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.
Open challenge to the religious.
Okay so obviously there are a lot of religious (and non-religious) people on this site. My challenge here is not an argument, just a question that I wish you to answer. I want you to ask this same question to any other religious people you know, and have them try to answer.
I want someone to provide me with one piece of evidence. Hard, testable, empirical evidence in support for the existence of a god or gods. It doesn't even need to be supporting your own god. One piece of evidence, because that is all you need to win the debate about religion. I, and every other atheist, will convert to that correct religion if you can provide us evidence.
So please, make your religion proud and prove that you are right. Not with threats of hell (Saintnow), not with ad hominem "arguments" (Enlightened). One piece of proof and I will convert.
If you think that this is an unreasonable challenge and you are religious maybe you should consider as to why.
Your challenge is a pointless call for direct proof that does not exist. You are likely aware that there is NO direct proof on either side of the question.
I'm using a small tablet and you are wasting valuable screen space with your meaningless drivel.
And that is exactly why I asked it; there's no point to having any religion debate at all until someone religious can prove their standpoint to some extent. Otherwise the only legitimate position you can have is that there is no god.
this is a very interesting ?.. but simple... gods evidence of existence is as simple as you itself... the manifestation of all things is he alone... god is not on a scale of man so he can not just be represented as one thing alone.. just as we all believe in science. but science is nothing without its counter parts ( protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms etc) break it down a little more simpler. water is H2O indisputable but water is non existent if the molecules did not work together as in 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen which equals water. thats just me explaining it without using the good books... remember god is simply the creater. so we are substance of him... so we can not measure him.
And God is nothing without people believing in him. We don't need any creator, the big bang, evolution and common sense are all we need. You can't just say this exists, because of God, and it exists because of God and you exist because of God. I exist now, and there is no evidence that God has anything to do with it.
And why can this logic not be applied to anything else that we can't prove? I could use the same logic in support for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if I were to say it created us.
Note that this is not to say that that logic is sound, nor is it proof. Until it is proven with evidence we cannot just assume that there is a creator because we simply do not know and that is wayy too big a question to boil down to "because it sounds right."
""""I want someone to provide me with one piece of evidence. Hard, testable, empirical evidence in support for the existence of a god or gods."""////
You set up a question for which you can not receive an answer. What is empirical and testable in finite by definition. But If God were finite, then it wouldn't be God , now would it .
So your question is stupid. Formally, its a Category Error Fallacy
What is empirical and testable in finite by definition.
Not true. Things that are infinite can have parts that are empirical and testable. The infinite thing can't be fully explained/tested, but parts of it can. Parts of an infinite system can be finite.
But If God were finite, then it wouldn't be God , now would it .
The idea that something is unprovable and should therefore be accepted is in itself a much bigger fallacy than demanding proof of it.
"But If God were finite, then it wouldn't be God , now would it ."
That in and of itself is a "stupid" notion, the idea that something doesn't need and cannot be proven is idiotic to say the least! Nothing that is real is untestable, to entertain the notion that something is is a pointless pastime at best but to seriously believe it is ridiculous and detrimental.
I'm assuming you'll be dropping the other points then?
Also we don't know yet. My ability to admit that is one of the biggest reasons I am an atheist, because saying "I don't know" is a hell of a lot better than saying "I believe, and you cannot currently provide an alternative, therefore my belief is valid."
Its twisted God of the Gaps logic that doesn't work.
Oh I know perfectly what I am talking about when it comes to your logical fallacies and skewed reason. You cannot assume that something that is untestable to be true unless you acknowledge fully that everything else that can be applied to it is just as true. The idea of a god being untestable and therefore valid immediately is inherently flawed and cannot be legitimately considered a respectable viewpoint.
god (n): a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity
The burden of proof lies with whoever makes the affirmative claim (the idea that there is a god). Unless you or someone else comes up with a way to test it, and then does, then the ONLY logical assumption you can make is that there isn't one.
You have also (again) ignored the arguments I placed and acted like you answered them. That is not how you debate, but as you are defending a flawed position it is in this case the only way you can debate it.
It cannot be tested in principle, you moron. You can only test what is finite by definition. But if God were finite, then, by definition, it wouldn't be God. Your comments are almost as stupid and moronic as Cartman
In other words, it's observed to have always been that way, thus it will be that way in the future, right? Isn't that what you're saying? That's presupposing the existence of uniformity, to account for uniformity. Try again.
The question isn't whether the uniformity of nature (or bees or bears) exists or not now, the question is how do you account for the obvious existence of uniformity in the first place.
Your answer seems to be that you don't have to because it obviously exists - but that's no answer at all.
If you're not serious about answering the question, then please stop wasting your time and mine.
The question isn't whether the uniformity of nature (or bees or bears) exists or not now, the question is how do you account for the obvious existence of uniformity in the first place.
And my question is, why do we need to account for it? If there are things that exist that don't need to be accounted for, why does this need to be accounted for?
Your answer seems to be that you don't have to because it obviously exists - but that's no answer at all
It serves to illustrate why the question doesn't make sense to be asked. If the question doesn't make sense to be asked then it doesn't need an answer.
 you're not serious about answering the question, then please stop wasting your time and mine.
If you are not serious about getting your question answered stop wasting my time.
We need to account for it because everything we know to be true in our reality depends on this uniformity. There's often a distinction drawn between science and God, as if they're polar opposites, but the dirty secret is science couldn't exist without this inexplicable, immaterial, constant uniformity. It just doesn't logically follow that time + matter + random chance could be the source. The atheistic worldview is actually the one that's diametrically opposed to uniformity and logical absolutes.
