The Instigator
ChristianApologia925
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
backwardseden
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Are there good reasons to believe God exists?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2020 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 242 times Debate No: 124097
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

ChristianApologia925

Pro

I am going to be arguing for a general theistic or deistic worldview.

Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

Premise 1: Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, Either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external explanation [a version of PSR].

P1: PSR, Everything must have a reason or cause (from plato. Stanford. Edu). It would be nonsensical for us to postulate that things can pop into existence without any reason or explanation of how they arrived. We accept there is sufficient reason for the logical conclusions we form. It would seem ad hoc to deny the PSR to attack the PSR. The conclusion we come to are backed by reason. If we deny that everything that exists has an explanation then it would undermine the notion of science. This premise shouldn"t be very controversial.

". . . Once we admit that some contingent state of affairs have no explanations, A completely new skeptical scenario become possible: there is no demon deceiving you, But your perceptual states are occurring for no reason at all. Thus we cannot even say that violations of the PSR are improbable if the PSR is false. " - (from Blackwell"s Companion to Natural Theology, Page 28), Professor of Philosophy, Mathematician, Dr. Alexander Pruss.

Premise 2: The universe has an explanation for its existence, And that explanation is grounded in a necessary being.

P2: For the universe to be necessary it must be: eternal (lasting forever, Cannot fail to exist) and changeless (be as it is in all possible worlds). The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle could see that different measurements on particles could have been performed by an observer resulting in different outcomes. This has been confirmed by experiments in 2011 by Anton Zeilinger, Quantum physicist (won the Wolf Prize in Physics in 2010 & Inaugural Isaac Newton Medal of the Institute of Physics in 2008). He and his team used the Kochen-Specker Theorem, Which shows the outcome obtained depends upon the context at that time and cannot be predicted prior; Quantum theory demands that, In contrast to classical physics, Not all properties can be simultaneously well defined. They provided the first experimental evidence that demonstrated that a single three-state system, A qutrit, No such classical model can exist that correctly describes the results of a simple set of compatible measurements.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a manifestation of this fact. The burden is on the skeptic to show that specific measurements performed by observers were preordained.

Alexander Friedmann, Russian cosmologist/mathematician/physicist and Georges Lemaitre, Astronomer/professor of physics (won the Eddington Medal in 1953) both predicted that the universe is expanding by using Einstein"s Theory of General Relativity. Which was later verified by Edwin Hubble, An American astronomer (won the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society Award in 1940 & the Bruce Medal in 1938) in 1929. This led to the conclusion that an expanding universe must have sprang into existence in the past.

In 1965 two astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson (won the Nobel Peace Prize in Physics in 1978) discovered cosmic microwave background radiation from the initial explosion of the big bang. This evidence confirmed the existence that the universe is finite.

In 2003, The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem was presented and proved that any expanding universe cannot be past eternal. Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin said, "With the proof now in place, Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, They have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. "

If the universe was contracting it could have not have re-expanded. Alexander Vilenkin addressed this issue, "But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities, So it would never make it to the expanding phase"" It violates science.
What about the universe existing necessarily? There are two possibilities; either the universe is grounded in a necessary being (that"s uncaused) or a necessary substance (that"s uncaused). Both avoid the illogical position of an infinite regress. A necessary being is defined as a non-physical necessary mind that comes with intelligence and creative ability to create the universe. A necessary substance is defined as an existing material, So for it to create the universe it has to be able to do something by itself. So the necessary substance would have to be conscious (a non-conscious substance cannot cause itself to create something contingent). It would also have to be non-physical (independent of space-time) since we know that is also finite. Also has to have intelligence to understand how to produce a variety of contingent things and the power to do it. Those are attributes of a necessary being anyways. It should be obvious. How can a substance ACT to create a universe without being these things? That is why we theists say that the explanation is grounded in a necessary being we call God. A non-physical, Conscious substance that is wise, Powerful, And necessary.

Premise 3: The universe exists.
Premise 4: Therefore, The universe has an explanation of its existence.
Premise 5: Therefore, The explanation of the existence of the universe is grounded in a necessary being.

Anything necessary would have to be able to be a first cause in order to cause something else to exist. The best and most logical explanation is that a necessary being exists.

