CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Devil's Advocate: Round 2
OK, so some of you may remember that a while back I made a debate where, for one debate, I would be a Christian apologetic, I think under the name "ChristSatan" or something. Recently, we've had an influx of new atheists and debates, so I thought I'd start another one up.
I am now going to defend Christianity. Give me your best arguments against it, and I'll see what I can do. I will also post my arguments for Christianity in the arguments page below, in a format that some of you may recognize.
This might be a chance for the newer guys to test their mettle, so it should be good.
1. The cosmological argument. Recent science has shown us that the universe is likely to have began to exist. All that begins to exist has a cause. So we can deduce that the universe likely had a cause. Seeing as the universe probably came from the Big Bang, which brought our space and time into existence, the cause would have to be immaterial and timeless. It would also have to be powerful. And personal, as it must be spaceless and timeless. The only cause we know of that could meet those criteria is God.
2. The teleological argument. The universe is fine tuned in such a way that if you were to change one number, life would be impossible. This either happened by physical necessity, chance, or design. Physical necessity doesn't works, as the various constants of the universe are independent of the laws of nature. The odds of it happening by chance are incomprehensibly long, and cannot be taken seriously. Leaving only design as an option.
3. Objective morality. There exists an objective morality . Evolution does not explain why we have moral values. The only explanation is that there exists a greater being that judges what is wrong and right. That very well could be God.
4. The resurrection of Jesus. Most historians now agree that there is evidence that the resurrection took place. This would mean we had a miracle. Jesus was a messiah claimant. The only explanation is that God raised Jesus from the dead.
5. Personal experience. Those which have experienced God have no need to justify his existence.
1. The cosmological argument. Recent science has shown us that the universe is likely to have began to exist. All that begins to exist has a cause. So we can deduce that the universe likely had a cause. Seeing as the universe probably came from the Big Bang, which brought our space and time into existence, the cause would have to be immaterial and timeless. It would also have to be powerful. And personal, as it must be spaceless and timeless. The only cause we know of that could meet those criteria is God.
This is only set as a theory, and hasn't been entirely accepted by the rest of the scientific community. Many quantum physicists have many, many different views on the subject, some believing that the universe is classified as a biological organism capable of reproduction. A more specific argument against the theory in question is that since we are part of a much larger system, we can't properly observe it as a whole, or even begin to understand it.
2. The teleological argument. The universe is fine tuned in such a way that if you were to change one number, life would be impossible. This either happened by physical necessity, chance, or design. Physical necessity doesn't work, as the various constants of the universe are independent of the laws of nature. The odds of it happening by chance are incomprehensibly long, and cannot be taken seriously. Leaving only design as an option.
Saying that it's improbable is something entirely different than confirming it as impossible. It still could have turned out that way to lead us here, and it's still possible that life could have taken another shape or form if the universe or laws of physics were changed.
3. Objective morality. There exists an objective morality . Evolution does not explain why we have moral values. The only explanation is that there exists a greater being that judges what is wrong and right. That very well could be God.
If you're using an element of human behaviour as an argument, the rest of it should be used as well. Morals can be drastically different in different societies, and have changed over time in equally drastic ways. This shows us that there really is no universal set of morals, especially in a practical sense. And, if God were able to determine something such as our morals, wouldn't he be making a lot of changes to optimize the model of the earth and get us to cooperate?
4. The resurrection of Jesus. Most historians now agree that there is evidence that the resurrection took place. This would mean we had a miracle. Jesus was a messiah claimant. The only explanation is that God raised Jesus from the dead.
It could be verified that certain people attended, and that some event did take place, sure, but is there a video recording that shows him ascending? What suggests that a miracle occurred at all, rather than one person imagining something and pulling everybody along with them? There is far too little information to verify all of these, and not much to exclude certain variables when all we have are ancient documents or letters. If human society crumbles, and some alien finds an ancient copy of the Twilight book series, I really hope he doesn't take it as evidence that we were a race of sparkly vampires.
5. Personal experience. Those which have experienced God have no need to justify his existence.
In terms of personal belief, this is acceptable. But if it's solid evidence to prove the existence of God that you're shooting for, this is a useless statement. You have to completely eliminate several strong variables to completely validate it. What suggests that a portion of these people aren't batshit crazy? I know someone who's schizophrenic father would go out into his yard, naked, and start masturbating to God. If even one person's mind can be warped like that, you need to verify that every single one of these witnesses is entirely sane, and 100% unimaginative.
Thanks for posting this, by the way. Quite an interesting argument, and it's nice to see someone who's focused on what the site should be about, rather than a lot of the squabbling going on. And quite a challenge, even. =P
This is only set as a theory, and hasn't been entirely accepted by the rest of the scientific community.
The vast, VAST majority of the scientific community accepts the Big Bang theory as true.
Many quantum physicists have many, many different views on the subject,
From my experience, most quantum physicists also accept the Big Bang theory, they propose a different start to it though.
some believing that the universe is classified as a biological organism capable of reproduction.
This is currently pseudo science, and is no more compelling than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
A more specific argument against the theory in question is that since we are part of a much larger system, we can't properly observe it as a whole, or even begin to understand it.
But we can apply the basic laws of logic to it. Via inductive reasoning, we can conclude that the universe required a cause.
Saying that it's improbable is something entirely different than confirming it as impossible. It still could have turned out that way to lead us here, and it's still possible that life could have taken another shape or form if the universe or laws of physics were changed.
But then that becomes wing and a prayer style thinking. If something is horribly improbable, it should not be considered the superior theory.
Morals can be drastically different in different societies, and have changed over time in equally drastic ways.
Yes, but this does not disprove objective morality.
This shows us that there really is no universal set of morals, especially in a practical sense.
No it doesn't. Actions have consequences, and thus judgments must be made. The consequence is objective, thus the action is objective. For example, the consequence of pregnancy is objective, thus the action of intercourse is objective. The same applies to morality. If the consequence of negative well being is objective, then the action of immorality must be objective.
The vast, VAST majority of the scientific community accepts the Big Bang theory as true.
From my experience, most quantum physicists also accept the Big Bang theory, they propose a different start to it though.
This is currently pseudo science, and is no more compelling than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I wasn't supporting the theory. In fact, I completely disagree with it. I was simply using it as an example to show the extreme degree of variety among scientists, and how the simplest of paradigm shifts can lead to drastically different theories. Somebody just took causality and pretended it was a biological organism; the logic could yet be considered valid, though, which is also why all yet-to-be-proven theories even as popular as the Big Bang should be taken with a grain of salt.
But we can apply the basic laws of logic to it. Via inductive reasoning, we can conclude that the universe required a cause.
I doubt that the answers to the mystery of the universe and it's creation can be deduced just from the logic process of humans. Quite simply, I think we need something much, much more concrete before accepting something as entirely true. This is not to detract from the value of theories like the Big Bang, but rather used with caution, and the fact that it is a theory should be kept in mind before declaring that we know how it all started.
But then that becomes wing and a prayer style thinking. If something is horribly improbable, it should not be considered the superior theory.