We need to account for it because everything we know to be true in our reality depends on this uniformity.
But, everything in the universe depends on energy, time, and matter existing. That stuff doesn't need to be accounted for.
Atheists don't have a problem with uniformity and don't believe in random chance. You don't need a God to create uniformity. Uniformity has to exist. If there isn't uniformity the universe rips itself apart. It is a necessary condition for the universe to exist.
"But, everything in the universe depends on energy, time, and matter existing. That stuff doesn't need to be accounted for."
You're essentially saying the universe itself doesn't need to be accounted for. That "stuff" IS the universe. Do you have some notion that the universe is something else other than energy, time and matter?
You're essentially saying the universe itself doesn't need to be accounted for.
I see no reason why it needs to be accounted for. Claiming that it needs to be accounted for so that you can invent a God to do the accounting is begging the question.
Do you have some notion that the universe is something else other than energy, time and matter?
You're sticking your head in the sand now. Claiming no explanation is necessary is the antithesis of a scientific mind. Do you believe the universe had a beginning, or are you one of those who believe it's always existed?
Technically, time didn't exist until the universe started, so as far as we are concerned it always existed.
Science can explain how things work. You are asking why questions. Why does the universe have uniformity can't be answered by science. Not being able to answer the why questions does not mean a God exists.
Every attribute you give to God is to explain how God could have created a universe with the same properties. You have the same exact pitfalls as atheists.
"Technically, time didn't exist until the universe started, so as far as we are concerned it always existed."
You're contradicting yourself - you're admitting the universe started, but then positing it's always existed. Which one is your true position? Do you think it had a beginning or not?
It isn't a contradiction. It is recognizing that asking what came before the very first moment makes no sense. You are asking what happened the moment before the moment that has no amount of time before it.
I think I see your point now, but really that's just another head-in-the-sand argument. You claim that the question makes no sense so it's pointless, but I think it makes you a little uncomfortable and causes some cognitive dissonance.
Science has proven the universe had a beginning, so it's only natural - and scientific - to want to explore that frontier more. Atheists are always asking for scientific proof for God's existence. This could very well be the place to look.
Cognitive dissonance is that uncomfortable feeling you get when you begin to realize that you hold incompatible beliefs. Atheism, when thoroughly explored, always leaves you feeling this way.
How can you say that Atheists have incompatible beliefs when there is so much hypocrisy and contradiction in the Bible? The problem with a majority of christians is that they fail to actually take the idea of God and try to rationalise his existence. The large proportion of christians just get told that there is a all-powerful, all good, all present God, and questioning that authority is a sin.
And for future reference, please support your argument that exploring Atheism leaves you feeling incompatible. You can't just state something and fail to back it up with evidence. Then again, I suppose that is Christianity at the end of the day...
You're not much of a thinker, lad, if you commit obvious blunders like this:
"The problem with a majority of christians is that... "
"The large proportion of christians just get told that... "
"And for future reference, please support your argument that exploring Atheism leaves you feeling incompatible. You can't just state something and fail to back it up with evidence."
Why not? It would appear it's good enough when you do it.
I don't see how these 'blunders', if they are, infer that my thinking capabilities are hindered. The reason I used 'majority' and 'large proportion' was to reduce generality in my statement. If I had said that 'all' christians do something or other I run the risk of having someone complain. Much like saying that muslims are terrorists or black people steal stuff, there is going to be the other side of these people that say 'Oh, I'm a muslim/black person and I don't bomb/steal.' Sorry for my miscommunication.
It is a weird scenario. We really only know that anything exists inside this universe. He keeps asking what exists outside the universe without realize he may be asking a question that has no answer.
Flat-earthers back in the day probably thought the same as you - that there's no point in asking the question since there's probably not an answer anyways. The quest for knowledge shouldn't end just because you presuppose there's no answer.
That's what you are doing. You consider God an answer and you have stopped. There are countless people who said God was the answer to something they couldn't figure out only to have someone come by later and show it wasn't God.
But at least I'm looking - you're evidently not even going to bother (ie flat-earther). I suspect you actually know deep down, but don't like where the answer leads you.
This is what makes me think you're feeling a little of that cognitive dissonance now, since you're obviously intelligent, but are forced into a position where you have to claim we don't need to know. It's a head-in-the-sand approach you probably would've expected a theist to take... and yet here you are.
I began as an atheist, then 30 yrs later I became a Christian. Throughout this time I've never stopped researching that which is "outside the box". Not all research requires a Bunsen burner. If you're not giving this any thought, then what point could you hope to make?
This is getting off track - to summarize: you feel the universe doesn't need to be accounted for - I feel it does.
Uniformity is the underpinning to everything we know, thus it's kind of important. To question the existence of uniformity (or our universe) may not make a whole lot of sense to you, but that hardly means it doesn't require an answer, just because you can't make sense of the question.
As for your problem with the word research, it simply means to conduct diligent inquiry into a subject or matter - to discover facts or theories, which I can certainly claim to have done (and continue to do). I'm fairly certain you have too. I believe you're obfuscating right now because you know where that research eventually leads. Hume agrees - uniformity is a problem for atheism.
This is getting off track - to summarize: you feel the universe doesn't need to be accounted for - I feel it does.
Agreed.
