#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.
|
Is God real?
What makes you think so?
I think there is no real way to prove either point.
Yes
Side Score: 11
|
No
Side Score: 37
|
|
A simple answer is yes. These kinds of things come from opinion, so I feel just because something like that hasn't been recognized by science does not mean it's not real. It also depends on the way you percieve God. If I were to say "God" is simply us and our consciousness, could that be proven easier? Yes. We always make things more complicated than they are, considering we are humans and we seek hope, truth and knowledge Side: Yes
3
points
A simple answer is yes. These kinds of things come from opinion, so I feel just because something like that hasn't been recognized by science does not mean it's not real. What reason is there to think god does exist though? Anything can be an opinion, I can have the opinion that 2 + 2 = 5, the question isn't if gods existence isn't an opinion or not, but if it is a correct opinion. It also depends on the way you percieve God. If I were to say "God" is simply us and our consciousness, could that be proven easier? Yes. True, however why call what already has a word for it god? Is conciousness not enough? We always make things more complicated than they are, considering we are humans and we seek hope, truth and knowledge The biggest thing humans seek, all humans. Comfort is a form of happiness and that is what a belief in god offers. Side: No
1
point
Well if it already exists it already has a name therefore there is no need to call it god. I personally don't believe in origin, when you think about it, an explanation to true origin is beyond our imagination and incrompehensible in and of itself. The reason is, no matter what explanation you come up with for the origin of everything, you now need to explain the origin of that, and the origin of that, and so on. I tried thinking about an origin cycle where we created our own origin to see if that could make any sense but then what created that cycle? Therefore, I realized though it seems that most things have a beginning and an end. I don't believe in a true beginning or true end. Side: Yes
No there are not. You just used a couple of Latin phrases to make you sound intelligent. This is what you actually said: 1. "Logically, from what came before, God is the only thing to believe in." Effectively, stuff happened before so God. That is an assumption, not logical. Just because we do not have complete scientific understanding does not make the most readily available belief true. 2. "Empirically, from what came after, there is evidence to support God." Effectively, stuff happened later so God. That is also an assumption, not empirical proof. If you are going to claim logic and empiricism then you are actually going to have to go to the effort of developing your argument, actually using both logic and empiric evidence. I do not anticipate that such proof will be forthcoming. Side: No
Response to Professor Craig (with his main points bolded and broken into lettered sub-points, to which there is a response for each). 1. There are good reasons to think that theism is true (aka God makes sense of the world). [A] The Origin of the Universe is not infinite in origin as atheists claim, and God must exist because something had to create an absolute beginning. Response: If the issue is that infinity does not exist then God is just as illogical because God either had to have existed in infinity prior to creating the universe or was otherwise created by something else, which becomes an infinite extrapolation. Effectively, theism does not establish an absolute beginning at all but instead introduces an abstract idea of God that falls to the same critique. [B] Initial conditions of the Big Bang were fine-tuned with delicacy and precision to create intelligent life that defies human comprehension. This cannot be due to chance because there is a pattern to which the event of creation adheres. Response This argument makes the usual fallacy of mistaking a lack of knowledge as a validation for an unsubstantiated idea. There is no reason whatsoever that chance could not produce patterns, and Professor Craig never actually gives a rationale as to why patterns are a unique hallmark of design (he just asserts it). [C] There are objective moral values and duties in the world that cannot exist without theism. Response Morality is inherently relative and is a biologically and socially constructed consequence of evolution. There is no deeper meaning, and wanting there to be does not make it so. This argument is purely based upon an emotional desire and has no proof (whereas the socio-biological explanation does). There is no good and evil, and not believing in those ideas does not mean you must except evolutionarily disadvantageous behavior. [D] The historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth. He claimed divinity and was resurrected. Resurrection is “proven” by: empty tomb, people say they saw him post-death, and his disciples said so. There is no other explanation of these facts. Response Tombs can be empty for multiple reasons, and this does not prove resurrection. People can mistakenly observe someone who looks similar or accounts could have been entirely fabricated. And the disciples’ beliefs were written by the men who wrote the Bible. Hearsay is not admissible as actual evidence in any legitimate debate. There absolutely is a rational explanation for all of the above: the body was never placed in the tomb or was moved, the citings were fabricated, and the disciples’ accounts were prejudiced. [E]The personal experience of God. Response In other words, because you can experience a delusion it must be true. If one personally experiences that there are bugs on ones arms when there are not that does not make the bugs real. This is not even a remote approximation of a valid argument or proof.