Teleological Argument

To say that a scientist can disprove the existence of God is like saying a mechanic can disprove the existence of Henry Ford. There would be no mechanic unless there was Henry Ford to create the vehicle. No matter how much you learn about the laws of internal combustion, You will not conclude there was no designing engineer. It doesn't follow. You shouldn't expect to see Henry Ford physically in his engine, Likewise you shouldn't expect to see God physically in space. You can expect to find something about Henry Ford by studying his engine and something about God by studying His creation.

Anthropic Constant 1 (Oxygen Level);
Earth comprises of 21% of oxygen in our atmosphere. If it was increased fires would erupt simultaneously. If it was reduced humans would suffocate. If the CO2 was altered we wouldn"t be here.

Anthropic Constant 2 (Atmospheric Transparency);
If there were less atmospheric transparency there wouldn"t be enough solar radiation to reach the Earth"s surface. If there were too much we would be overwhelmed with solar radiation. Consists of precise levels of nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon dioxide, And ozone.

Anthropic Constant 3 (Moon-Earth Gravitational Interaction);
If the interaction were greater than it currently is then tidal effects on the oceans, Atmosphere, And rotational period would be too severe. If it were less than orbital changes would cause climate instability. Life on Earth would be impossible!

Anthropic Constant 4 (Carbon Dioxide Level);
If the CO2 level were higher than it is, A runaway greenhouse effect would occur (we"d all burn up). If it were lower than it is, Then plants would not be able to maintain photosynthesis (we"d all suffocate).

Anthropic Constant 5 (Gravity);
The force of gravity is determined by its gravitational constant.
If this constant varied by 1 in 10 to the 60th parts none of us would exist.

Anthropic Constant 6 (Expansion Rate);
A change in 1 in 10 to the 120th parts would cause the universe to expand too rapidly or too slowly. We wouldn't exist.

Anthropic Constant 7 (Mass and Energy);
If it was altered by 1 in 10 to the 123rd the universe would be hostile to life of ANY kind.

Three possible explanations of the "finely tuned" universe we have:
(1) Physical necessity - The constants and quantities are not determined by the laws of nature. There's no reason or evidence that the fine tuning is necessary. Therefore physical necessity is not plausible. (2) Chance - chance is not a cause, It's a term we use to describe mathematical possibilities. The probability for chance is so far unlikely that it requires more faith to believe. The odds of this fine tuning coming into existence by chance are far, Far beyond that, Actually 1 in 10 to the 50th power. If the rate of the Universe Expansion had been smaller than one part in a hundred thousand million million, The universe would collapse on itself - Stephen Hawking. Physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for star formation (without which plants could NOT exist) followed by 1 followed by at least a thousand billion, Billion zeros. Also found that a change in the strength of the gravity or the weak force by 1 part in 10 raised to the 100th power would have prevented the possibility of life. (3) Designed - A design needs a designer. A designer is a cause. This seems to be the most reasonable explanation of the fine tuning of the universe. Someone must have designed it. Therefore, God designed the universe.

Based on the data from cosmology and physics that suggest our universe is finite and contingent and that space-time had a beginning as well as the finely tuned physical constants that permit life on earth, I can make a reasonable inference from the data to come to the most logical conclusion. Thus, Making it reasonable to believe in a general theistic or deistic worldview.
backwardseden

Con

"I am going to be arguing for a general theistic or deistic worldview. "
Well, Um duh. Why? None of the arguments you presented, At all in any possible way even conquer the notion as to the why a "god", Much less a theistic or deistic would be, Could be and or are necessary to create anything.
You also really need to make up your mind on which you believe in because there's a very very very big curve between something from what is theistic and deistic.

"Assume that we have no answer. Then the answer is "I don"t know". The answer isn"t "I can"t think of anything better, Therefore a god did it. ""Matt Dillahunty. He's right. But to you who is so convoluted in believing that there is no other way, You cannot say "I don't know" for something that you don't know because dare your unproven storybook character god of print only be imperfect? Of course not.