Allow me to clarify my statement a little with an example. Say our current universe is one of many, many different outcomes resulting from a sort of creation event. The laws of physics were determined at that point in several other possible outcomes, each of which produced a form of life with entirely different constructs, each individually with an absurdly low statistical likeliness such as ours. If the lifeforms in each outcome were capable of thought and logic the way we understand it, would they think the same way if they were the result? How can we determine the probability of life in a more general sense, or with different mechanics? We understand our universes laws of physics. If those are altered, what basis do we have to say life couldn't form even more easily, but in a different way? And how many different outcomes are there to examine? Are there an infinite number of outcomes, or just a few thousand? What percentage of these contain life at all? If it's something like 40%, for example, then it's entirely plausible for life to pop up, and why couldn't it have been ours? If I'm understanding the concept properly, then our existence can't marked with a percentile.
Yes, but this does not disprove objective morality.
No it doesn't. Actions have consequences, and thus judgments must be made. The consequence is objective, thus the action is objective. For example, the consequence of pregnancy is objective, thus the action of intercourse is objective. The same applies to morality. If the consequence of negative well being is objective, then the action of immorality must be objective.
How doesn't it disprove objective morality? The concept is that there are certain and specific right or wrong actions, correct? But like I said, these vary between cultures. In history, there have been sacrifices which were considered completely appropriate, for example. In the modern world, however, our morals are completely different regarding the subject, and mostly unified due to media and the like. Negativity and positivity are also human psychological constructs; Food good, no food bad. If someone gets screwed, they'll be angry about it and give the responsible party a hell of a time. But if said party gets away with it, they have a positive experience. Simply labelling everything as objective in no way suggests that there is a God, and Karma hasn't been verified as a law of nature.
I doubt that the answers to the mystery of the universe and it's creation can be deduced just from the logic process of humans. Quite simply, I think we need something much, much more concrete before accepting something as entirely true. This is not to detract from the value of theories like the Big Bang, but rather used with caution, and the fact that it is a theory should be kept in mind before declaring that we know how it all started.
Then why bother debating? Why bother with science? Everything we claim to know is based on our logic, without it we can't even attempt to know something.
For the sake of debate, I think it is a plausible presupposition that the universe required a cause. Unless you have an alternative supported by evidence, you have to find a cause.
If I'm understanding the concept properly, then our existence can't marked with a percentile.
That is a fair rebuttal. The only thing I can say is that all we know is that the chances of life exactly like ours is hopelessly slim. Your comment is sound, but based on something we don't know.
How doesn't it disprove objective morality? The concept is that there are certain and specific right or wrong actions, correct?
Essentially, yes.
But like I said, these vary between cultures. In history, there have been sacrifices which were considered completely appropriate, for example. In the modern world, however, our morals are completely different regarding the subject, and mostly unified due to media and the like
Because things change though, does not make them subjective. Here's an example.
Let's say that 50 years ago, we believed that 2+2=5. We taught it as truth to our children, and no-one questioned it. Then, 50 years later, in a brave new world, it was discovered that 2+2=4. Now, this does not mean that the answer to 2+2 is subjective. It meant that one culture was right, and the other was wrong.
The same with sacrifice. Those cultures got the moral answers wrong, whereas we got it right.
Negativity and positivity are also human psychological constructs; Food good, no food bad. If someone gets screwed, they'll be angry about it and give the responsible party a hell of a time. But if said party gets away with it, they have a positive experience. Simply labelling everything as objective in no way suggests that there is a God, and Karma hasn't been verified as a law of nature.
What else could be the foundation of objective morality other than God?
Ah, Chuck... This devil's advocate thing is slowly burgeoning in CD! I don't have too much time here, so I'll just do a brief run down of why I disagree with each of these arguments.
The cosmological argument
Seeing as the universe probably came from the Big Bang, which brought our space and time into existence, the cause would have to be immaterial and timeless.
I'm no scientist, so I cannot comment on the science of it. Rather, I'll use an unorthodox approach by challenging the argument using philosophy and logic. OK. When we ask what is the cause of something, we are asking the agency which produced the effect in question. Thus, "causes" are spatially and temporally contingent. To say that there is a cause that is independent of space and time would be to ask an incoherent question. It would be the same as asking, "Which point on Earth is north of the North Pole?"
Teleological Argument
The odds of it happening by chance are incomprehensibly long, and cannot be taken seriously.
Really? This commits the lottery fallacy. For example, if I were to buy a lottery ticket and I win and, say, 2 billion others did not, would that mean that someone rigged or designed the lottery in my favor? After all, the chances (1 in 2 billion and one) were also extremely, incomprehensibly long!
Objective morality
Is there actually objective morality? In philosophy, the term "objective" refers to "mind independence". My argument is that even if there is objective morality, it is, by definition, unknowable because we can't know anything if that object or idea is independent of our mind's thoughts and conceptions. Hell, since God is an unembodied mind, if he exists, even he can't know objective morality.
The resurrection of Jesus
This is the most stupid argument ever proposed. The underlying premise of the argument is that Jesus was supposedly of messianic descent. To argue that evidence of a resurrection (of which there is, arguably, none) somehow affirm's his messianic claim would be to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Personal experience
This is highly dubious. If someone claims to be insane, isn't it reasonable to question if he/she actually is insane or inflicted by some sort of mental disability? And when asked such a question, even if mental disabilities are personal experiences, don't there need to be some sort of proof of mental disability? To mount such an argument would be to say that mental disabilities exist because some people claim to be experiencing it. Furthermore, claims of personal experiences of God have always been culturally specific. For example, have you ever heard of any Christian who has repeatedly claimed that Thor, Isis, Allah or Zeus exist simultaneously?
Ah, Chuck... This devil's advocate thing is slowly burgeoning in CD!
Eh, I know I only did this half a year ago (ish), but with all the new users, I thought I'd seize the opportunity. Besides, it's only the second debate of its kind, it's not too common spread, I hope.
I'm no scientist, so I cannot comment on the science of it
Well, I'm no philosopher, but I'll have a go anyway. Chances are what I'll say will make no sense at all, but worth a try.
Rather, I'll use an unorthodox approach by challenging the argument using philosophy and logic. OK. When we ask what is the cause of something, we are asking the agency which produced the effect in question. Thus, "causes" are spatially and temporally contingent. To say that there is a cause that is independent of space and time would be to ask an incoherent question. It would be the same as asking, "Which point on Earth is north of the North Pole?"
In normal cases, I would agree with your argument. But if the agent in question is one that produced the effect of space and time, wouldn't it be misplaced to apply the rules of contingency to this agent? If it were not possible for anything to exist spatially and temporally, how could one demand that the cause be spatially and temporally contingent?
Really? This commits the lottery fallacy. For example, if I were to buy a lottery ticket and I win and, say, 2 billion others did not, would that mean that someone rigged or designed the lottery in my favor? After all, the chances (1 in 2 billion and one) were also extremely, incomprehensibly long!
But the odds we're discussing are far longer than that of the lottery. We're discussing odds of numbers so long, there aren't enough atoms in the universe to write it down.
Is there actually objective morality? In philosophy, the term "objective" refers to "mind independence". My argument is that even if there is objective morality, it is, by definition, unknowable because we can't know anything if that object or idea is independent of our mind's thoughts and conceptions. Hell, since God is an unembodied mind, if he exists, even he can't know objective morality.
But is that definition not subjective? In that it is unknowable to our minds, but the definition is not applicable to other minds. And if God is omniscient, he can know objective morality.
This is the most stupid argument ever proposed.
And yet Billy Craig sees it as the greatest ever proposed ;)
To argue that evidence of a resurrection (of which there is, arguably, none) somehow affirm's his messianic claim would be to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Then I ask you to provide alternative explanations for the Resurrection.