2.There are not comparably good reasons to think that atheism is true. Professor Craig never spoke to this beyond the assertion, and I redirect you to my post in reply. P.S. You are welcome for doing all of your work for you. It is good form to actually summarize the argument instead of making your opponent articulate your argument and refute it. Side: No
1
point
P.S. You are welcome for doing all of your work for you. It is good form to actually summarize the argument instead of making your opponent articulate your argument and refute it. The fact that you watched a two hour video to expose the logical fallacies and delusions of said argument claimed inside the video deserves a good amount of respect, I do not have the attention span, nor the patience to deal with that agument tactic, and with that I envy your patience and willingness to expose the argument for what it is, I watched about twenty minutes of it that he in another argument was saying that, that his single point being expressed around twenty minutes with in the video, he later used the entire video as an argument, and I merely exclaimed that he should be willing to comprehend the points within the video and express it himself in his own words. You deserve a freaking upvote for that, for that you have gained some additional respect from me. Side: No
I am afflicted with both a stubborn curiosity and insomnia, and hence the end product that you have witnessed. I also had not heard William Craig debate before, and I find debates on the matter to be interesting since people tend to express similar ideas in different ways. I always get my hopes up for something truly challenging, but have always been disappointed. It was unfortunate that Peter Millican was not a stronger debater, but to be fair Professor Craig has considerably more experience with rhetoric. At any rate, I appreciate your comment greatly. The acknowledgement makes it feel like the effort was at least somewhat worth it since I don't realistically expect much of a counter-rebuttal. Side: No
1
point
The acknowledgement makes it feel like the effort was at least somewhat worth it since I don't realistically expect much of a counter-rebuttal. Well their is always a chance that your argument may sway Lolzors93, Lolzors93 and Vaan have seem to me in my experience the best debaters for their Christian perspective, (merely cause our arguments gotten the most in depth and complex) though I feel the more in depth and somewhat challenging the argument gets on this topic, the more it feels like mental jumping jacks and over-complication of the topic. We don't nearly get this in depth and complicate the existence of god as we do about the existence of unicorns after all. Side: No
Response: If the issue is that infinity does not exist then God is just as illogical because God either had to have existed in infinity prior to creating the universe or was otherwise created by something else, which becomes an infinite extrapolation. Effectively, theism does not establish an absolute beginning at all but instead introduces an abstract idea of God that falls to the same critique. The argument is invalid: God does not apply to the natural world. You cannot subtract a supernatural element from a supernatural element. Moreover, should the universe be infinite, then uniformitarianism is not true, thus evolutionary evidence falls short. Response This argument makes the usual fallacy of mistaking a lack of knowledge as a validation for an unsubstantiated idea. There is no reason whatsoever that chance could not produce patterns, and Professor Craig never actually gives a rationale as to why patterns are a unique hallmark of design (he just asserts it). He gave an explanation. When you see something with extraordinary complexity, one must determine that it was designed. He gave quotes from scientists who even said it was seemingly designed. Response Morality is inherently relative and is a biologically and socially constructed consequence of evolution. There is no deeper meaning, and wanting there to be does not make it so. This argument is purely based upon an emotional desire and has no proof (whereas the socio-biological explanation does). There is no good and evil, and not believing in those ideas does not mean you must except evolutionarily disadvantageous behavior. Morality being based in evolution is illogical: there still is not moral prescriber. Moreover, this would validate murder. Is murder moral? Everyone knows it isn't. Response Tombs can be empty for multiple reasons, and this does not prove resurrection. People can mistakenly observe someone who looks similar or accounts could have been entirely fabricated. And the disciples’ beliefs were written by the men who wrote the Bible. Hearsay is not admissible as actual evidence in any legitimate debate. There absolutely is a rational explanation for all of the above: the body was never placed in the tomb or was moved, the citings were fabricated, and the disciples’ accounts were prejudiced. "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}" -Josephus. And if you want to challenge the fact that Josephus' writings were tampered with, then http://web1.calbaptist.edu/jcate/cst100/PDF%20Docs/5%20-%20Josephus%20on%20Jesus.pdf "The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD) The Toledot Yeshu is a medieval Jewish retelling of the life of Jesus. It is completely anti-Christian, to be sure. There are many versions of these ‘retellings’, and as part of the transmitted oral and written tradition of the Jews, we can presume their original place in antiquity, dating back to the time of Jesus’ first appearance as an influential leader who was drawing Jews away from their faith in the Law. The Toledot Yeshu contains a determined effort to explain away the miracles of Jesus, and to deny the virgin birth. In some places, the text is quite vicious, but it does confirm many elements of the New Testament writings. Let’s take a look at a portion of the text (Jesus is refered to as ‘Yehoshua’): “In the year 3671 (in Jewish reckonging, it being ca 90 B.C.) in the days of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He lived at Bethlehem, in Judah. Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste daughter named Miriam. Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man learned in the Torah and God-fearing. At the close of a certain Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, attractive and like a warrior in appearance, having gazed lustfully upon Miriam, knocked upon the door of her room and betrayed her by pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so, she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only against her will. Thereafter, when Yohanan came to her, Miriam expressed astonishment at behavior so foreign to his character. It was thus that they both came to know the crime of Joseph Pandera and the terrible mistake on the part of Miriam… Miriam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later deteriorated to Yeshu (“Yeshu” is the Jewish “name” for Jesus. It means “May His Name Be Blotted Out”). On the eighth day he was circumcised. When he was old enough the lad was taken by Miriam to the house of study to be instructed in the Jewish tradition. One day Yeshu walked in front of the Sages with his head uncovered, showing shameful disrespect. At this, the discussion arose as to whether this behavior did not truly indicate that Yeshu was an illegitimate child and the son of a niddah. Moreover, the story tells that while the rabbis were discussing the Tractate Nezikin, he gave his own impudent interpretation of the law and in an ensuing debate he held that Moses could not be the greatest of the prophets if he had to receive counsel from Jethro. This led to further inquiry as to the antecedents of Yeshu, and it was discovered through Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah that he was the illegitimate son of Joseph Pandera. Miriam admitted it. After this became known, it was necessary for Yeshu to flee to Upper Galilee. After King Jannaeus, his wife Helene ruled over all Israel. In the Temple was to be found the Foundation Stone on which were engraven the letters of God’s Ineffable Name. Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able to do whatever he wished. Therefore, the Sages took measures so that no one should gain this knowledge. Lions of brass were bound to two iron pillars at the gate of the place of burnt offerings. Should anyone enter and learn the Name, when he left the lions would roar at him and immediately the valuable secret would be forgotten. Yeshu came and learned the letters of the Name; he wrote them upon the parchment which he placed in an open cut on his thigh and then drew the flesh over the parchment. As he left, the lions roared and he forgot the secret. But when he came to his house he reopened the cut in his flesh with a knife an lifted out the writing. Then he remembered and obtained the use of the letters. He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu proclaimed, “I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah prophesied and said, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.’” He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, “David my ancestor prophesied concerning me: ‘The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.’” The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the Highest. When word of these happenings came to Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin decided to bring about the capture of Yeshu. They sent messengers, Annanui and Ahaziah, who, pretending to be his disciples, said that they brought him an invitation from the leaders of Jerusalem to visit them. Yeshu consented on condition the members of the Sanhedrin receive him as a lord. He started out toward Jerusalem and, arriving at Knob, acquired an ass on which he rode into Jerusalem, as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah. The Sages bound him and led him before Queen Helene, with the accusation: “This man is a sorcerer and entices everyone.” Yeshu replied, “The prophets long ago prophesied my coming: ‘And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,’ and I am he; but as for them, Scripture says ‘Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.’” Queen Helene asked the Sages: “What he says, is it in your Torah?” They replied: “It is in our Torah, but it is not applicable to him, for it is in Scripture: ‘And that prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.’ He has not fulfilled the signs and conditions of the Messiah.” Yeshu spoke up: “Madam, I am the Messiah and I revive the dead.” A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly moved and said: “This is a true sign.” She reprimanded the Sages and sent them humiliated from her presence. Yeshu’s dissident followers increased and there was controversy in Israel. Yeshu went to Upper Galilee. the Sages came before the Queen, complaining that Yeshu practiced sorcery and was leading everyone astray. Therefore she sent Annanui and Ahaziah to fetch him. The found him in Upper Galilee, proclaiming himself the Son of God. When they tried to take him there was a struggle, but Yeshu said to the men of Upper Galilee: “Wage no battle.” He would prove himself by the power which came to him from his Father in heaven. He spoke the Ineffable Name over the birds of clay and they flew into the air. He spoke the same letters over a millstone that had been placed upon the waters. He sat in it and it floated like a boat. When they saw this the people marveled. At the behest of Yeshu, the emissaries departed and reported these wonders to the Queen. She trembled with astonishment. Then the Sages selected a man named Judah Iskarioto and brought him to the Sanctuary where he learned the letters of the Ineffable Name as Yeshu had done. When Yeshu was summoned before the queen, this time there were present also the Sages and Judah Iskarioto. Yeshu said: “It is spoken of me, ‘I will ascend into heaven.’” He lifted his arms like the wings of an eagle and he flew between heaven and earth, to the amazement of everyone…Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves; but he could do nothing, for he no longer had the Ineffable Name. Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover. Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of the Name. That year the Passover came on a Sabbath day. On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to be found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten Commandments not to reveal his identity but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So it was done and Yeshu was seized. Asked his name, he replied to the question by several times giving the names Mattai, Nakki, Buni, Netzer, each time with a verse quoted by him and a counter-verse by the Sages. Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk, for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree.” They buried him outside the city. On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden. Queen Helene demanded, on threat of a severe penalty, that the body of Yeshu be shown to her within a period of three days. There was a great distress. When the keeper of the garden saw Rabbi Tanhuma walking in the field and lamenting over the ultimatum of the Queen, the gardener related what he had done, in order that Yeshu’s followers should not steal the body and then claim that he had ascended into heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse and transported it to the Queen, with the words, “This is Yeshu who is said to have ascended to heaven.” Realizing that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she mocked the followers but praised the Sages." http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/ This means that the grace was empty. The Apostles before the empty tomb did not believe that Jesus was to rise again, because the Jewish notion of the Christ was to be a savior king who would take back Israel for them, not to die. Therefore, the only excuse for the Apostles, and radical anti-Christians, turning all of a sudden deciding to believe in the resurrection is proof that Jesus was who He said He was. You might say that He never died. However, Tacitus says otherwise, “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” You might say, "The Apostles stole the body." However, “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59) Moreover, Jesus' predictions came true “Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14) In fact, He was said to have mystical powers: “Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.” http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/ It is intellectually dishonest to deny these things. It is intellectually dishonest to deny that God is not real. Response In other words, because you can experience a delusion it must be true. If one personally experiences that there are bugs on ones arms when there are not that does not make the bugs real. This is not even a remote approximation of a valid argument or proof. I don't disagree. P.S. You are welcome for doing all of your work for you. It is good form to actually summarize the argument instead of making your opponent articulate your argument and refute it. I didn't really care about the argument. You could have ignored it for all I care. haha Side: Yes
The argument is invalid: God does not apply to the natural world. You cannot subtract a supernatural element from a supernatural element. Seriously? God is only supernatural because you claim God is, and you have nothing to back that assertion up. Further, there is not even a reason why the supernatural should not be bound by the same analysis. Ultimately, the conundrum is identical: you still have something (supernatural or not) coming from nothing. If it is okay for God to be an exception for no good reason then it is at least as possible for the universe to be an exception. Moreover, should the universe be infinite, then uniformitarianism is not true, thus evolutionary evidence falls short. There is no reason whatsoever why uniformitarianism cannot be true if the universe is infinite, nor is there any reason why evolution would be invalidated even if it were a relatively recent development – the process is still documented and substantiated by proof. Besides, it was your Professor Craig that pointed out that the universe does have consistent patterns following from its point of origin so your argument collapses on itself. He gave an explanation. When you see something with extraordinary complexity, one must determine that it was designed. He gave quotes from scientists who even said it was seemingly designed. No, he did not. It is an absolute assertion with no rationale or evidence that something that is very complex must have been designed. The quotes he used were decontextualized misrepresentations of scientists who observed the patterns; there was no support for the extension he makes that this proves design. Morality being based in evolution is illogical: there still is not moral prescriber. Moreover, this would validate murder. Is murder moral? Everyone knows it isn't. For fucksake, no. It is absolutely not illogical, and there is scientific research that links moral reasoning and decision making and views with neurobiology. There are diagnosable conditions where, due to anomalies in the brain structure and chemistry, a person does not experience morality and it is actually inaccessible to them (so no, not everyone knows murder is wrong). Evolution prescribes our morality far more effectively than religion ever could, and having a genetically inherited and socially moderated morality does not validate murder. [Extraneous religious text citations.] It is intellectually dishonest to deny these things. It is intellectually dishonest to deny that God is not real. Bullshit. Citing religious text as actual evidence is as illogical and intellectually dishonest as citing the Lord of the Rings to prove that hobbits exist. You did not actually refute my points: empty tombs mean nothing, hearsay means nothing, and statements of the disciples in the very religious text being questioned mean nothing. These are not valid proofs in any intellectual light. I don't disagree. To be clear, you do not disagree that experiencing God is comparable to imagining there are bugs on your arms. They could both be equitably delusional and there is no proof that belief alone constitutes proof. Consequentially, belief that God is supernatural or that Biblical accountings are accurate do not constitute proof. Thanks. I didn't really care about the argument. You could have ignored it for all I care. Haha Truthfully, I have come to anticipate lazy debating from you. I pursued it because I have insomnia and I was bored. The same reason I am writing this reponse now. Side: No