And then why only one god? Why not thousands, Millions, Billions, Quadrillions of gods? Or the very best bet is why not no god(s)? After all no god is and or was needed and or was required to have created the known universe and or life in which nobody can prove even exists from any religion. And then naturally since nobody has ever proven any god from any religion in the entire existence of the human race, Naturally the B. O. P. Would be for you to prove that any god exists. AND since this is true, Since you are making the claim, You would be required to test, Demonstrate that your god(s) exists, And then assert that your god exists and then declare that your god exists in which case YOU cannot do. Then once that's done you would be required to submit your findings to just one scientific community from around the world of merit that would have nothing to do with theism (after all cannot be biased in any possible way) so that they will not laugh you right out of their buildings and of course give you a passing grade. Then if all of those steps have been exercised and conveyed, Then its possible through argumentative and rather a stale review that a god "might" possibly exist. Um nope. Why? Because no god has properly been defined. How can a god properly be defined if there is no evidence for any god? Especially under any rulership? Of course, That would only possibly be true if any god from any religion would demonstrate its existence and stop playing an idiotic game of hide-n-go-seek and thus turn believability into reality while still answering the question "why believe? " But of course, YOU'D have to follow the rules as set before you by the long since dead rulebooks, In which in no possible way can you that were written by idiots who sane people no longer pay little if any attention to and have moved on with their proper lives because no true god would ever be stupid enough, Not ever, Not for any reason to use text, Namely your bible/ quran/ book of mormon/ Maya codexes or whatever, As a form of communication, The absolute worst form of communication TO A GOD(s) for any religion when this god, If true, Can simply talk to all of man and let him know what is expected of it because a BOOK is NOT evidence, Nor is FAITH evidence. A true god would ultimately know this. This god if a true god would show up in person. Harmonious, Beautiful, Peaceful. No hate. No evil in which it ultimately shows especially through the christian bible/ torah and the quran. This supposed god if true would also eliminate all suffering from everyone and everything, Especially among children, So that there would be no horrific intense pain. Certainly not what the s--t bible or what the quran represents. You might want to read it sometime. Nah.
Debate Round No. 1
ChristianApologia925

Pro

"Well, Um duh. Why? None of the arguments you presented, At all in any possible way even conquer the notion as to the why a "god", Much less a theistic or deistic would be, Could be and or are necessary to create anything. "

I'm not sure how this really refutes anything I presented but okay. . .

"You also really need to make up your mind on which you believe in because there's a very very very big curve between something from what is theistic and deistic. "

I'm simply arguing for a general theistic or deistic worldview. The topic is "Are there good reasons to believe God exists? " Not which "god" are you specifying. I already specified what worldview I am arguing for. If you do not like the format of the debate or my position, Then why did you accept the challenge?

"And then why only one god? Why not thousands, Millions, Billions, Quadrillions of gods? Or the very best bet is why not no god(s)? After all no god is and or was needed and or was required to have created the known universe and or life in which nobody can prove even exists from any religion. And then naturally since nobody has ever proven any god from any religion in the entire existence of the human race. . . "

I'll respond to this first objection because the other statements made after that are just random silly complaints without any philosophical justification. The reason why I reject the concept of multiple gods (polytheism) is because in order for there to be multiple gods they would have to differ from one another. In order for one of them to lack an ability of another means they were not god in the first place. It makes no sense to even posit a probability of multiple "clone" or gods that have the identical nature and abilities (because that would be assuming that we live in a multiple words universe or something to that nature which is highly improbable and unlikely because of the lack of data to support it).

I also have a valid reason to reject all of the other concepts of gods that are believed to be one with the universe or part of the universe (pantheism) because evidence from cosmology and physics strongly refute the possibility of an eternal universe and suggest that the universe is finite and contingent and space-time had a beginning.

I don't see how your comments and random unsupported statements challenge either argument I presented. Based on the evidence from cosmology and physics that show our universe is finite and contingent and space-time had a beginning, As well as the finely tuned physical constants that permit life on earth warrants the rationale for belief in a theistic or deistic God.
backwardseden

Con

OK nevermind. I gave you one hell-of-a-lot of reasons why your unproven storybook character god of print only does not exist until you prove that it does as there is nothing tangible nor is there any evidence to thus prove its existence and that proof is required for you to prove it's existence in which case in no possible way, It's not even a close call, Have you demonstrated, Tested, Presented any scientific evidence to any scientific community. . . Tossed out faith, Tossed out the bible and thus present any valid authenticity. So why believe without evidence in comparison to believing with evidence?
Debate Round No. 2
ChristianApologia925

Pro

Arguments for God's existence utilize a cumulative case of circumstantial evidence leading to the same logical conclusion. Each evidential aspect corroborates with one another, Increases the probability, Thus making it most likely. In this debate, I utilized two circumstantial evidences (observable data inferring the beginning of space-time, Universe is contingent and finite & finely tuned constants), Based on this data, I made a reasonable inference coming to the most logical and reasonable conclusion.