As for personal experience, those debates never go anywhere, so I concede that point.
I love such debates. It forces people to think (er, perhaps Srom should consider taking part...)
Well, I'm no philosopher, but I'll have a go anyway. Chances are what I'll say will make no sense at all, but worth a try.
Touche! ;)
But if the agent in question is one that produced the effect of space and time, wouldn't it be misplaced to apply the rules of contingency to this agent?
I think such a question would be a straw man, unfortunately. The "effect" in question was referring to the Big Bang and not the phenomena of space and time.
If it were not possible for anything to exist spatially and temporally, how could one demand that the cause be spatially and temporally contingent?
The assumption of this question is quite flawed. Theists do claim that it is possible for something to exist independent of space and time conditions. The burden is upon them to prove that such an assumption holds true.
But the odds we're discussing are far longer than that of the lottery. We're discussing odds of numbers so long, there aren't enough atoms in the universe to write it down.
I contend that the magnitude of the problem does not excuse the argument from being fundamentally fallacious. For example, an argument that commits the fallacy of appealing to authority is still fallacious, regardless of how credible and/reliable (or otherwise) the particular authority is.
But is that definition not subjective?
Uh yes. But "not subjective", in philosophical terms, is the same as "objective.
In that it is unknowable to our minds, but the definition is not applicable to other minds.
Nope. You have misinterpreted the definition. "Mind-independence" refers to all* minds. To argue that it is not applicable to minds other than our own would be to commit the genetic fallacy.
And yet Billy Craig sees it as the greatest ever proposed ;)
Ah well. He isn't exactly the best theistic philosopher/debater, even in our time.
Then I ask you to provide alternative explanations for the Resurrection.
That is really out of the question.
It was nice to debate with you again Reventon.
I share your sentiments. I wouldn't be able to debate as often as I (you or anyone of my friends here) would like due to military commitments.
Uh yes. But "not subjective", in philosophical terms, is the same as "objective.
Just thought I'd clarify this one point. I know that, I worded the question very arse about tit. I was essentially saying that the definition is subjective. "Isn't that definition subjective" would have been a better structure.
I know that, I worded the question very arse about tit. I was essentially saying that the definition is subjective.
Oh! The fault is mine!
Essentially, your question is whether or not the definition is subjective, yes? Well, in the English language, definitions are like axioms, though not exactly so. They are generally agreed upon by the community for the convenience of communication. Yes, it does make it subjective in this way. However, if you were to question whether or not the definition is subjective, it would be to posit some sort of a circular argument, I feel.
Do I have to dispute one of these five points in order to hear you advocate for the Devil, or are you taking any and all arguments against religion? I posted my beef with original sin...
Ah, no rush at all, man. I just didn't follow the format of everyone else who had posted so far and was wondering if I missed something regarding the parameters of the debate.
I think that it could easily have happened by chance. Yes, the probability of this, exact universe is slim, but so is the probability of another universe coming into existence.
"Evolution does not explain why we have moral values"
Actually, it does. We have evolved to have moral values so that we can protect ourselves more easily.
If I punch you, then there is a chance that you may punch me. Therefore I have the respect to not punch you and to leave you alone. Because of this, you have left me alone, and I am safer than I would have been without my moral values.
Moral values in giving, sharing, are also easily explainable. If I give you something then I would hope that you would do it for me. If I open a door for you, I would hope for you to do the same for me.
So why, you might ask, do we help people who cannot help us? Well, a lot of us don't, to begin with. But those who do, have had morals so firmly set into their mind that they apply to everyone - not just those who can help them. People also do this so that others respect their capacity for being hospitable to those who need it most.
We have evolved to have morals for our personal gain.
"The resurrection of Jesus"
People cannot prove this way or another where Jesus' body went when it left the tomb - but they wouldn't have to once they have accepted that the probability for Jesus' very existence is small.
"Those which have experienced God have no need to justify his existence"
Is that because they cannot prove it to others? Is that because they are going mad? There are all sorts of reasons why they simply have not proven it to others.
I think that it could easily have happened by chance. Yes, the probability of this, exact universe is slim, but so is the probability of another universe coming into existence.
But that is not provable, and thus we mus work with what we've got: a single universe with conditions that should prohibit life, yet allow it.
Actually, it does. We have evolved to have moral values so that we can protect ourselves more easily.
Evolution only explains why we have the capacity for morality, not morality itself. Evolution can only use objective facts to make subjective conclusions on morality. Thus, evolution is not a foundation for objective morality.
People cannot prove this way or another where Jesus' body went when it left the tomb - but they wouldn't have to once they have accepted that the probability for Jesus' very existence is small.
Why do you believe the probability of his existence is small?
Is that because they cannot prove it to others? Is that because they are going mad? There are all sorts of reasons why they simply have not proven it to others.
Because experiencing God is transcendent, and can't be believed unless experienced. This cannot be empirically supported, but acts as a personal evidence atheists don't have.
"Evolution only explains why we have the capacity for morality, not morality itself"
I have explained that we have morality for our own good and benefit. Without morality the world would be less of a place to live in, and there would be far less accomplished so easily. I have already explained why evolution has provided us with morals but if you like I can copy and paste it from my last argument.
"Why do you believe the probability of his existence is small?"
Because there is no concrete proof that Jesus existed.
I have explained that we have morality for our own good and benefit. Without morality the world would be less of a place to live in, and there would be far less accomplished so easily. I have already explained why evolution has provided us with morals but if you like I can copy and paste it from my last argument.
Again, your argument only explained why we have the capacity for morality, not why we actually have it. That comes via philosophy, which leads us to either discovering God or rejecting him.
Because there is no concrete proof that Jesus existed.
The first 2 websites are not credible sources, as they make claims that cannot be proven. The third site doesn't actually say anything more than "hearsay", which can also be claimed of Genghis Khan, Gilgamesh, or any other historical figure. And a lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existence.
"Again, your argument only explained why we have the capacity for morality, not why we actually have it. That comes via philosophy, which leads us to either discovering God or rejecting him."
Why do we have morals then? Because of my last argument, of course. If you cannot accept this, accept that you've lost.
Why do we have morals then? Because of my last argument, of course. If you cannot accept this, accept that you've lost.
As I am a Christian, God gave us morality, that's easy. Like I said, evolution provides a foundation for morality, not morality itself. For example, bricks are the foundation of a house, but you don't call a brick a "house".
Can you find any sites that do prove it?
What, that prove Jesus doesn't exist? That's your burden, not mine.
I have already explained about the morals, if you cannot accept evidence when you see it, and if you keep using ridiculous examples, then that is your problem. The truth is, evolution explains exactly why we have morals.
-
I meant to ask if you could find any sites to prove that Jesus does exist.
I have already explained about the morals, if you cannot accept evidence when you see it, and if you keep using ridiculous examples, then that is your problem. The truth is, evolution explains exactly why we have morals.
Speaking as an atheist here, evolution does not explain why we have morality, it merely gives a rational foundation from which morality can be philosophized. Innate rationalism cannot account for the thought process that occurs in all aspects of morality, it can only account for moral instinct. Anything beyond moral instinct is contingent upon our philosophy, which comes from evolution. Think of it like this. What you're saying is:
I never had to delve much further than Genesis to make a statement that couldn't be solidly refuted by a Christian, so I hope you can. Original sin. God makes imperfect humans and then condemns humanity because two uneducated nudists acted according to the nature god gave them. God did all of this knowing full well how it would play out and uses it to his advantage; god set his standards impossibly high, and when we inevitably fail to reach them we either submit to him or fry for eternity. This argument is against a good, benevolent god.