Seriously? God is only supernatural because you claim God is, and you have nothing to back that assertion up. Further, there is not even a reason why the supernatural should not be bound by the same analysis. Ultimately, the conundrum is identical: you still have something (supernatural or not) coming from nothing. If it is okay for God to be an exception for no good reason then it is at least as possible for the universe to be an exception. God is a metaphysical necessity. Philosophers have long agreed... all the way back to Aristotle's notion of the unmoved mover. Here is Dr. Craig's explanation if you would like to reference it: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ There is no reason whatsoever why uniformitarianism cannot be true if the universe is infinite, nor is there any reason why evolution would be invalidated even if it were a relatively recent development – the process is still documented and substantiated by proof. Besides, it was your Professor Craig that pointed out that the universe does have consistent patterns following from its point of origin so your argument collapses on itself. If the universe is infinite, then the universe is infinitely in a state of disorder and infinitely increased in entropy. This is impossible, therefore, the universe had to change its laws. The argument doesn't collapse on itself: it is a hypothetical, not a realistic one to have an infinite universe. That is a logical fallacy. No, he did not. It is an absolute assertion with no rationale or evidence that something that is very complex must have been designed. The quotes he used were decontextualized misrepresentations of scientists who observed the patterns; there was no support for the extension he makes that this proves design. When you look at a computer, do you think that it randomly formed? Alright, well I can't debate with you if you aren't going to accept scientific assessments. For fucksake, no. It is absolutely not illogical, and there is scientific research that links moral reasoning and decision making and views with neurobiology. There are diagnosable conditions where, due to anomalies in the brain structure and chemistry, a person does not experience morality and it is actually inaccessible to them (so no, not everyone knows murder is wrong). Evolution prescribes our morality far more effectively than religion ever could, and having a genetically inherited and socially moderated morality does not validate murder. Morality doesn't exist if it is subjective; for it all falls to preference. Morality is no more than your preference for the color red or black or purple, and cannot be punished. Bullshit. Citing religious text as actual evidence is as illogical and intellectually dishonest as citing the Lord of the Rings to prove that hobbits exist. You did not actually refute my points: empty tombs mean nothing, hearsay means nothing, and statements of the disciples in the very religious text being questioned mean nothing. These are not valid proofs in any intellectual light. These are citations from non-Christian sources. Plus, Bart Ehrman, as Dr. Craig stated, believes all of these happened. It is intellectually dishonest. I have shown that the empty tomb was there; radical conversions or the Apostles and non-Christians happened; and people saw Him afterwards: it is only logical to believe in Jesus as the Christ. Otherwise, you must, to be logically consistent, must deny science and all sources that you have not experienced yourself. Side: Yes
God is a metaphysical necessity. Philosophers have long agreed... all the way back to Aristotle's notion of the unmoved mover. […] I am arguing that God is eternal because He is outside of the universe, which has evidence for a beginning. I grasp Craig’s argument perfectly well, and was expressly refuting it in my comments already. The argument is that the universe cannot be infinite because within the natural laws of the universe every effect has a cause. This is fallible because it assumes that internal consistency precludes an external inconsistency; it is entirely possible that the universe is infinite but ordered around natural laws in its infinite existence. Moreover, there is no reason to think that God makes any more sense as an explanation. You are simply substituting a loophole to fill in what we do not have an answer for, and your belief in God is entirely based upon assumptions for which there is no actual proof – you say God is eternal, that God is outside the universe, and so forth but you have absolutely no proof of this. You have made a concept, but that does not prove the concept true. Furthermore, there is no difference between saying that there was an infinite universe which generated natural law and that there was an infinite God which generated natural law. Additionally, I would add that while philosophers have long discussed the possibility of God and sought justifications there has never been nor is there currently an agreement in any sense of the word that God is a metaphysical necessity. If the universe is infinite, then the universe is infinitely in a state of disorder and infinitely increased in entropy. This is impossible, therefore, the universe had to change its laws. The argument doesn't collapse on itself: it is a hypothetical, not a realistic one to have an infinite universe. That is a logical fallacy. It does not immediately follow that the universe is infinitely disordered simply because it is infinite anymore than it would follow that God is disordered in the same fashion. Further, the universe is actually constantly increasing in entropy as its matter spreads further apart. The implications of that are not fully known, however it remains to be seen that your entropy argument validates the theist stance. When you look at a computer, do you think that it randomly formed? Alright, well I can't debate with you if you aren't going to accept scientific assessments. Do not be daft. Of course I do not think a computer is randomly formed, but my knowledge that it was designed comes not from its being complex but from my awareness that it is built – one can prove a computer is designed, one cannot prove the universe was. Further, it does not follow that because some complicated things are designed by humans all things in all of existence that reflect complex ordering are also designed. Morality doesn't exist if it is subjective; for it all falls to preference. Morality is no more than your preference for the color red or black or purple, and cannot be punished. Morality is subjective – no two societies have the same moral systems, Islam diverges from Christianity, individuals disagree on the morality of abortion, etc. – and