Scientific method is limited. It is designed to investigate cause and effect natural phenomena in the observable or physical universe. The scientific method is a very effective way for discovering facts about various things. However, The scientific method is limited in its scope. Science doesn"t say anything, Scientists make an interpretation of the data. Which is dependent on the perspective of the scientist interpreting the data. It seems like most scientists, Philosophically, Already rule out intelligence in advance when interpreting the data. That"s not science, Instead that is philosophical bias. When they actually should be open to both natural or intelligent cause. Make rational inferences from the data to establish true premises and draw valid conclusions (which is what I did here).

You are misunderstanding the difference and value of both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. We cannot make direct evidence confirming God's existence. But, We can use circumstantial evidence to come to the most logical conclusion that God most likely does exist (thus it is reasonable to warrant that belief). Circumstantial evidence is just as valid as direct evidence. In fact, Detectives rely heavily on circumstantial evidence to identify and capture criminals that committed a horrible crime in the past.

Narrowing the burden of proof to "submit your findings in the scientific community and see their take on it" does not help your case as I explained above how arguments for God's existence work.

Finally, Your reasons have not demonstrated that my arguments were flawed or the data I presented were incorrect. Thus, I still argue that it is reasonable to believe in a theistic or deistic worldview.
backwardseden

Con

Everything you"ve stated is null and void. Why? Because it"s not been tested, Demonstrated and then asserted and then declared by anyone of merit. Btw, Which god? There"s more than one god mentioned in the bible you know.
"Arguments for God's existence utilize a cumulative case of circumstantial evidence leading to the same logical conclusion. " By who? By what? Um no here"s you""I don"t have an answer so I"m going to say POOF a god did it. But I don"t have any idea which god is at hand so I"ll just say POOF let"s pick the god of the bible. "
So once again. . .
"Assume that we have no answer. Then the answer is "I don"t know". The answer isn"t "I can"t think of anything better, Therefore a god did it. ""Matt Dillahunty
The thing is, Atheists get to say "I don't know" every single second of every single day. Theists, And deists, Can't. Not ever. Why because then this would mean that your unproven character storybook god of print only would be imperfect. Dare that happen? Of course not.

Do you 100% realize that no god, Not one, Form ---any--- religion in the entire existence of the human race has ever been proven?
"I utilized two circumstantial evidences (observable data inferring the beginning of space-time, Universe is contingent and finite & finely tuned constants), Based on this data, I made a reasonable inference coming to the most logical and reasonable conclusion. "
This does not prove a god.

"Scientific method is limited. "
No, It doesn"t exist. There"s no scientific testimony in your bible AT ALL to prove that your god exists, Much less even your unproven storybook character god of print only did not even define what it was, So how can anybody else define what it is?
No offense but your debate is so riddled with holes that you are your own worst enemy and so is your bible that in no possible way would any idiot god from any religion even dream of using text, Namely your bible as a form of communication, Advertisement, Correspondence, The absolute worst form communication, Advertisement, Correspondence to a god possible.

"Science doesn"t say anything, "
Actually science says quite a lot. It is the theists and deists that say nothing. After all, How can they from nothing, That would be namely a god, In which they"ve never proven as being in existence?
Not only that but theists and deists don't tend to come up with too many papers anymore to send on into scientific communities. Why? It's because they already know that they will be batted down before they are even read. In other words, Scientific communities have seen them before, And they"ve seen them again.

"You are misunderstanding the difference and value of both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. " Ab-so-lu-te-ly 100% not. I"ve been doing this for double the number of years +3 you"ve been breathing son and asking the same questions that others have thought of that I have long since passed onto you that you simply cannot answer with any kind of legitimacy.
"We"" Whoa. Stop right there. Who is this "we"? Um no. It's you, Just you.
"cannot make direct evidence confirming God's existence. "
There is no evidence.
OK look. It"s really bad for you. It"s not only into the "denial" state of affairs, It's into the "brainwashing" state of affairs for you. If someone were to agree with exactly what you were to say, Think, Dream, Feel, You would still manage to find fault with that person. This is dangerous. So I jumped to something that I really hate about people. . .