But original sin only came through humans using free will to disobey God. If Adam and Eve never ate from the tree, then original sin wouldn't exist. Also, I believe in the redemption through Christ. Original sin is lifted if you just believe in Christ.
Do we really have free will? God programmed us, made everything we will ever know and interact with, and controls all the variables. And he knows how everything will play out.
Even if we do have free will, god knew that he was setting us up for an existence of condemnation, and didn't do a damn thing about it. He let it happen when he could have done a whole host of things to stop it. Or he could lower his standards, and be okay with the fact that he created, in his eyes, imperfect human beings.
And you believe that the only path to redemption is through Christ. That's part of the problem. You believe that the only way to atone for the sin of being born is to die in submission and service to the deity that created us imperfect in the first place! God set up a situation in which we either must believe in him to redeem his own opinion of us or we fry forever. This makes him an asshole.
Also why are we not all presented with our own apple scenario? If humans are really, truly capable of obeying god, if its not human nature to always eat the apple, why is all of humanity condemned because of the actions of two ignorant shit-kickers? We're talking billions of people, all people past, current, and future, damned because of the actions of two. Hardly kind on gods part, and hardly fair.
Do we really have free will? God programmed us, made everything we will ever know and interact with, and controls all the variables. And he knows how everything will play out.
He may have set up the experiment, but he can't manipulate the results. I plead the case of presentism, that the agent in question can only know what currently exists within the system he interacts with. God cannot manipulate the potential choices of other free agents if those choices do not exist yet. Thus your question is illogical, akin to asking if God could make a square circle.
god knew that he was setting us up for an existence of condemnation, and didn't do a damn thing about it.
No, redemption through Christ gave an alternative to condemnation. And, as we have free will, humanity is not doomed to eternal hellfire or salvation; we have the choice.
Or he could lower his standards, and be okay with the fact that he created, in his eyes, imperfect human beings.
But then how would humanity appreciate heaven? If the creation was already perfect, how could it achieve spiritual perfection? This is why there needs to be some sort of flaw in the design, to make the reward sweeter.
And you believe that the only path to redemption is through Christ.
No. Leading a virtuous life would also lead one to redemption.
God set up a situation in which we either must believe in him to redeem his own opinion of us or we fry forever.
I believe in 3 layers of the afterlife. Heaven is most likely reserved for the virtuous and faithful. But purgatory is also available to the virtuous non-faithful. Unless you have truly been morally corrupt, you will not go to Hell.
If humans are really, truly capable of obeying god, if its not human nature to always eat the apple, why is all of humanity condemned because of the actions of two ignorant shit-kickers? We're talking billions of people, all people past, current, and future, damned because of the actions of two. Hardly kind on gods part, and hardly fair.
As I said, humanity is not damned forever, God offers a path to salvation through Christ and virtuosity. It is up to us if we decide to accept the offer.
He may have set up the experiment, but he can't manipulate the results.
Really? I heard He can do anything. He is god.
Is a computer programmed to preform a specific way a free agent? God supposedly made us and made us who we are; he programmed our nature, our personality, and our mannerisms. Furthermore he designed everything that could possibly influence those things. We act according to how god programmed us to act.
No, redemption through Christ gave an alternative to condemnation. And, as we have free will, humanity is not doomed to eternal hellfire or salvation; we have the choice.
Your choices are either servitude and submission or eternal torture. That's not what I call being free from condemnation. That's like having to choose to shoot yourself in the right foot or the left one. I still don't buy your free will argument, but if this is the "choice" we are offered, I think it's a pretty shitty one, and in either case I would bring condemnation upon myself.
But then how would humanity appreciate heaven? If the creation was already perfect, how could it achieve spiritual perfection?
Immortality is something to appreciate.
And my point was really more with gods condemnation of us: he created us imperfect and then condemned us for being imperfect. He created sinful human beings (otherwise Adam and Eve wouldn't have been able to sin, no?) and then made sinning a crime.
No. Leading a virtuous life would also lead one to redemption.
I hate debating scripture, so I'll give you that one. I should endeavor to be like Christ, then, and torture those that refuse to worship me? I should try to be like god, and indiscriminately slaughter not only those that oppose me, but their relatives, family, children, and animals? These things would lead me to heaven?
I believe in 3 layers of the afterlife. Heaven is most likely reserved for the virtuous and faithful. But purgatory is also available to the virtuous non-faithful. Unless you have truly been morally corrupt, you will not go to Hell.
Purgatory is a state of punishment, of torture and purification. Since I don't need to provide any supporting evidence to make a point just as valid as yours, I don't believe that my condition as a human being needs purification (at best) or torture (at worst). Insinuating that I do require purification or torture (because I was virtuous but not pious) is deeply offensive, and any god who supports that is an asshole and therefore imperfect and therefore not the god proposed by Christian theology.
Wow. It's really invigorating to be able to state strong, certain, absolutist opinions about things and only have to say that I believe them to be true in order for them to be taken seriously. I can kind of see the appeal to being religious, for the first time. You can say anything without actually having to know anything! Awesome!
As I said, humanity is not damned forever, God offers a path to salvation through Christ and virtuosity. It is up to us if we decide to accept the offer.
Again, this is like offering the choice of death by fire or death by drowning. Some choice. Personally I think accepting god into my heart is the greater of the two evils, and I choose eternal damnation. The alternative is real damnation in the form of submission and servitude; real death by death of the soul.
Well, He can manipulate the results, but as that would interfere with free will, He doesn't.
he programmed our nature, our personality, and our mannerisms.
No he didn't.
Furthermore he designed everything that could possibly influence those things. We act according to how god programmed us to act.
No, we can act how we want, why else would the majority of humanity be actively defying God? God can only design the control variables, He does not interfere with the dependent and independent variables.
Your choices are either servitude and submission or eternal torture
Not really. For a start, being a Christian is not about servitude and submission, it's about appreciating God's choice in giving us life. Think of your parents. Don't you appreciate their choice to bring you into the world? Or do you think that doing so would be "servitude and submission"?
As for eternal torture, that is not necessary. Venial sins can be forgiven in the mortal life, via sacrament. And mortal sins can be forgiven in purgatory, via repentance.
And my point was really more with gods condemnation of us: he created us imperfect and then condemned us for being imperfect. He created sinful human beings (otherwise Adam and Eve wouldn't have been able to sin, no?) and then made sinning a crime.
Adam and Eve were not created sinful, they were created with the free will to sin. And seeing as Satan tricked them, God had to act. When he condemned us, he wasn't really condemning humanity; he was condemning Satan for ruining his original creation. And so sin had to be made a "crime", in order to deter humanity from Satan.
I should endeavor to be like Christ, then, and torture those that refuse to worship me?
Please show me a historical record where Christ torturing non believers is documented.
I should try to be like god, and indiscriminately slaughter not only those that oppose me, but their relatives, family, children, and animals?
No, that would lead you straight to the inner most bowels of Hell. God does not indiscriminately slaughter anyone, bronze age tribesmen do.
These things would lead me to heaven?
No, following the 7 virtues of Aurelius Prudentius will get you to heaven.