in spite of that it does decidedly exist. It is not a matter of preference because we do not choose our biological inheritance nor do we control our social conditioning. Even if you were to successfully argue that there is not responsibility, this does not preclude accountability. We remain mutually accountable be virtue of evolutionary pressure. These are citations from non-Christian sources. Plus, Bart Ehrman, as Dr. Craig stated, believes all of these happened. It is intellectually dishonest. I have shown that the empty tomb was there; radical conversions or the Apostles and non-Christians happened; and people saw Him afterwards: it is only logical to believe in Jesus as the Christ. Otherwise, you must, to be logically consistent, must deny science and all sources that you have not experienced yourself. Unless you actually explicitly and clearly cite your sources then assume your opponent will not make the deductions for you. Whether the authors are Christian themselves the material is still derived from Christian doctrine and scripture so the arguments stand. Also, why the fuck should I care if some guy named Bart Ehrman says these things are true? Your appeal to authority does nothing to counter my refutation of the points he apparently argues for. Whether or not the empty tomb existed is irrelevant because as I have said repeatedly now the tomb could be empty for any number of reasons. It makes no more sense to cite an empty tomb as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than it would to say that the empty grave of John Doe is evidence that he has become a zombie. Radical conversions are not proof of anything. Not only do those predate and follow the purported resurrection of Jesus, but they can easily be explained as historical misrepresentations, styalizations, politicizations, or delusions. Saying some people back then started believing in something new does not have any more merit in debate than saying that you believe something to be true. It does not follow from my critique that I must deny science and all indirect experiences. The issue with your “proofs” is that they are not scientifically or empirically validated - other variables are not controlled for, they do not account for alternative explanations, and there are multiple reasons to consider them to be inaccurate reflections of actual fact. Side: No
I grasp Craig’s argument perfectly well, and was expressly refuting it in my comments already. The argument is that the universe cannot be infinite because within the natural laws of the universe every effect has a cause. This is fallible because it assumes that internal consistency precludes an external inconsistency; it is entirely possible that the universe is infinite but ordered around natural laws in its infinite existence. Moreover, there is no reason to think that God makes any more sense as an explanation. You are simply substituting a loophole to fill in what we do not have an answer for, and your belief in God is entirely based upon assumptions for which there is no actual proof – you say God is eternal, that God is outside the universe, and so forth but you have absolutely no proof of this. You have made a concept, but that does not prove the concept true. Furthermore, there is no difference between saying that there was an infinite universe which generated natural law and that there was an infinite God which generated natural law. If the external is not inconsistent, then it is not external. The argument is the proof and proves that God is a metaphysical necessity. It does not immediately follow that the universe is infinitely disordered simply because it is infinite anymore than it would follow that God is disordered in the same fashion. Further, the universe is actually constantly increasing in entropy as its matter spreads further apart. The implications of that are not fully known, however it remains to be seen that your entropy argument validates the theist stance. It does follow, precisely actually: (If the Laws of Thermodynamics state that nature continually goes to a state of more entropy, and there is infinite time in the past and the future, then we are infinitely in a state of infinite disorder.) And yet again, you are substituting God for the natural. Fallacies are abounding. Do not be daft. Of course I do not think a computer is randomly formed, but my knowledge that it was designed comes not from its being complex but from my awareness that it is built – one can prove a computer is designed, one cannot prove the universe was. Further, it does not follow that because some complicated things are designed by humans all things in all of existence that reflect complex ordering are also designed. I don't think you understand fully what is going in the world. Do you know how complex DNA is? Do you know how complex nature is? It is irreducibly complex. It doesn't necessarily follow that complexity is proof of God, but it does show a high likelihood of it. Thats when the other proofs further expound upon the proof. Morality is subjective – no two societies have the same moral systems, Islam diverges from Christianity, individuals disagree on the morality of abortion, etc. – and in spite of that it does decidedly exist. It is not a matter of preference because we do not choose our biological inheritance nor do we control our social conditioning. Even if you were to successfully argue that there is not responsibility, this does not preclude accountability. We remain mutually accountable be virtue of evolutionary pressure. Simply because there are many moral philosophies doesn't deny that morality is objective. We cannot be judged if morality is subjective, because morality is based in preference. If it is based in preference, then we have no responsibility to keep one morality over another. If we have no responsibility not basis for being judged, then we have no accountability, say for what another person desires in response to your actions. Unless you actually explicitly and clearly cite your sources then assume your opponent will not make the deductions for you. Whether the authors are Christian themselves the material is still derived from Christian doctrine and scripture so the arguments stand. Also, why the fuck should I care if some guy named Bart Ehrman says these things are true? Your appeal to authority does nothing to counter my refutation of the points he