Uniformity is the underpinning to everything we know, thus it's kind of important. To question the existence of uniformity (or our universe) may not make a whole lot of sense to you, but that hardly means it doesn't require an answer, just because you can't make sense of the question.
I don't mind questioning whether there is uniformity, but insisting that something had to have created it without having any actual reason to believe that just so you can believe in God I do have a problem with.
As for your problem with the word research, it simply means to conduct diligent inquiry into a subject or matter - to discover facts or theories, which I can certainly claim to have done (and continue to do). I'm fairly certain you have too.
When you brought up research initially it was impossible for me to believe you meant it in that way.
I believe you're obfuscating right now because you know where that research eventually leads.
I do know exactly where it leads. It leads no where. That's why I was confused that you brought it up.
Hume agrees - uniformity is a problem for atheism.
False. Hume said uniformity is a problem for science because it can't actually be proven.
Uniformity is the basis for probable reasoning, without which we wouldn't have empirical science. If you don't question the source of uniformity, how do know our reasoning and science is accurate? Because it always has been (i.e. begging the question)?
If you don't question the source of uniformity, how do know our reasoning and science is accurate?
This is a misguided question. Science needs uniformity, not the source of uniformity. You try to verify that uniformity exists instead of finding its source.
This is the problem that Hume points out. With uniformity you are basically failing to demonstrate that uniformity has been lost. It involves checking that the precursor to your results still agree with what has been previously seen.
And it was a problem for Hume (and you) because of his atheism. Atheism boxes you in and leaves no way out. If, however, you entertain the "supernatural option" - then you have at least an answer. You'll no doubt call that a cop out, but it does satisfy Occam's razor with just one assumption, whereas atheism leaves you with none (because you're forced to assume that which you're trying to explain - ie uniformity).
And it was a problem for Hume (and you) because of his atheism.
Nope.
Atheism boxes you in and leaves no way out.
False.
If, however, you entertain the "supernatural option" - then you have at least an answer.
You actually eliminate all natural answers, don't you?
You'll no doubt call that a cop out, but it does satisfy Occam's razor with just one assumption, whereas atheism leaves you with none (because you're forced to assume that which you're trying to explain - ie uniformity).
Atheism satisfies Occam's razor far better than Theism. Everything that Atheism can't answer about nature without God is something Theists can't answer about their God. So, you have the same flaws, and Theism adds an extra layer of complexity with a God. That means Occam's razor favors the idea with fewer layers - Atheism.
"You actually eliminate all natural answers, don't you?"
The natural answers eliminate themselves. That's the problem with uniformity - it can only be answered with the supernatural. If you think otherwise, then go ahead and try - but so far you've only said that you don't see a reason to answer this question, but that's no answer at all.
"Atheism satisfies Occam's razor far better than Theism."
How so? At least in the question at hand - how does atheism explain the existence of uniformity, by using Occam's razor?
I'm gonna go watch Spongebob with my kids right now - but like the T-800, "I'll be back".
There is nothing that will save you. You twist words abd refuse to understand the answers to the questions you ask. I have explained the answers to your questions.
Do you at lest believe in evolution or are you completely stubborn?
No, I don't believe in the theory of (Darwinian) evolution.
And it's only my fault if you believe in a thing called free will. If ultimately there is no free will, but just our biochemical reactions that determine our thoughts and inclinations, then no one can be blamed for anything (not even criminals). We'd all simply be marching to our own biological beats - slaves to our own chemistry. That's essentially Sam Harris' position anyways.
On the other hand, if there is a God akin to the Judeo-Christian one, there would ultimately be no free will, just our actions in accordance with the very specific nature of God's creation (both the world and us) in the face of his omniscience and omnipotence. We'd simply be marching according to his plan - slaves to our divine creator.
That's essentially John Calvin's position anyway :P
How does God's omniscience and omnipotence negate our free will? Because He knows our choices ahead of time, that somehow means we don't get to make the choice?
Yes. If God is "the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end", that means that God exists across (or at least knowledge of all of ) time. If God also is responsible for all of creation, that means that God created everything and everyone just the way it (and they) are, with full knowledge of what everything and everyone would do.
This means that during creation, God set a series of countless events in motion, essentially "leading" our "free will" to the point where our conscious choices are based on variables he set in place, all leading to conclusions that he planned.
Knowledge of what someone will do in the future doesn't equate to a loss of their free will. I know, for instance, that if I offer my son the choice between eating a bowl of ice cream or a bowl of maggots, he will choose ice cream. I'm certain of it. Does that mean he didn't have free will to make his own choice, just because I had foreknowledge of his choice? And I'm not omniscient, yet even I can know these things in advance without violating someone's free will.
Knowledge of what someone will do in the future doesn't equate to a loss of their free will.
If it was only limited to that you would be right. Knowledge of what someone will do in the future in accordance with how you set everything up and with complete ability to change each and every aspect of reality with complete knowledge of how that would change what someone will do as well does equate to a loss of free will.
I know, for instance, that if I offer my son the choice between eating a bowl of ice cream or a bowl of maggots, he will choose ice cream. I'm certain of it. Does that mean he didn't have free will to make his own choice, just because I had foreknowledge of his choice? And I'm not omniscient, yet even I can know these things in advance without violating someone's free will.
Without omniscience and omnipotence, the comparison does not work. If you knew everything your child thought, created him in such a way that he would never choose maggots, then presented him this choice, then there really isn't any choice at all, at least in comparison to the biological drives that you claimed were not free will. It's a simple reaction to set stimuli that led to a predicted (and orchestrated) response in accordance with a plan.