Since I don't need to provide any supporting evidence to make a point just as valid as yours,
Well there is no evidence supporting an afterlife, that's why I said "I believe".
I don't believe that my condition as a human being needs purification (at best) or torture (at worst).
In which case you've probably only venially sinned, and will go to heaven.
and any god who supports that is an asshole and therefore imperfect and therefore not the god proposed by Christian theology.
That's your opinion and nothing more. Until you are the foundation of all morality, you can't accurately use your moral code to disprove God.
Wow. It's really invigorating to be able to state strong, certain, absolutist opinions about things and only have to say that I believe them to be true in order for them to be taken seriously. I can kind of see the appeal to being religious, for the first time. You can say anything without actually having to know anything! Awesome!
I know, I should do this devil's advocate thing more often. In fact, I should just become St.Chuck of Hades right now ;)
Again, this is like offering the choice of death by fire or death by drowning. Some choice. Personally I think accepting god into my heart is the greater of the two evils, and I choose eternal damnation. The alternative is real damnation in the form of submission and servitude; real death by death of the soul.
Well, then that's your choice. But that is not God's fault that you turned away from Him.
Well, i'll make this short. Really it only needs to be. If there was a God, even if he did exist, if you look back at what has happened over history, both factually and in the Bible, then you would realize he is not a nice being. And why always Christianity. Of course if you're a Christian then you never consider the fact that other religions think just the same as you do. I can't be bothered to go in to all the wars about it facts. How sick God must be to do all the things he did, and our current situations. I'm sure you are aware of them. A real Christian would admit to faults in their system, but then argue back some decent points that would make me think "Hmm, yes you're right, the things i thought were bad about Christianity are actually good." But, no one has done that, because no one can level out all the bad things wrong with. Q.E.D. Way more than the good things.
What about deaths due to natural catastrophies? Famines, droughts, tsunamis, just to name a few of the larger ones. If God is all powerful, and God created earth, then God killed people.
In this case, it is important to note that humans were created with free will. In order to preserve the free will of any rational agent, the laws surrounding the agent must also be allowed to act freely.
So you're saying that it's impossible for God to create a world without tsunamis, or earthquakes, or droughts, or famines, because it would infringe on our free will?
God created those laws surrounding the agent. Therefore if they kill someone (and God knew this, as he is all knowing), then God killed someone - it has intent and knowledge. God cannot be benevolent if he is all knowing and all powerful.
So you're saying that it's impossible for God to create a world without tsunamis, or earthquakes, or droughts, or famines, because it would infringe on our free will?
Yes.
God created those laws surrounding the agent. Therefore if they kill someone (and God knew this, as he is all knowing), then God killed someone - it has intent and knowledge. God cannot be benevolent if he is all knowing and all powerful.
But the laws are acting freely too. When God created these laws, He did not have a plan for them. Thus any deaths caused by the laws cannot be accounted to God. This is akin to saying that a Christian can't be arrested for murder, because they were created with intent and knowledge.
Most homicidal maniacs think they have a pretty good reason for killing people.
Most homicidal maniacs aren't omniscient.
You admit your original statement is incorrect, then? God makes Hitler look like Gandhi.i
My original statement was more of a play on a meme, rather than something to be taken literally. Strictly speaking it was incorrect, but that was not the purpose of it.
1) The resurrection of Jesus is scientifically impossible because he went brain dead, and there was, because of this, irreversible damage done to him and his body, meaning that none of it was alive, and none of it could come back.
2) Scientifically, the order that the world is created, according to Genesis, is completely wrong.
3) The world is 13.7 billion years old, not a few thousand years old.
4) There is nothing in the Christian Old Testament about where God came from.
5) If God compiled the Bible himself, from all the different books he asked the prophets to write, then why does the Bible so often contradict itself?
6) Why hasn't God introduced himself on the TV or anything?
7) Why is "Let there be light" followed by the creation of the sun? Why are they not together?
8) If the Christian God did exist, then why did he inspire the birth of so many other religions?
9) Who taught God everything he knows?
10) How can God grant prayers without infringing on free will?
11) Why doesn't every prayer come true?
12) If God sent you to hell for not believing then why didn't he show the right path and guide you? Because of this, he is a hypocrite, yet he speaks against such a thing as hypocrites - so he is more of a hypocrite. But it also says God can never be wrong. He obviously can. I have actually done a debate on this.
The resurrection of Jesus is scientifically impossible because he went brain dead, and there was, because of this, irreversible damage done to him and his body, meaning that none of it was alive, and none of it could come back.
The resurrection of Jesus was a miracle to prove his divinity, what you're saying actually supports my point. If it were scientifically possible, then it wouldn't have been a miracle.
Scientifically, the order that the world is created, according to Genesis, is completely wrong.
As a liberal Christian, I believe most of Genesis is figurative.
The world is 13.7 billion years old, not a few thousand years old.
Show me where in the Bible it says that the world is a few thousand years old.
There is nothing in the Christian Old Testament about where God came from.
God doesn't need an origin, he exists in and of himself: aseity.
If God compiled the Bible himself, from all the different books he asked the prophets to write, then why does the Bible so often contradict itself?
Fallible humans. God didn't directly author the Bible, He asked humans to author His ideas. Unfortunately, humans aren't as infallible as God.
Why hasn't God introduced himself on the TV or anything?
How on Earth does an immaterial, spaceless, timeless being appear on TV?
Why is "Let there be light" followed by the creation of the sun? Why are they not together?
Why wouldn't it be?
If the Christian God did exist, then why did he inspire the birth of so many other religions?
He didn't, humans using free will did.
Who taught God everything he knows?
God doesn't need a teacher, he's omniscient.
How can God grant prayers without infringing on free will?
This is akin to asking "How can my employers pay me without infringing on my free will?" If you ask for it, you are using your free will. Granting somebody's wish does not violate free will, as it took free will to make the prayer.
Why doesn't every prayer come true?
Why would it? The Bible states not to ask for foolish things, as this leads to a less virtuous life, and one without true attainment of the soul.
f God sent you to hell for not believing then why didn't he show the right path and guide you? Because of this, he is a hypocrite, yet he speaks against such a thing as hypocrites - so he is more of a hypocrite. But it also says God can never be wrong. He obviously can. I have actually done a debate on this.
One does not go to Hell for non-belief, they go to hell for sin. One can lead a virtuous, atheistic life and avoid Hell. And, although I risk bringing up old ground here, God cannot be objectively wrong. He can be wrong insofar as our subjective definition allows, but as God, His choice is always the objectively right one.
So the Bible is therefore incorrect, if Genesis is metaphorical then the Bible cannot, by definition, be correct - which leads to the fact that God doesn't exist.
"God doesn't need an origin"
Why not? If the Bible cannot explain where such a being came from then how can it expect to teach other people about how to live their lives? If God doesn't have an origin then he does not exist.
"Fallible humans. God didn't directly author the Bible, He asked humans to author His ideas. Unfortunately, humans aren't as infallible as God"
So why did God not correct them? If he existed it was surely in his power and to make mistakes is supposed to be something God does not do. So if Go did not correct them is that because he did/does not exist?
"How on Earth does an immaterial, spaceless, timeless being appear on TV?"
Well, God can do anything, if he exists. That is the whole point of being God, isn't it? If God cannot appear on TV then maybe there is a reason for that such as: he does not exist.