apparently argues for. I stated that they were from the Jewish leaders. There is nothing fallacious when appealing to authority: it is only fallacious if it is unqualified authority. Ehrman is the number one leading new testament secular scholar. Whether or not the empty tomb existed is irrelevant because as I have said repeatedly now the tomb could be empty for any number of reasons. It makes no more sense to cite an empty tomb as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than it would to say that the empty grave of John Doe is evidence that he has become a zombie. It was empty, therefore, the body had to go somewhere. Where did it go? Radical conversions are not proof of anything. Not only do those predate and follow the purported resurrection of Jesus, but they can easily be explained as historical misrepresentations, styalizations, politicizations, or delusions. Saying some people back then started believing in something new does not have any more merit in debate than saying that you believe something to be true. People saw the risen Jesus. There are records of people seeing Him. Moreover, the Jews of the time did not believe that the Messiah would die, let alone be resurrected (The Apostles even rejected this notion to Jesus' face). Therefore, for a radical conversion from a state of traditional Judaism for the Apostles and the Christian persecutors is evidence that something happened. Well, the tomb was empty, Jesus was seen risen after His supposed death, could He have been presumed dead but not? Well, with the radical conversions it shows that this is not the case. Look at the evidence and be honest with yourself. God is real and you know it. It does not follow from my critique that I must deny science and all indirect experiences. The issue with your “proofs” is that they are not scientifically or empirically validated - other variables are not controlled for, they do not account for alternative explanations, and there are multiple reasons to consider them to be inaccurate reflections of actual fact. It does actually. If you can't take the words of multiple historians from the time of Jesus, from the time after Jesus, and from modern times, then you cannot take the word of scientists. Therefore, you must see the evidence for yourself directly. It is logically inconsistent otherwise. Side: Yes
If the external is not inconsistent, then it is not external. The argument is the proof and proves that God is a metaphysical necessity. Actually, no, not true. Also, not actually a response. More of a regurgitation of the point I just refuted. It does follow, precisely actually: (If the Laws of Thermodynamics state that nature continually goes to a state of more entropy, and there is infinite time in the past and the future, then we are infinitely in a state of infinite disorder.) And yet again, you are substituting God for the natural. Fallacies are abounding. Logical coherence: not evident. Why does it follow? Why is being in a state of infinite disorder even problematic or contradictory? And if anyone is substituting anything for anything it is you substituting God to explain in nature what we do not yet understand. The only fallacy being committed is the assumption that a hypothetical is an absolute simply because there is a knowledge vacuum. I don't think you understand fully what is going in the world. Do you know how complex DNA is? Do you know how complex nature is? It is irreducibly complex. It doesn't necessarily follow that complexity is proof of God, but it does show a high likelihood of it. Thats when the other proofs further expound upon the proof. Says the person who believes a guy in the sky made the world; I mean seriously? But sure, just as no one totally understands everything that happens in the world I do not – the difference between us is that you prefer to substitute God into that knowledge gap rather than just acknowledging that we don’t know everything. Complexity in no way makes God more probable, it just makes nature complex. Maybe God could explain that complexity, but God is no more probable for the mere existence of complexity. Simply because there are many moral philosophies doesn't deny that morality is objective. We cannot be judged if morality is subjective, because morality is based in preference. If it is based in preference, then we have no responsibility to keep one morality over another. If we have no responsibility not basis for being judged, then we have no accountability, say for what another person desires in response to your actions. You did not actually listen to what I was saying. An objective system of morality must be a universal system, and any exception to morality makes objectivity an inherent non-reality. This does not make morality a matter of preference because we do not determine our morality, rather it is determined for us by the external pressure of evolutionary biology. There are normatively consistent behaviors to which the majority of the species is predisposed, however there is natural variation and the conflicts in society emerge from that divergence. Just as our morality is evolved, so to is the social response to aberrations from the behavioral norm. There is accountability not because something is actually wrong or because the person is responsible for their behavior, but because the evolved response to an individual violating generally held behavioral standards is that of sanction. Accountability is a socially evolved process which exists independent of actual responsibility or objective moral wrongs; it exists because it serves an evolutionary function of preserving overall social order and this perpetuates the species. Unless you actually explicitly and clearly cite your sources then assume your opponent will not make the deductions for you. Whether the authors are Christian themselves the material is still derived from Christian doctrine and scripture so the arguments stand. Also, why the fuck should I care if some guy named Bart Ehrman says these things are true? Your appeal to authority does nothing to counter my refutation of the points he apparently argues for. I stated that they were from the Jewish leaders. There is nothing fallacious when appealing to authority: it is only fallacious if it is unqualified authority. Ehrman is the number one leading new testament secular scholar. Being an authority does not make you infallible. Leading