"Finally, Your reasons have not demonstrated that my arguments were flawed or the data I presented were incorrect. " I really hate supermassive contradictory hypocrites.
Btw, Everything stated, Was already pretty much stated previously in RD1. But you decided to scoff it off as "because the other statements made after that are just random silly complaints without any philosophical justification. "

Hmmm
"The reason why I reject the concept of multiple gods (polytheism) is because in order for there to be multiple gods they would have to differ from one another. "
Do yah REALLY think that doesn"t take place among other religions? Are you THAT ignorant or it pretends time at Sesame Street?
Now answer the question"
Why are there not thousands, Millions, Billions, Quadrillions of god, OR the best bet is why not no god?
Debate Round No. 3
ChristianApologia925

Pro

I never said I was going to argue for the Christian God. That's a separate debate. Round 1 and the debate topic clearly states what I'm arguing for. Thus, Your objection against the God of the Bible is nothing but a straw man argument, Because I'm not arguing for Christianity in this debate. Again, The debate is, "are there good reasons God exists? "

It seems like your alluding to the god of the gaps fallacy argument which fails. Inserting God into a natural process is not how most arguments for the existence of God function. Arguments for God"s existence are philosophical in nature. We theists take scientific data and infer a philosophical or metaphysical theory that we believe best fits with the data. For example, Materialism, The idea all that exists is matter and the complex arrangements of matter. This cannot be proven by science, Only inferred philosophically. If a materialist argued that the law of conservation of matter shows materialism must be true. It would be absurd for me to say that this is a, "materialism of the gaps fallacy. "

When theists or deists argue for the existence of God, We are not arguing from gaps in our knowledge with regards to how natural processes work but arguing a whole scientific process or data infers a theistic or deistic worldview. So that is, By definition, Not arguing from a gap, But arguing our full understanding of science infers a theistic or deistic worldview.

Interestingly enough, When you make a God of the gaps claim, You assume your worldview, And admit there are gaps in your philosophical view of reality that your non-theistic or non-deistic theory of reality cannot account for. Here"s what I mean: non-theism or non=deism does not know why space-time has a beginning (gap), Why there is fine tuning (gap), Why space-time is emergent (gap), Why there is consciousness (gap, And why there are moral duties or values (gap). Which theism and deism can explain all of these with a better and more plausible explanation.

A lot of what you said is just you ranting off. I'm not interested in your character attacks or unwarranted random statements.

How am I a "supermassive contradictory hypocrite" what is your justification for stating this? I'd love to see your explanation justified.

"Why are there not thousands, Millions, Billions, Quadrillions of god, OR the best bet is why not no god? "
I have already given valid reasons for rejecting pantheism and polytheism. I'm not repeating myself. Scroll up. . .
backwardseden

Con

I don"t know why I"m wasting my time with this because you have proven yourself to be a complete waste of time and a complete contradictory hypocrite as you only listen to you, WOOF yourself onto center stage, Expect to be heard, Listened to, But whenever anybody speaks to you ITS SILENCE with a sledgehammer approach. Seriously. Do you have any genuine friends and loved ones?
Only here, I"m right by 100% and you are wrong by 100% as no god has ever been proven. You do what you want, How you want, For whatever you want with cross-strings in so many mazes that just doesn"t wash that if you think you are so smart, Present it to one, Just one scientific community of merit from around the world so they will, And they will, Laugh it out of their building(s). I"ve been doing this 2x the time before you were born. And you"ve proven no god. Ready to be proven wrong again?

It doesn"t matter which god you are arguing. There"s still no proof for any god having ever existed, Not ever, Not in the entire existence of the human race, Not from any religion.
Today"s Atheist Experience really got into the heart of things for one call. Don"t worry, It happens all the time.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=e2_Q1uxASeU
01:12:03 Tom - (CA): Can you explain Our Lady of Guadalupe? (Real Miracles! . . . Not)
Now pay attention to what is said. No difference. None.

Here"s a few pointers"
If every scientist cannot prove something it doesn"t prove something is supernatural. And nothing, Just like a god, The supernatural has ever been proved in the entire existence of the human race as being authentic and true.

Would you accept the same level of evidence if it came from Hinduism or the Maya to prove a god and or a miracle?

It"s just like when there was no explanation for lighting as it was listed as Zeus as being a god.

Would you accept this kind of evidence at a murder trial? That answer is an obvious "no" and yet you are doing it right now for a god.