"Why wouldn't ["let there be light" followed by the creation of the sun]?"
Because without the sun there is not light. Without the sun there is nothing, apart from an expanse of a cold world of nothing. There has to be a sun or a star for there to be any light at all.
"Humans using free will did [inspire the birth of so many other religions]"
Then why did God not correct them for their mistakes? Why didn't God show the guidance that he should have been showing to guide them into a true religion so that they can live in heaven? As he does not do this, God is a hypocrite - something he should not be for God is allegedly perfect.
"This is akin to asking "How can my employers pay me without infringing on my free will?""
No, it is nothing like that. If I pray that one of my friends will have a good day, but someone else is determined to make them have a bad day, then surely my prayer would somehow prevent their free will so that they do not cause my friend to have a bad day.
"The Bible states not to ask for foolish things"
Yet, if I pray for a family member of mine to live a while longer, and they do not, then why has God ignored me? Caring for those I love is not something that is foolish. Jesus taught people to love and care for others, yet God doesn't really seem to care about this at all, does he?
"God cannot be objectively wrong"
Sorry about bringing this up again.
I think that God can be morally wrong and in the past I have given examples. But, obviously the Bible contradicts itself too much for there to really be a debate here.
So the Bible is therefore incorrect, if Genesis is metaphorical then the Bible cannot, by definition, be correct - which leads to the fact that God doesn't exist.
Which definitions are you using? A metaphor isn't a truth claim, it's a figurative expression to describe the truth. Take "Big Bang" as an example. What you're saying is like saying" the Big Bang theory is false, because there was no actual bang".
Why not? If the Bible cannot explain where such a being came from then how can it expect to teach other people about how to live their lives? If God doesn't have an origin then he does not exist.
Aseity my friend, aseity.
So why did God not correct them? If he existed it was surely in his power and to make mistakes is supposed to be something God does not do. So if Go did not correct them is that because he did/does not exist?
Because the errors in the Bible are irrelevant to God's message: salvation. Salvation isn't affected by classing a bat as a bird.
Well, God can do anything, if he exists. That is the whole point of being God, isn't it? If God cannot appear on TV then maybe there is a reason for that such as: he does not exist.
No, God can do anything logically possible. An immaterial, spaceless, timeless being cannot appear on TV, in the same way a square circle cannot exist.
However, it should be noted that God has done something similar: Jesus. God has already revealed himself to the world, the problem is that people reject Him.
Because without the sun there is not light. Without the sun there is nothing, apart from an expanse of a cold world of nothing. There has to be a sun or a star for there to be any light at all.
I wasn't aware the sun was the source of all light in the universe.
Then why did God not correct them for their mistakes? Why didn't God show the guidance that he should have been showing to guide them into a true religion so that they can live in heaven? As he does not do this, God is a hypocrite - something he should not be for God is allegedly perfect.
That would infringe on their free will, which would make God imperfect.
No, it is nothing like that. If I pray that one of my friends will have a good day, but someone else is determined to make them have a bad day, then surely my prayer would somehow prevent their free will so that they do not cause my friend to have a bad day.
In your example, neither prayer would come true; they are both foolish requests. God only grants prayers that help strengthen the soul. Ignore the schmaltzy TV evangelists that claim they can pray away cancer, because they can't. God only grants prayers relevant to His message.
Yet, if I pray for a family member of mine to live a while longer, and they do not, then why has God ignored me? Caring for those I love is not something that is foolish. Jesus taught people to love and care for others, yet God doesn't really seem to care about this at all, does he?
Because God has decided it's time for them to enter the afterlife, where all their trials will be over. Also, you're not a Christian, thus you have no contact with God.
"Which definitions are you using? A metaphor isn't a truth claim, it's a figurative expression to describe the truth. Take "Big Bang" as an example. What you're saying is like saying" the Big Bang theory is false, because there was no actual bang""
No. Saying that Genesis is metaphorical does not define why God created things in the order that he did - a discussion of the usage of the English language is irrelevant.
"Aseity"
This does not explain why God has not explained it. Aseity is a word used when people are looking for a reason but cannot find one. To use aseity as an argument in a debate is not an argument.
"Because the errors in the Bible are irrelevant to God's message"
The errors in the Bible show that God does not exist. God, and religon, were made by human beings.
"No, God can do anything logically possible. An immaterial, spaceless, timeless being cannot appear on TV, in the same way a square circle cannot exist"
If God is omnipotent, then he can do anything. To deny he is omnipotent is to deny he is God. God either should be putting himself on the telly, or he is not God. If I were God, then I would make the JAMIE CHANNEL.
"God has already revealed himself to the world [Jesus]"
There is no definitive proof, as I have previously said, and proven, that Jesus exists. Therefore God has not revealed himself to the world.
"The problem is that people reject Him"
If he does not provide proof that he exists then how can he expect people to believe, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he exists?
"I wasn't aware that the sun was the source of all light in the universe"
The sun and the stars are natural forms of light, without which plants could not grow, and without them there would be no light.
There are all sorts of mistakes in how the world works in the Bible, though. Such as how it says that the Earth is flat.
"God only grants prayers relevant to his message"
Great, God's selfish.
"Also, you're not a Christian, thus you have no contact with God"
No. Saying that Genesis is metaphorical does not define why God created things in the order that he did - a discussion of the usage of the English language is irrelevant.
Actually, the style in which the Bible is written is extremely relevant. Because in Genesis, it doesn't say that God placed plants on Earth before the Sun existed. It says that he created them. Nothing more than that.
This does not explain why God has not explained it. Aseity is a word used when people are looking for a reason but cannot find one. To use aseity as an argument in a debate is not an argument.
But God has explained it, in the Bible. Revelation 21:6 says that God "is the beginning and the end", in other words: aseity. Even Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God", which means Gid has existed as long as anything.
The errors in the Bible show that God does not exist. God, and religon, were made by human beings.
Prove it.
If God is omnipotent, then he can do anything. To deny he is omnipotent is to deny he is God. God either should be putting himself on the telly, or he is not God. If I were God, then I would make the JAMIE CHANNEL.
Nope, God can only do the logically possible. For example, God cannot make a square circle, not because he is not omnipotent, but because a square circle is logically impossible. And as I said, God has revealed Himself before, in a way far more widespread than TV. Furthermore, God doesn't find us, we find him, through faith. To reveal himself would be to deny faith, and weaken the soul. Thus it is more moral for him to remain hidden than risk corrupting our souls.
There is no definitive proof, as I have previously said, and proven, that Jesus exists. Therefore God has not revealed himself to the world.
I think you're missing a trick. Jesus came at a time without the internet, newspapers or media. Jesus came at a time when it was extremely rare to record anything. So the very fact that we have something as extensive as the Bible, no matter how subjective, is some sort of proof in and of itself.
If he does not provide proof that he exists then how can he expect people to believe, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he exists?
He has given proof, in the 5 forms I listed.
The sun and the stars are natural forms of light, without which plants could not grow, and without them there would be no light.
Your point being? Remember what I said about everything be created, not placed.
There are all sorts of mistakes in how the world works in the Bible, though. Such as how it says that the Earth is flat.
It was 2000 years ago, cut them some slack.
Great, God's selfish.
No, God's selfless. Granting every prayer would corrupt the soul.
"The style in which the Bible is written is extremely relevant"
This is about the order of how God created things, not the style of how he did it.