The laws of logic and physics were set from the beginning, so I don't understand this escape hatch you're giving yourself, to say that since God could "change each and every aspect of reality" that somehow removes our free will. Do you have evidence that He's done this, i.e. used His omnipotence to remove all choices from our reality? Back to my example, as a parent, I have the complete ability to change the dinner choices for my kid, but in my example I still gave him the choice, regardless of my ability to limit him to one.
"created him in such a way that he would never choose maggots"
That's a leap on your part. Who ever said that God created us in such a way that we'd never choose one option over another? No where in the Bible does it say we're pre-programmed to only pick one particular choice. The closest it comes is to say we're created in His image, but that even suggests we're largely on our own, since being created in someone's image or likeness isn't the same as being their exact clone.
The laws of logic and physics were set from the beginning, so I don't understand this escape hatch you're giving yourself, to say that since God could "change each and every aspect of reality" that somehow removes our free will.
In part because God was the one who created the laws of logic and physics as they are. It's that he created the "illusion" of free will, in that we are "allowed" to choose a decision that has already been made for us. I do not consider that to be free will at all as we would have no ability to change the "destiny" laid out before us by God via his method of creation and his knowledge when doing so.
That's a leap on your part. Who ever said that God created us in such a way that we'd never choose one option over another?
I think you are missing what "Alpha and Omega, beginning and the end" truly entails. Again, this means that he knew every single thing that would happen as a result of every aspect of creation. Every single one. So when he created you, he knew, before you were born, every single choice you would ever make, and knew those choices would be made due to criteria fulfilled by aspects of creation. When he created me, he would have known that I would not be a theist, even if I "chose" to try to believe, simply because of the events that happened in my life that led me to this point, all of which happened in accordance with how he created our reality.
I truly fail to see how it is a choice if it is impossible to change the future God already set.
You keep saying that, but how has the decision been made for us already? All you offer to support that statement is your notion that God created us in such a way that we'd never choose one thing over another. Being the Alpha and the Omega is seeing the end from the beginning. I believe God exists outside of our time domain, He's not limited like we are here - i.e. no "fog of war". Sure He can see you'd become an atheist (He might even see how you'll one day become a theist). Just because He has that view, doesn't mean we don't have a choice. His being omniscient doesn't remove our freedom to choose. We don't see the end from the beginning, we make decisions in our lives with the limited, natural knowledge that we have at hand. I agree 100% that He knows what we're going to decide, but it's still our decision that we make, not His.
You keep saying that, but how has the decision been made for us already? All you offer to support that statement is your notion that God created us in such a way that we'd never choose one thing over another.
I have stated it clearly: When you create something knowing what choice will be made, with full ability to manipulate the criteria that lead to that choice knowing what changes would occur, then a choice isn't actually made at all for the person in question. The illusion of choice remains, sure, but one couldn't "choose" something that differed from what God knew was going to happen and what he set up.
Being the Alpha and the Omega is seeing the end from the beginning. I believe God exists outside of our time domain, He's not limited like we are here - i.e. no "fog of war". Sure He can see you'd become an atheist (He might even see how you'll one day become a theist). Just because He has that view, doesn't mean we don't have a choice
It isn't just that he sees it, it's that omniscience and the omnipotence. That's the key: The fact that he has complete power over everything and knows the ramifications of every single aspect of every single part of reality.
You claim that I only have a limited argument, but I don't see you providing any counter argument. You keep saying we still have a choice, but I see no way in which a legitimate choice (again, instead of just an illusion of a choice) can occur.
It's like a prisoner "deciding" to stay in prison: Yes, they can consciously "choose" that, but it really is irrelevant because they have no means of choosing otherwise, so it isn't a legitimate choice at all. It seems to me like we have different concepts of what a "choice" entails.
And I've asked repeatedly: Do you have any evidence at all, that the Bible claims God is constantly manipulating reality, interfering in our lives in such a way as to remove our choices? Having the ability to manipulate is not the same as actually doing it. You don't see that?
"The fact that he has complete power over everything and knows the ramifications of every single aspect of every single part of reality."
Yes I agree with that statement - however it doesn't prove that He's interfering. Just because He knows what your future decisions will be, doesn't mean He's made those decisions for you. He just knows what you're going to decide once you get to that point.
The prisoner is limited by his environment (just like we are - ie I can't decide to fly like superman). But he can decide to be a model prisoner, or a trouble-maker. Those are decisions that exist within his environment. The warden isn't controlling which choice he'll eventually make - sure he can encourage good behaviour with incentives and discourage bad behaviour with penalties, but the choice ultimately belongs to the prisoner.
And I've asked repeatedly: Do you have any evidence at all, that the Bible claims God is constantly manipulating reality, interfering in our lives in such a way as to remove our choices? Having the ability to manipulate is not the same as actually doing it. You don't see that?
He wouldn't have to constantly manipulate anything: As I said, he created everything as it was knowing what would happen. He doesn't need to be constantly manipulating anything in order for that original plan to be adhered to.
Yes I agree with that statement - however it doesn't prove that He's interfering. Just because He knows what your future decisions will be, doesn't mean He's made those decisions for you. He just knows what you're going to decide once you get to that point.
You keep saying that while refusing (intentionally or, more likely, unintentionally) the important part of this: He knows just what you are going to decide when you get that point, and made everything in such a way that you would decide the way you do.
The prisoner is limited by his environment (just like we are - ie I can't decide to fly like superman). But he can decide to be a model prisoner, or a trouble-maker.