"Thus, Your objection against the God of the Bible is nothing but a straw man argument, " Oh please. Try harder. Supposed christianity, In which case there is no such thing is the most violent hateful, Evil religion ever invented if you REALLY want to get into it. Leaving it at that"

"are there good reasons God exists? "
Nope.
Where do you get your ideas for a god from?
Did you make them up on your own?
Textbooks? How far back in history do you go?
The web?
Mmmm K you call yourself a theist or a deist? This would rule out Maya, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu, Etc etc etc gods so your argument holds no merit or value even though you STILL cannot prove a god exists!
And then "why believe? " What are the rules that the entire planet should follow if suddenly POOF within the next quadrillionth of a second YOUR god is proved because it is NOT everybody"s god from what they can and should believe? That"s every single rule, Law and regulation to follow btw. So mention them. Otherwise your argument is null and void. Yep, According to you, YOU WILL EXCLUDE CHRISTIANITY since you are not arguing for it. This must be taken into accountability if there "are there good reasons God exists? " In other words, You must have thought about this and you cannot make things up as you go. Or are you doing this right now?

"It seems like your alluding to the god of the gaps fallacy argument which fails. " tsk tsk tsk. Oh no no no. Not at all. You are so brainwashed and go into denial at every single whim, That for you a supposed god is an addiction. It"s like heroin and meth. You cannot do without it. The thing is as far as a god is concerned for you is all you have is an assumption with absolutely no sound proof.

Here"s more sound proof. Creationists. They will ---never--- put their god on trial again. Why? Because they 100% know that they will lose. Why? They are not stupid. Because all they have to go on is faith based oriented. And faith cannot be proved. Since they will not put their product, Namely their god, On trial again, Everything that they believe in and take to respond in regards to creationism cannot be accepted as truth. If they cannot prove their god. You cannot prove any god from any religion.

"We theists take scientific data and infer a philosophical or metaphysical theory that we believe best fits with the data. "
Woah. There"s that "we" again. And I"m glad you left off the deists. Good choice. Shows intelligence. So now you are a theist only. Scratch the deist completely. It doesn"t and cannot fit with you.
Btw, It"s an EXTREMELY bad idea to polarize group 10, Um nope not even close call and "infer a philosophical or metaphysical theory that we believe best fits with the data. "
That"s a nice invented excuse and a bold faced lie from something in which you clearly know point blank nothing about. AND you shouldn"t speak for others who in no possible way even come close to opening page one of ---any--- textbook to learn about ---any--- god. All they say is they believe. Well golly POOF, A new religion is born.

Forget it in even trying to make any explanations. You failed completely.

Here"s what theists do as far as christianity is concerned and why it"s a completely failed prospect and a couple of the reasons why no idiot moron god if true would never use text (which is why your other debate fails completely also), The worst form of communication, Advertisement, Correspondence possible to a god. It"s because you MUST separate the good from the bad, Do what you want with it, How you want, To what suits your wants, Needs, And desires, To what suits you best AND chuck the rest because the bible is truly impossible to follow in which case NOBODY does. The bible is supposed to be "the word of god". Yet there are conflicting reports of this where many state that "the bible was written by humans". It"s one or the other. Not both. Regardless, Nobody knows who wrote the NT. So how in ---any--- conceivable way can it possibly be considered as "redeeming" or "accurate"? And to come from a "god"? A "god" is going to lower itself to actually use a BOOK. Really? A BOOK. With all of it"s fallacies such as translation errors, Update errors, Etc etc etc and simply not just talk to people? REALLY? Um nope the christian god does not exist. Not for being this stupid.

"A lot of what you said is just you ranting off. I'm not interested in your character attacks or unwarranted random statements. "
That"s how you are a supermassive contradictory hypocrite. You only listen to you and you expect the entire universe to only listen to you and respect everything that sits beneath your shiny red thrown no matter how much B. S. It entirely is WITHOUT PROOF of any kind. AND you will not listen to what others have to say at all, Not ever, Not for any reason.
So this debate was a true waste of my time and so are you. You STILL cannot demonstrate, Test, Assert, And declare a god. Nobody has ever been able to SCIENTIFICALLY been able to. That"s the problem in labs. Since you think you are so smart, How would you test and demonstrate a god since you nor anyone has ever defined a god?
Have a nice day idiot.
Debate Round No. 4
ChristianApologia925

Pro

"I don"t know why I"m wasting my time with this because you have proven yourself to be a complete waste of time and a complete contradictory hypocrite as you only listen to you, WOOF yourself onto center stage, Expect to be heard, Listened to, But whenever anybody speaks to you ITS SILENCE with a sledgehammer approach. Seriously. Do you have any genuine friends and loved ones? "

Obviously you thought it was worth your time if you accepted the debate challenge and engaged in a discussion. . . . Your character attacks reveal your immaturity.