"It doesn't say that God created plants on Earth before the sun existed"
Actually it does. On day three God created plants, and on day four he allegedly created the sun, moon, stars, and other planets. If God created the plants in the world before creating the sun then there is obviously an error. This brings me to the fact that light was created before the sun, stars, and other planets. How does that work, exactly? All light comes from the sun and stars, originally. I doubt God was carrying LED torches around.
"But God has explained it in the Bible ... God is the beginning and the end ... in other words: aseity"
This is not an explanation that provides enough proof fit for a debate. There cannot simply be God. I didn't simply exist, I doubt that you just randomly began to exist. This theory leaves so many things unexplained.
"Which means God has existed as long as anything"
That is the whole point of being God - and one of the largest unexplained mysteries in the Christian religion. Where did God come from? He cannot simply have been, otherwise Gods would simply be popping up all over the place, wouldn't they?
"Prove it"
I am doing that now.
"God cannot make a square circle"
Really? This is what you said in the past:
-
"If God says 2+2=5, then 2+2=5, regardless of what we think. Because God exists outside the natural realm."
-
This would therefore imply that regardless of the characteristics of a circle or a square, God could make one, because he exists outside the natural realm. How can he do this? Because he is the "inventor of everything" and he can therefore "change his invention".
"It is more moral for him to remain hidden"
Is hiding and keeping an entire planet of seven billion people unsure of what is going on, what is the true religion, will they go to hell, etc., ever going to be moral? I think that the knowledge of a true religion would increase the strength of my soul, instead of weaken it.
"The fact that we have something as extensive as the Bible ... is some sort of proof in and of itself"
Who would willingly write 2000 pages about God several times over, whilst survival was a much more pressing issue? For all we know, Herod may have just kept slaves called Mark, John, etc., and whipped them until they wrote about the Lord. Why? To trick us, and to maintain Herod's legacy. It may not have been Herod, but we have no proof besides the proof that may not be proof that Jesus existed.
"He has given proof"
If he has given proof then why is this even up for debate? If there was irrefutable proof that God had provided we would have no need for a debate like this because we would know. As we do not (as there is no proof), we are having this debate.
"It was 2000 years ago, cut them some slack"
Why? If God knows everything then why would he intentionally allow for there to be errors in a book that would be read by billions of people around the globe? I would be furious if there was a huge mistake such as that in my biography. After all, God is perfectly capable of being furious, isn't he? Why else would he flood the entirety of the Earth and kill everyone because of their actions? I think that the reason God didn't correct any of the mistakes in the Bible, or when it contradicted itself, is because he didn't exist.
"So why are you trying to disprove him?"
I am trying to disprove him because this looks like a very interesting debate. I do not believe in everything to do with God, but I believe that Jesus' teachings are usually morally correct and religion is a good thing to have in your arsenal if you ever need something to fall back onto.
Actually it does. On day three God created plants, and on day four he allegedly created the sun, moon, stars, and other planets. If God created the plants in the world before creating the sun then there is obviously an error. This brings me to the fact that light was created before the sun, stars, and other planets. How does that work, exactly? All light comes from the sun and stars, originally. I doubt God was carrying LED torches around.
Nope. He created plants, but didn't put them on Earth. It's entirely feasible that He created the plants, kept them in heaven, created a hospitable environment on the Earth, then placed them on the Earth. And God is omnipotent, He doesn't need light to see.
This is not an explanation that provides enough proof fit for a debate. There cannot simply be God. I didn't simply exist, I doubt that you just randomly began to exist. This theory leaves so many things unexplained.
That's because neither you nor I possess the quality of aseity. Remember, aseity doesn't state that God began to exist, it states that He exists within himself. This may take a while to get your head round, but when following the philosophy, it makes sense.
That is the whole point of being God - and one of the largest unexplained mysteries in the Christian religion. Where did God come from? He cannot simply have been, otherwise Gods would simply be popping up all over the place, wouldn't they?
Of course He can simply be, He's the prime mover, Alpha and Omega. If God had a cause, He wouldn't be God, and an infinite regression would take place.
Really? This is what you said in the past:
I wasn't being Devil's Advocate then, the way I'm arguing now is a way of countering the omnipotence paradox. So, irrelevant.
Is hiding and keeping an entire planet of seven billion people unsure of what is going on, what is the true religion, will they go to hell, etc., ever going to be moral? I think that the knowledge of a true religion would increase the strength of my soul, instead of weaken it.
No, because that would eliminate the need for faith, one of the great virtues of Christianity.
Who would willingly write 2000 pages about God several times over, whilst survival was a much more pressing issue? For all we know, Herod may have just kept slaves called Mark, John, etc., and whipped them until they wrote about the Lord. Why? To trick us, and to maintain Herod's legacy. It may not have been Herod, but we have no proof besides the proof that may not be proof that Jesus existed.
I find it far more improbable that the Bible was written to troll a few goat herders rather than a serious religious text.
If he has given proof then why is this even up for debate? If there was irrefutable proof that God had provided we would have no need for a debate like this because we would know. As we do not (as there is no proof), we are having this debate.
I never said it was irrefutable proof.
Why? If God knows everything then why would he intentionally allow for there to be errors in a book that would be read by billions of people around the globe? I would be furious if there was a huge mistake such as that in my biography. After all, God is perfectly capable of being furious, isn't he? Why else would he flood the entirety of the Earth and kill everyone because of their actions? I think that the reason God didn't correct any of the mistakes in the Bible, or when it contradicted itself, is because he didn't exist.
I've already said, the shape of the Earth is irrelevant to the message of salvation. You may as well be insulting the tortoise and the hare because hares and tortoises don't co-exist. That's not the point: it's about the message.
"He created the plants, but he didn't put them on Earth"
Now, does it say that in the Bible? No, it does not.
"God is omnipotent, He doesn't need light to see."
According to you, though, he can only do things that are logically possible - that isn't logically possible unless he uses echolocation or something, and I didn't read that in the Bible!
"That is because neither you or I possess the quality of aseity"
That is no reason for it to be accpetable on a debate! If there is no proof, then that does not mean that it immediately becomes correct, just because something without proof disagrees with something without proof.
"But when following philosophy, it makes sense"
No it doesn't. A lot of things in philosophy don't make sense, and they are therefore discarded as something that cannot be true. This is one of those things.
"Of course he can simply be"
I am now going to repeat what I have previously said then. From your previous theory of aseity, you think he was simply there. Correct? Well then, why aren't Gods springing up all over the place? Why hasn't one sprung up in my living room yet?
"I find it improbable"
There are several things that are improbable, when added together, everything you are saying is improbable, but you think it has happened. So why not? It is more likely to be the case that the Bible was written for that purpose than God actually existed.
"The shape of the Earth is irrelevant to salvation"
But it isn't irrelevant to this debate. Did God exist? Well, if he has made all of these mistakes about the world then the only possibilities is that he doesn't care that he has mislead billions of people, he is intentionally trying to make himself look like an idiot, or maybe he doesn't exist.
Now, does it say that in the Bible? No, it does not.
Nor does it say what you claim.
According to you, though, he can only do things that are logically possible - that isn't logically possible unless he uses echolocation or something, and I didn't read that in the Bible!
Blind people can maneuver just fine, so can God. The Bible doesn't need to state it, as for the millionth time, it's irrelevant to the message.
