morality exists that therefore all civilizations will follow or even discover it. Because human nature is in itself immoral. Every religion from Christianity to Islam to Buddhism agree that humans have to struggle not to be bad. This principle of Total Depravity that John Calvin highlighted is actually mostly universal.

I actually already addressed his altruism point earlier. The Utilitarianism part of my argument works here.

Again, Waters nature is determined by a set of natural laws. No known natural law determines the nature of DNA. DNA's nature just exists on its own In a highly improbable fashion that suggests, As Fred Hoyle observed, "a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, As well as with chemistry and biology. " This is because no natural law dictates the way that biology works at its base level, In DNA or RNA.

I would like to thank my opponent for this cordial discussion and look forward to reading his closing arguments.


Eh, You're going to be disappointed, I've tried to read through this all a few times to put together a concise summery, But can't seem to do it, Ah well. Could address some of the points you gave in round 5, But nah, 'real base summery time.

Basically though, Pros argument depends on too many highly contended assumptions (Both by me and the rest of society) While I do not think I made a case on why a deity would not exist, I 'do think I made a convincing case on why many of Pros reasons given in this debate for believing in the existence were not adequate or proven true to me. And if reasons given for a deities existence were thought incorrect or opposite, Couldn't they be logic against a deity?

Eh, Not sure I had fun, Though it was interesting. I haven't actually tried debating with people other than myself on the existence of God yet. Mostly because I find it uncomfortable, And don't feel a need to question that belief negatively in other people. But, I did want to know my own reasons for not believing in such, Helped a bit.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Just a note, There are plenty of atheists who became born again Christians I am sure. If religion and God make you happy, Don't give up on the positive knowledge that leads you to him. Bible has plenty in it that can be used for good or common sense. Even if I were right, There are still knowledge's and paths that can lead to God, Religion and still be correct without being intellectually dishonest about it.

Some people just focus on the negatives too much perhaps. Why else would there be people in life with anxiety? They themselves empower it I imagine, Through their thoughts and behavior.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Yeah, I like that book. Reading your argument and typing my own now. I have an argument against that, That suits me. Though I don't know how well it stands up to reason.
Posted by Patmos 3 years ago
I like that you're reading the Sea Wolf. You're like the Wolf Larsen to my Humphrey Van Weyden. Objective morality vs. No objective morality and all that. But then Even Larsen refuted his own point when he said that the only evil that can exist is doing anything that shortens your own life. Because he conceded that objective morality does exist. Philosophy. Fun.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
Metaphysical claims are beyond rational investigation. Belief is the only prerequisite required for gods as gods are by default invisible, Inaudible, Intangible entities that exits on belief alone. And belief is not a choice. And faith is not a way of knowing.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
Since science is not itself a metaphysical enterprise, The arguer cannot apply science to a metaphysical argument.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
A definition of god is needed. . .
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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