Any reason you didn't address the "choice" I referred to, as opposed to creating a different one?
Those are decisions that exist within his environment. The warden isn't controlling which choice he'll eventually make - sure he can encourage good behaviour with incentives and discourage bad behaviour with penalties, but the choice ultimately belongs to the prisoner.
Except the warden, unlike God, has no power over our personality. The warden does have power, like God, over where we are located, hence why I made the comparison that I did (and would still like a response to).
"He knows just what you are going to decide when you get that point, and made everything in such a way that you would decide the way you do."""
This is your own conjecture - not Biblical fact. There is nothing in the Bible that says God has predetermined our decisions for us. And I'm refusing your conjecture intentionally. I'm also challenging you, again, to cite the verse that proves me wrong. So far you've not done so.
"Any reason you didn't address the "choice" I referred to, as opposed to creating a different one?"
I didn't see a reason to, because it has no logical bearing on your analogy. If the prison represents our universe/world/reality, and the prisoner is us, then a prisoner "choosing" to say in prison would be like you or I "choosing" to stay in reality. There actually is a way to choose to leave reality, but I don't advocate it. I think you used that word incorrectly - the correct analogy is the prisoner who chooses to be either a good or bad prisoner, while still in prison. That's like you or I choosing to live in this world morally or immorally.
"Except the warden, unlike God, has no power over our personality"
More conjecture - you assume that God's power over all things is somehow the same as God constantly using His power over all things.
This is your own conjecture - not Biblical fact. There is nothing in the Bible that says God has predetermined our decisions for us. And I'm refusing your conjecture intentionally. I'm also challenging you, again, to cite the verse that proves me wrong. So far you've not done so.
You have already agreed to literally every premise involved. If god is all knowing, all powerful, and the creator of everything, then everything I have said is Biblically based. I am not coming up with this out of nowhere, John Calvin wrote a lot about it.
I didn't see a reason to, because it has no logical bearing on your analogy. If the prison represents our universe/world/reality, and the prisoner is us, then a prisoner "choosing" to say in prison would be like you or I "choosing" to stay in reality.
The comparison works just fine, because it is the concept of making a choice that has no bearing on the result. The "prison" would represent God's plan, not reality.
There actually is a way to choose to leave reality, but I don't advocate it.
If you are a Christian, then I find it hard to believe that you think that is true. Heaven and Hell would, after all, still be a part of "reality".
I think you used that word incorrectly - the correct analogy is the prisoner who chooses to be either a good or bad prisoner, while still in prison. That's like you or I choosing to live in this world morally or immorally.
No, I didn't use the word incorrectly, nor did I form my analogy correctly. I avoided behavior because then we would have to go down the rabbit hole of God's impact on one's attitudes and actions on a personal level, and that would take us days at this rate.
More conjecture - you assume that God's power over all things is somehow the same as God constantly using His power over all things.
No, I don't. You are the only one who has made any comment about God constantly interfering. I in fact explicitly stated I did not think God had to be constantly interfering for my premise to remain true.
"You have already agreed to literally every premise involved."
Every premise EXCEPT that God constantly interferes in our lives. That's what I dispute and what you haven't proven. If you're now telling me to go read Calvin, then I suspect you can't prove it and you know it.
"The "prison" would represent God's plan, not reality."
That's a very odd analogy then. We have a very linear way of thinking, so it's understandable, but not logical, for you to assume God would be limited in that way too. God's plan cannot be thwarted - I agree with that - but His plan for us would have taken into consideration all of our choices (made of our own free will) and the plan's "construction" would've occurred outside of time (not trapped within it), so in a way we're all freely participating in His plan right now - He just knows what role we'll elect to play.
"If you are a Christian, then I find it hard to believe that you think that is true. Heaven and Hell would, after all, still be a part of "reality"."
True enough. At that point, I saw your "prison" as a type of this mortal life, but yes I do believe Heaven and Hell are part of reality. Hell may be a bit different though, as the worst part about Hell (i.e. the reason for the gnashing of teeth) is due to it's separation from God.
"I in fact explicitly stated I did not think God had to be constantly interfering for my premise to remain true."
Not true at all. You explicitly claimed that God created us in a way that we would never choose something, then you followed up with saying our decisions have already been made for us. That constitutes constant interference, to say never choose or decisions already made, but here are your quotes if you don't believe me:
"created him in such a way that he would never choose maggots"
"in that we are "allowed" to choose a decision that has already been made for us"
Every premise EXCEPT that God constantly interferes in our lives. That's what I dispute and what you haven't proven. If you're now telling me to go read Calvin, then I suspect you can't prove it and you know it.
This is the third time that God does not have to constantly interfere in our lives for my premise, and I never claimed he did. I haven't proven it because I haven't claimed it.
That's a very odd analogy then. We have a very linear way of thinking, so it's understandable, but not logical, for you to assume God would be limited in that way too. God's plan cannot be thwarted - I agree with that - but His plan for us would have taken into consideration all of our choices (made of our own free will) and the plan's "construction" would've occurred outside of time (not trapped within it), so in a way we're all freely participating in His plan right now - He just knows what role we'll elect to play.
And in my analogy, we would be "Freely" participating in the same way that a prisoner "freely" decides to stay in prison. That's the entire point of the analogy. He knows what role we'll elect to play, how we'll play it, why we'll play it, and what made us play it, and he set everything into motion that led to just that.