That is no reason for it to be accpetable on a debate! If there is no proof, then that does not mean that it immediately becomes correct, just because something without proof disagrees with something without proof.
What on Earth are you talking about? Are you disputing the attribute of aseity?
No it doesn't. A lot of things in philosophy don't make sense, and they are therefore discarded as something that cannot be true. This is one of those things.
Aseity does make sense though. It logically follows that to avoid an infinite chain, an uncaused thing necessarily exists.
I am now going to repeat what I have previously said then. From your previous theory of aseity, you think he was simply there. Correct? Well then, why aren't Gods springing up all over the place? Why hasn't one sprung up in my living room yet?
I don't think you understand the concept of aseity in a theological context.
There are several things that are improbable, when added together, everything you are saying is improbable, but you think it has happened. So why not? It is more likely to be the case that the Bible was written for that purpose than God actually existed.
Red herring. The point was that trolling hadn't really taken off 2000 years ago, so it seems improbable that that was the purpose of the Bible, rather than a religious text. What I was saying had nothing to do with whether God existed.
But it isn't irrelevant to this debate. Did God exist? Well, if he has made all of these mistakes about the world then the only possibilities is that he doesn't care that he has mislead billions of people, he is intentionally trying to make himself look like an idiot, or maybe he doesn't exist.
He didn't make the mistake, fallible humans did. Was He going to interrupt them every page to tell them how big a mustard seed is? No, He let them freely carry on with their jobs.
You're arguing from the point of view of a Christian. You're not allowed to say that. ;)
Seriously though, Christianity wouldn't exist if every claim was expected to be backed with evidence. Christianity is all about faith and belief without evidence. Evidence is unwelcome because it negates the need for faith. I've been refraining from saying "prove it" to both Devils Advocate ChuckHades and many other fundies because I know they can't. I prefer to argue inside the fantasy world Christians have erected around themselves, and trying to drag them back to the realm of reality is often tiring and fruitless.
Sounds like fun, so I suppose I'll take a stab at this.
"Recent science has shown us that the universe is likely to have began to exist."
Science also says that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change forms. The Big Bang theory doesn't account for the creation of matter and energy. It accounts for the change in matter and energy from a singularity to the universe we see today.
"The only cause we know of that could meet those criteria is God."
Keep in mind that the "only thing we knew of" that could explain earthquakes was God. The "only thing we knew of" that could explain disease was God. The "only thing we knew of" that could explain the peculiar motions of stars and planets in the night sky was God.
It's only "the only thing we know of" because we know so little.
"The odds of it happening by chance are incomprehensibly long, and cannot be taken seriously."
However long the odds are, the notion that an intelligent being just happened to exist in in order to "set the dials", has, at the very least, equally long odds.
On morality:
Empathy for the well-being of others is at the core of morality, and we see signs of this empathy in animals which have evolved to be moderately to highly social as well as moderately to highly intelligent. Various species of apes and monkeys being the obvious examples.
If morals were objective, it seems to me that every living organism would adhere to them. Or, if mankind is the only species morals apply to, then why can we find so many examples of it in the animal kingdom?
It seems to make sense, to me at least, that any intelligent social animal would develop and evolve a sense of morality over time as it is highly beneficial towards the species continued survival. Animals that are more independent in nature have no need for this evolutionary trait. This explains why some animals exhibit moral behavior, and others do not. The higher the intelligence, and more complex the social structure, the more elaborate and ingrained the moral behavior becomes.
"Most historians now agree that there is evidence that the resurrection took place."
There is eye-witness testimony... which is the worst kind of evidence for anything. Especially when it comes to extraordinary claims such as people coming back from the dead. As the internet meme goes: "..pics, or it didn't happen."
Not to mention the fact that these eye-witness accounts were not written down until a significant time had passed from the actual event. There have been tons of extraordinary claims supported by eye-witness testimonials that were more descriptive, and were recorded immediately after (or even during) the supposed events which most people disregard without a second thought.
Just think of all the alien abduction accounts you've heard of; or ghost hauntings; or Bigfoot sightings; or the Loch Ness Monster. All have better documentation than Jesus' resurrection, yet none are accepted as strong, irrefutable evidence by scholars.
Many Christians believe Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and that Mormonism is a joke; and yet, there exists the "Testimony of Three Witnesses," and the "Testimony of Eight Witnesses," which are signed documents of eye-witnesses who claim they saw the golden plates Smith used to write the Book of Mormon, and could verify their existence. Why are their eye-witness testimonials no good, but the Gospels of the Bible are?
"Personal experience. Those which have experienced God have no need to justify his existence."
Fair enough, but if God will not, or cannot interfere with free will, how can we be sure these personal experiences are the work of God?
If God can and does interfere with certain people's free will by directly making His presence known to them, and he desires all people to know of and worship him, why does he not simply give to all people such personal, unmistakable experiences. Why only a small handful of people? Their free will didn't matter? Does God just work in mysterious ways? Or are these people just delusional?
Science also says that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change forms. The Big Bang theory doesn't account for the creation of matter and energy. It accounts for the change in matter and energy from a singularity to the universe we see today.
Does matter possess aseity? Does energy possess aseity? The answer is clearly "no". In which case, the laws of basic causation still apply to matter and energy; this is where God fits the criteria perfectly.
It's only "the only thing we know of" because we know so little.
Fallacious appeal to ignorance.
However long the odds are, the notion that an intelligent being just happened to exist in in order to "set the dials", has, at the very least, equally long odds.
Not really. If you have an experiment, the odds of an intelligent being setting it off are far shorter than the experiment randomly starting by itself.
Empathy for the well-being of others is at the core of morality, and we see signs of this empathy in animals which have evolved to be moderately to highly social as well as moderately to highly intelligent. Various species of apes and monkeys being the obvious examples.
But this does not provide a foundation for objective morals. Evolution can only deduce subjective conclusions from objective facts.
If morals were objective, it seems to me that every living organism would adhere to them. Or, if mankind is the only species morals apply to, then why can we find so many examples of it in the animal kingdom?
Mankind is the only species with God given morality, from a Christian perspective. Of course, it's possible that God allowed more advanced species to evolve their own basic set of values, but nothing as solid as our own morality.
Just think of all the alien abduction accounts you've heard of; or ghost hauntings; or Bigfoot sightings; or the Loch Ness Monster. All have better documentation than Jesus' resurrection, yet none are accepted as strong, irrefutable evidence by scholars.
Just think of Genghis Khan, or Charlemagne, or Gilgamesh. All have worse documentation than Jesus' resurrection, yet all are accepted as historical figures by scholars.
Many Christians believe Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and that Mormonism is a joke; and yet, there exists the "Testimony of Three Witnesses," and the "Testimony of Eight Witnesses," which are signed documents of eye-witnesses who claim they saw the golden plates Smith used to write the Book of Mormon, and could verify their existence. Why are their eye-witness testimonials no good, but the Gospels of the Bible are?
Well, from a Christian view, the gospels are authored by the numinous, Mormon doctrine isn't.
If God can and does interfere with certain people's free will by directly making His presence known to them, and he desires all people to know of and worship him, why does he not simply give to all people such personal, unmistakable experiences. Why only a small handful of people? Their free will didn't matter? Does God just work in mysterious ways? Or are these people just delusional?
God doesn't choose us, we choose Him with our free will. God presents himself as an available offer; some will take it, others won't. But he does not infringe on free will by making an offer.