"Only here, I"m right by 100% and you are wrong by 100% as no god has ever been proven. You do what you want, How you want, For whatever you want with cross-strings in so many mazes that just doesn"t wash that if you think you are so smart, Present it to one, Just one scientific community of merit from around the world so they will, And they will, Laugh it out of their building(s). I"ve been doing this 2x the time before you were born. And you"ve proven no god. Ready to be proven wrong again? "

So you're right, And nobody else is? Yeah, Okay. . .

"Would you accept the same level of evidence if it came from Hinduism or the Maya to prove a god and or a miracle? "

If those worldview provided a cumulative case utilizing circumstantial evidence increase the probability of their worldview? I would considerate it. It depends on the topic and evidence they would present.

"Would you accept this kind of evidence at a murder trial? That answer is an obvious "no" and yet you are doing it right now for a god. "

Ummm. . . Circumstantial evidence is utilized in court case proceedings (Section 224, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006). Soo. . . . Yeah.

"That"s how you are a supermassive contradictory hypocrite. You only listen to you and you expect the entire universe to only listen to you and respect everything that sits beneath your shiny red thrown no matter how much B. S. It entirely is WITHOUT PROOF of any kind. AND you will not listen to what others have to say at all, Not ever, Not for any reason.
So this debate was a true waste of my time and so are you. You STILL cannot demonstrate, Test, Assert, And declare a god. Nobody has ever been able to SCIENTIFICALLY been able to. That"s the problem in labs. Since you think you are so smart, How would you test and demonstrate a god since you nor anyone has ever defined a god?
Have a nice day idiot. "

That's it? So, Since you cannot point out any flaws in my arguments or premises, You allude to character attacks? You haven't challenged my position at all. You alluded to straw man arguments and character attacks. I am genuinely surprised by the level of immaturity, Ignorance, And illogical argumentation you have presented here.

Sources:

"The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory"

http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=6xKUas. . .

"Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system"

http://www. Newscientist. Com/article/d. . .
"Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution"

"Modern Physics and Ancient Faith"

"Many Worlds in One"

http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=baZUCc. . .

http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=-BTT62. . .

Leibniz's "Monadology"

http://www. Reasonablefaith. Org/leibni. . .
backwardseden

Con

That's it? So, Since you cannot point out any flaws in my arguments or premises,
Wow. And yet you've done absolutely nothing in the reverse. Only here I'm going to do exactly that because you still have NOT proved a god. Even with your youtube links. They DO NOT prove a god. This time I'm gonna have fun.

But let's start with
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=wLfSa0w1vV8 - No Evidence for god?
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=2IlGfIGwAUc - First Believe
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=9RApmJJO_RQ - What Does Atheism offer

This is why there's strangulation on your entire argument. Did you watch the video from the previous debate? Why no you didn't. All of the questions were taken from the video. But nah even a simpleton like you, Had you figured that one out couldn't have figured that one out on his own. Guess what? All I did was word them differently.
* If every scientist cannot prove something it doesn"t prove something is supernatural. And nothing, Just like a god, The supernatural has ever been proved in the entire existence of the human race as being authentic and true.
* Would you accept the same level of evidence if it came from Hinduism or the Maya to prove a god and or a miracle?
* It"s just like when there was no explanation for lighting as it was listed as Zeus as being a god.
* Would you accept this kind of evidence at a murder trial? That answer is an obvious "no" and yet you are doing it right now for a god.
Let's move on shall we?

Puzzling in my than ran through my tinker toy tape parade mind when you mentioned something befuddling that you didn't mention the christian god. It does matter as far as the one you believe in which is the christian god, Which is quite clear. But it doesn't matter as far as no god existing.