Not true at all. You explicitly claimed that God created us in a way that we would never choose something, then you followed up with saying our decisions have already been made for us. That constitutes constant interference, to say never choose or decisions already made, but here are your quotes if you don't believe me:
None of that logically follows, same with your quotes. It requires assumptions that simply are not reasonable. That's like saying that because God created the world, he is constantly interfering in the world.
I am saying that within the Christian creation myth (7 days and all that), everything was known to him. He knew everyone who would be born, and every decision he would make, and he knew what changes occurred with every different aspect of creation that followed. That means that my premise completely follows without God constantly interfering in our lives.
You said our decisions have already been made for us. Do you deny saying that?
No.
How do you suggest that's not an example of interference?
I literally just explained in the post you are responding to: "I am saying that within the Christian creation myth (7 days and all that), everything was known to him. He knew everyone who would be born, and every decision he would make, and he knew what changes occurred with every different aspect of creation that followed. That means that my premise completely follows without God constantly interfering in our lives."
Note the difference between constant, ongoing interference, and an original interference that occurred at the time of creation whose effects are simply ongoing.
"He knows what role we'll elect to play, how we'll play it, why we'll play it, and what made us play it, and he set everything into motion that led to just that."
Prisoners have been known to escape prison, so I think your analogy is flawed in more than one way, but you say that He "set everything into motion that led to just that". Where do you get that from - that God set everything into motion in order to lead us by our noses?
"That means that my premise completely follows without God constantly interfering in our lives."
No, I'll remind you again that you claimed God was making decisions for us. If true, then I'd agree - we'd have no free will in that scenario.
Prisoners have been known to escape prison, so I think your analogy is flawed in more than one way, but you say that He "set everything into motion that led to just that". Where do you get that from - that God set everything into motion in order to lead us by our noses?
Because he created everything already knowing how it would end and every step along the way. What else would you call it?
No, I'll remind you again that you claimed God was making decisions for us. If true, then I'd agree - we'd have no free will in that scenario.
No I didn't. I never claimed that he is consciously making decisions for us all the time. I said that he already decided. Past tense.
Who cares what tense you used - even if He already decided our decisions for us, that's still making the claim that He did in fact make our decisions instead of us. That's interference and you have yet to support that statement.
Who cares what tense you used - even if He already decided our decisions for us, that's still making the claim that He did in fact make our decisions instead of us.
Exactly, all PAST tense. That means it happened in the PAST. You are arguing that I am claiming God actively interferes every day which, for the last time, I have never claimed. I am claiming that he MADE the decisions for us at the moment of creation. I have articulated this time and time and time again but instead you have thrown out the simple linguistic concept of tense to understand what I am saying, for reasons that are beyond me.
For the last time: When God created everything, he saw every path that would be ever taken by every life form BEFORE they existed. As he changed his creation, he knew every change that would have on every choice that every life form would make. This means that he, in essence, made the decisions and put all life on their individual paths long BEFORE, and thus no constant interference is made.
Now please pay attention to tense. It is important.
"He knows what role we'll elect to play, how we'll play it, why we'll play it, and what made us play it, and he set everything into motion that led to just that."
Prisoners have been known to escape prison, so I think your analogy is flawed in more than one way, but you say that He "set everything into motion that led to just that". Where do you get that from - that God set everything into motion in order to lead us by our noses?
"That means that my premise completely follows without God constantly interfering in our lives."
No, I'll remind you again that you claimed God was making decisions for us. If true, then I'd agree - we'd have no free will in that scenario.
I knew you would reply to me. I knew you just couldn't let me get the last word. Does that mean I took away your free will because I knew that? See my response to TrumpsHair for further clarification (I don't want to copy and paste).
I knew you just couldn't let me get the last word.
I had no idea that you thought you said something so profound that it didn't warrant a response.
Does that mean I took away your free will because I knew that?
You wrote something down that allowed me to read it. Upon reading it I decided to respond based on the chemical reactions in my head. So, apparently, according to you, yes, you did.
"You wrote something down that allowed me to read it. Upon reading it I decided to respond based on the chemical reactions in my head."
Then do you agree with Harris, that free will is an illusion and no one has any real culpability for their actions? In that case, you must also believe that thought doesn't really exist either. It's just the product of predictable, predetermined chemical reactions within our brains. Why do atheists call themselves "free thinkers"?
You're not giving much substance in this debate anymore. If anything, your replies are getting more and more pretentious. If you don't agree with Harris, then you're contradicting yourself when you say: "Upon reading it I decided to respond based on the chemical reactions in my head." That sounds like an argument against free will to me.
"Because they don't say "I have God, I don't need a real answer"."
Again, you're getting a little touchy, but let's look closer at this notion of atheistic "free thinkers". If atheism is correct, then there couldn't be anything but the material, natural world - no room for the supernatural (ie anything above and beyond the natural, which free will would certainly be). In that case, no atheist could claim to "think" at all - and definitely not in a "free" manner. Their "thoughts" would merely be the result of chemical processes fizzing in their brains, and it wouldn't be "free", but rather predetermined.
The second part of your post is a non sequitur. Just because thoughts would be based upon chemicals and firing neurons does not mean a thought is predetermined, it simply means that there are physical influences at play.
To be fair, it is an incredibly interesting thing to distinguish.
The idea of physical processes via chemicals in our brain and electrical impulses sent along neural pathways creating seemingly incorporeal concepts and sentences known only to us is...odd.
You're not giving much substance in this debate anymore.
Yeah, that started when you started ignoring my substance.
If you don't agree with Harris, then you're contradicting yourself when you say: "Upon reading it I decided to respond based on the chemical reactions in my head." That sounds like an argument against free will to me.
What was my sentence after that?
Again, you're getting a little touchy, but let's look closer at this notion of atheistic "free thinkers".
No, let's look at both atheistic thinkers and theistic thinkers. Which group is looking for answers and which group has declared they have the answer?
If atheism is correct, then there couldn't be anything but the material, natural world - no room for the supernatural (ie anything above and beyond the natural, which free will would certainly be).
False. Atheism is strictly against a supernatural being.
In that case, no atheist could claim to "think" at all
Thinking is natural for everyone ... except Theists, I guess.
and definitely not in a "free" manner.
This is the problem I have with Theists. You guys think freedom is supernatural.
Their "thoughts" would merely be the result of chemical processes fizzing in their brains, and it wouldn't be "free", but rather predetermined.
Chemical processes are subject to such tiny changes that it can't be considered predetermined.
This sentence was pointless. It was pointless because you knew I believed in free will and was merely playing devil's advocate with you. Is that the "substance" I ignored?
"False. Atheism is strictly against a supernatural being."
Really? Can you list some things you consider to be supernatural?
"Thinking is natural for everyone ... except Theists, I guess."
And thinking is nothing more than the natural, chemical process of our brains to you, correct?
"Chemical processes are subject to such tiny changes that it can't be considered predetermined."
It doesn't matter how tiny the changes are, they'd still be chemical and ultimately predetermined by our chemistry.
It was pointless because you knew I believed in free will and was merely playing devil's advocate with you.
And that's a problem why?
Is that the "substance" I ignored?
No, before that I said that Atheism fits Occam's razor better than Theism. The sentences that immediately followed that explained exactly why I said it. Your next response only involved you asking me to explain why Atheism fits Occam's razor better.
Really? Can you list some things you consider to be supernatural?
The singularity that started the universe would have been supernatural.
And thinking is nothing more than the natural, chemical process of our brains to you, correct?
Yes. Are you suggesting that thoughts are independent of brain chemistry and just implanted by God?
It doesn't matter how tiny the changes are, they'd still be chemical and ultimately predetermined by our chemistry.
"Yes. Are you suggesting that thoughts are independent of brain chemistry and just implanted by God?"
Free thought (and in particular free will) is more than mere brain chemistry, yes. Implanted by God? Sometimes, but I believe it's very rare.
"No, before that I said that Atheism fits Occam's razor better than Theism."
To say atheism fits Occam's razor better than theism, because there's less "layers" with atheism, is to completely ignore uniformity, logical absolutes (or physical absolutes if you prefer), objective morality and the idea of free will. When those "layers" are factored in - atheism fails. Theism then becomes the only logical fit.
"Everything that Atheism can't answer about nature without God is something Theists can't answer about their God."
Try me - what can't we answer about our God? Is it the old "can God make a rock too big to lift" line again?
"The singularity that started the universe would have been supernatural."
According to some, the universe was "created" by gravity. Do you think that's logical?
One definition of "predetermine" is: To direct or impel; influence strongly. I think that fits nicely.
It is neither. It is a device to get people to think critically ... but you are a Theist.
Free thought (and in particular free will) is more than mere brain chemistry, yes. Implanted by God? Sometimes, but I believe it's very rare.
I am afraid that you hoping for free will to be more than just brain chemistry isn't convincing for me.
To say atheism fits Occam's razor better than theism, because there's less "layers" with atheism, is to completely ignore uniformity, logical absolutes (or physical absolutes if you prefer), objective morality and the idea of free will.
How did God get uniformity? How did God get absolutes? How did God get objective morality? How did God get free will? You have not eliminated any of these problems. Every aspect you attribute to God is only attributed to God because you need something to explain the universe.
Try me - what can't we answer about our God?
Everything. What created God? What gave God absolutes? What gave God uniformity? We will start there.
Is it the old "can God make a rock too big to lift" line again?
No, that isn't a question that can be asked of nature.
According to some, the universe was "created" by gravity. Do you think that's logical?
Yeah, it is logical, but unknown.
One definition of "predetermine" is: To direct or impel; influence strongly. I think that fits nicely.
Wrong again. Chemicals do not direct or impel thoughts. Chemicals don't influence thoughts strongly. Chemical reactions can result in thoughts.
"It is a device to get people to think critically ... but you are a Theist."
Am I getting to you Cartman?
"I am afraid that you hoping for free will to be more than just brain chemistry isn't convincing for me."
If that's your idea of a substantial rebuttal, then you're not all that convincing to me either.
"How did God get uniformity?" It's a reflection of God's mind.
"How did God get absolutes?" It's a reflection of God's mind.
"How did God get objective morality?" It's a reflection of God's just nature.
"How did God get free will?" God doesn't need free will. Free will is a necessary device to allow us to have faith in Him.
He didn't get anything - that's not logical. To suggest otherwise would necessitate another source before and/or above God, but then God wouldn't be God, now would He?
"What created God?" All things require a cause, except for the first cause, unless you want to believe the universe is infinite. Nothing could've created God, that's not logical.
"You have not eliminated any of these problems. Every aspect you attribute to God is only attributed to God because you need something to explain the universe."
I've given you at least some answers - you can ignore them if you like, but it's a lot more than you've given me. You tell me that we don't need to know these things, then proceed to stick your head in the sand.