Let's have some fun with this since you think you are so smart, But you are really not and you got caught with your toothies pulled on both ends on your cavities in RD3. But my sharpened tongue brain was too fried behind my reareth endeth to have caught your granny farts. But we caught them now.
"Scientific method is limited. "
Nope. There's no scientific method. Because NOBODY can test, Demonstrate, Assert and declare a god. By gum. That's part of the video as well. How would you thus test, Demonstrate, Assert and declare YOUR god and THEN present it to ANY scientific community from around the world that IS NOT theistic (cannot be bias) so you will not be laughed out of their building(s)? Because after all it's never been done before? After all, NOBODY has ever met a god. Oh I get it, You have - right?
"Scientists make an interpretation of the data. "
There's no data. How can there be since NOBODY has met up with a god? Oh I get it, You have - right?
"Make rational inferences from the data to establish true premises and draw valid conclusions (which is what I did here). "
Soooo, I see. So then according to you, You have met up with a god from your "true premises" and "valid conclusions".
OK then here's a few questions for you. . .
* Why you and not some poor 4 year old girl who's parents bash her face in every single day and who's daddy rapes her and sticks his you know what inside of her daily in and out pumping and pumping so that SCREAMING in pain for 17 straight horrific years until she finally runs away from home is only the start of her horrors, So why you and not her?
* How did YOU manage to find out about this estranged god and NOBODY else did? Because after all, NOBODY else agrees with exactly what YOU agree with especially with what YOUR interpretations are. It's not even a close call.
* When/ or better yet POOF did you come up with this DING in your brain that "I'm interpreting correctly" and everybody else is wrong?
* "Are there good reasons to believe God exists? " If there are, Then this supposed god would want something in return. So what are all of it's laws, Rules and regulations to be thus followed and obeyed, In which case you thus ignored? How can anyone believe in it and or follow it if they do not know what they are?
*If it's a genuine god/ christ (who cares, Once again if you didn't mention the christian god, You didn't need to), And it wants to spread it's message as best possible, It would simply show up. It would talk---to---people. Every single man, Woman and child. It wouldn't talk to just a puny little neanderthal you. So once again, Why you? Are you a genuine prophet or something?

So no, There are no good reasons why YOUR god especially does not exist.
Let's continue
"You are misunderstanding the difference and value of both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. "
How's the best bet "no evidence".
"We cannot make direct evidence confirming God's existence. "
Well then that's drum roll please ddrrrrrffftttt "no evidence".
Here's the thing that you theists (supposed christians same thing) do is you believe with no evidence first rather than having evidence and then believing. Atheists simply believe there is no god. Atheism is nonbelief.
"We can use circumstantial evidence to come to the most logical conclusion that God most likely does exist. "
If ---anybody--- had even the slightest glimmer of the nth of a degree of an atom as compared to the big bang of proof for a god, For ---any--- god for ---any--- religion it would make instant worldwide recognition news all over the media, With all media splashes, TV, Newspapers, Internet, Whatever, And there would be no letup whatsoever, Not ever, Until it was 100% disproved or 100% proved. So how come this hasn't happened? It's because there is no evidence.
Once again, This would be a really bad murder trial. You would be a really bad lawyer.

There are no good reasons bo believe a god exists. We're done. Bye.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by fauxlaw 1 year ago
fauxlaw
In round 3, Backwardseden posed an interesting question whether there might be many gods [he posited millions to billions to trillions] - a curious question from a declared Atheist, But I'll pass on that argument. It iS a probing question. I concur with the posit of a 19th century religious leader, Lorenzo Snow, Who proposed that "As man is, God once was, And is God is, Man may become. " That posit makes as much sense to me, Now, As it did when I was a child considering my relationship with my father. I am now older than he was when I was that child. He, Too, Was once a small child. He grew, As I have. He died, As I will. However, I believe in life everlasting, And that I, As my father, And billions of others of us, Will continue living beyond death, Will grow and progress. . . To what? Why not to become a god? Who decides to limit the destiny of man? Men and women who progress by following the commandments of God, Which are merely good principles of continuous improvement to. . . Why not perfection, And godhood. Godesshood, Because woman, As well, Are glorious beings in transit from this life to the next. "God" is a title, Not a name. Just as I became a father [a title] even as my father was one, Why not consider that we have other titles in our future. I concur with backwardseden, Even though I suspect the question was offered in jest: there are many, Many gods out there, All gods of their kingdoms, And all, Fathers and sons, And mothers and daughters to each other; all in the expanding universe.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Gods exist on belief alone
does rational thinking require the adherence to beliefs at all?
one need not own beliefs of any kind to establish scientific facts, Observe and enjoy nature, Or live a productive, Moral, And useful life.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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