If that's your idea of a substantial rebuttal, then you're not all that convincing to me either.
The only reasoning you presented was your hope. Your hope doesn't convince me.
It's a reflection of God's mind.
A presupposition just like Atheism. Woah.
He didn't get anything - that's not logical.
It is logical if you apply the logic the Theist argument makes toward Atheism against Theism.
To suggest otherwise would necessitate another source before and/or above God, but then God wouldn't be God, now would He?
You believe there is something before and above the universe. There isn't really a difference.
All things require a cause, except for the first cause, unless you want to believe the universe is infinite. Nothing could've created God, that's not logical.
Everything that exists has a creator. God doesn't have a creator. God doesn't exist. Logic!
I've given you at least some answers
All of your answers sound like an Atheist argument. All of your answers are "because I need God to have that". That's exactly the problem you have with Atheism.
you can ignore them if you like,
I think you will assume I have ignored your answers, but I haven't.
but it's a lot more than you've given me.
It is exactly what I have given you.
You tell me that we don't need to know these things, then proceed to stick your head in the sand.
You stop with "a reflection of God's mind." How is that so great?
True, otherwise we wouldn't be theists... but we don't conclude, as you recently did, that since God doesn't need a creator, God doesn't exist. You're operating under a false premise that everything needs a creator - but really it's everything that is created needs a creator. The Creator doesn't need a creator since that would be illogical. The buck has to stop somewhere - otherwise you end up with an infinite regression of creations.
"You can't demonstrate what was created and what wasn't."
But evidently you can. Or so it seems, when you claim the "universe doesn't need a creator because it wasn't created." Can you demonstrate that it wasn't created, like you claim?
"So, stop with the universe and you don't need God."
Right - stick your head back in the sand. You'll discover a lot about the universe that way.
So, when we do have the answer you still look for a different answer. Since you resist science I see no point in arguing with you about who is actually scientific.
Ladies and gentlemen I asked the creator of this debate---WastingAway--- one simple question but fundamental question.......... I asked him to define God.
Your entire argument was "We can't have evidence of a god (not true) therefore we mus presume God exists (also not true)" and then you proceeded to defend that position by ignoring points made and repeating yourself. "I'm right because I'm right" is not a mentality that can expect anyone to respect. Your points were answered, and you lost the debate. Your blatant lack of arguments hitherto is proof of that.
You are religious. You call your religion "wasting away". In your religion, you pass your time wasting away as you try to convince yourself that you have the right to exist outside of Hell.
If I felt like "Hell" is a threat, I would try to find out for sure how I could never be threatened by it ever again in any way. I don't like threats. When I feel threatened, I try to see if the threat is real, and if it is or could be real, what measures can I take to be safe from it, if any? In reality, that is what your religion is, trying to make Hell go away but unable to fully persuade yourself that it is gone, so you keep doing whatever to try to keep yourself safe from it. Burying your head in the sand seems to work for now.
That is not an answer to this challenge. I wasn't being vague, and if you're really so confident then you should have no problem with it.
Give me a legitimate answer, if you keep dodging the question and resorting to the bullshit you have always used then I will ban you from the debate.
I'm not being unreasonable, I'm not being vauge. You can't make unwarranted claims without evidence and expect them to go unchallenged purely out of those claims. Give. Me. Proof.
You want a "legitimate" answer? That's legal talk. So is "justified". Death is justice for sinners. Hell is eternal dying, it is legitimate punishment for creatures who have turned against their Creator.
You are trying to legitimize yourself when in reality you cannot justify your living. If you could justify your living, you would not have to die. God gives you time because He does not want you dying forever. He wants you to be saved, legitimately. The only way that God can be legitimate to save you when your sins against Him demand His justice is to take your punishment on Himself, and that's what He did as the Son of God on the cross for you, shed His life's blood to pay your debt so you can be forgiven in His resurrection. If you can't find legitimacy in that, only the fire of Hell can legitimize your existence as a sinner and you will know it if you believe it now or if you wait until you can't get out before you believe it. The truth seems like a threat only if you are fighting against it. God loves you, stop fighting. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved from Hell. It's reality I'm talking about. Religion can't help you, you can't help yourself to stop your dying. Jesus is the Savior.
You need to challenge yourself. I do not feel threatened by Hell, I know my sins are forgiven and I am going to heaven, I know I have eternal life now and death cannot hurt me. I want everybody to know what I know, but most people are too proud and they think they have the right to exist outside of Hell because they are good enough to not be punished that way now.....but they are dying now, under the death penalty, on death row, that should be enough proof that they are not too good to be punished in death, even eternal death the same as the continual dying they are in now.....
the faith of God is reasonable, logical, legitimate. God is trying to reason with you to bring you into a peace agreement with Him so He can pardon you and bring you to Heaven. God loves you. He's being patient with you. His patience will run out eventually if you wont' stop fighting Him.
And thus, you have provided exactly the kind of answer I was expecting from you. Maybe you'll start to question things more closely when you mature, although judging by your current mental standpoint I doubt it.
He created a debate called reality vs. religion, and he had his religion as reality and actual reality as religion. He has everything backwards and you will never get a real answer.
Atheist I assume you're a rational person. So you would never claim there's no evidence for something if you cannot state what that evidence would consists of.
Otherwise your claim would be meaningless. So tell us, what evidence would that be ?
You are arguing that there is no evidence and it is ok that there is no evidence. You also argue that anyone who thinks there is no evidence is committing a fallacy. You are an idiot.