medical practitioners used to think that cholera was spread by miasma in the air. If they had been taken on their words simply because they were authorities, we never would have discovered that cholera is spread through contaminated drinking water. At any rate, he is a scholar on what was said by other people which still makes the accounts you provided hearsay rather than actual evidence. It was empty, therefore, the body had to go somewhere. Where did it go? Possiblities: the body was never put there to begin with, the body was removed by someone, or the reports were false (either of where he was buried or his body not being there). Any of these is vastly more probable than: he rose from the dead. I will repeat also that if we are to assume an empty tomb equates resurrection then do you think that every empty grave represents a risen zombie? I am going to guess that the answer is no. People saw the risen Jesus. There are records of people seeing Him. Moreover, the Jews of the time did not believe that the Messiah would die, let alone be resurrected (The Apostles even rejected this notion to Jesus' face). Therefore, for a radical conversion from a state of traditional Judaism for the Apostles and the Christian persecutors is evidence that something happened. Well, the tomb was empty, Jesus was seen risen after His supposed death, could He have been presumed dead but not? Well, with the radical conversions it shows that this is not the case. Look at the evidence and be honest with yourself. God is real and you know it. People say they saw the risen Jesus. Records saying people said they saw something is hearsay. Radical conversions can happen without reason. I mean, the belief in the Judeo-Christian God to begin was a pretty radical change from earlier religious belief and people started to believe that without proof. And if you’re going to claim there was proof for that, then consider that the belief in the Greek pantheon represented a radical shift too and there was no proof for that. It does actually. If you can't take the words of multiple historians from the time of Jesus, from the time after Jesus, and from modern times, then you cannot take the word of scientists. Therefore, you must see the evidence for yourself directly. It is logically inconsistent otherwise. Historians do not say that Jesus was resurrected, they say people said he was. If they claim otherwise without tangible, physical evidence then they are not following the scientific method so my disagreement with them does not void my confidence in actual scientific research and evidence. Side: No
1
point
|
3
points
I don't believe there is a god, I can't prove god doesn't exist however there still isn't a reason to believe in the first place. I can't disprove unicorns, and the statement "unicorns don't exist" is unbacked technically, howeverI don't believe unicorns don't exist as to ponder the question if they don't exist is silly since I have no reason to ponder that unicorns do exist in the first place. Side: No
1
point
Your argument did not sway me simple as that, I can understand why you think that because I haven't gotten back to you in a while but I was on vacation and I figured your lengthy argument deserved the attention I can give at home, on a laptop, rather than a few minutes of checking my phone between activities on vacation, you are welcome. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Pretty much except with the addition that is has been "documented" that some common people who we have no idea who they truly are, and have no reason to think are reliable apparently saw Jesus show signs of immortality, meaning that merely because he has a strong degree of invulnerablitiy (which is bullshit cause it is not strongly supported) must mean this person is supernatural and connected to god... Under his logic all mythology is equally valid... since all cultures have been documented in experiencing their own mythology apparently... Awesome now I can spend my entire life dedicated to figuring out how to summon Thor :D, I always wanted to meet that guy, it is so awesome knowing he is real now XD Side: Yes
1
point
http://www.godchecker.com/ here's some gods that are cooler than Thor :D :D Side: Yes
1. There is absolutely not a single factual or rational basis for thinking that god is real. 2. There is a significant body of research (behavioral genetic, neurobioligical, psychological) which indicates that God is a construct of the human mind. Studies have found that: (a) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (b) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (c) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2; (d) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels. Therefore: Lacking even minimal reason to believe that God is real and possessing ample evidence that God is a human construct, we can disprove the existence of God by explaining the origin of the idea of God as a byproduct of human imagination. Side: No
1
point
we can disprove the existence of God by explaining the origin of the idea of God as a byproduct of human imagination. I never looked at it that way either, though I would suspect at least some theists to say something along the lines "just because the idea is based on pure imagiation doesn't mean it is disproven". I think if religion wasn't so ingrained in our biology and society, they wouldn't be this defensive over the belief, as I find so many counter-arguments to be that of mental jumping jacks. Or a better way to put it, over-complicating the whole issue with inside ones head to make their beliefs make more sense to them. Side: No
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. Being able to prove something true and being able to convince people of that truth are too frequently separate things. Most theists would dismiss the research with some non-defensible response along the lines of god giving us that imagination. Which is again the same conundrum of proof versus no proof. Side: Yes
Called it. 1. No, there absolutely is not. Not a single theist ever has presented any actual evidence to support their beliefs. If you are going to come back on this point again, then bring your purported proof with you. Assertions do not an argument or evidence make. 2. Yes, it absolutely does. The research indicates that god is a construct of the human mind that was evolutionary selected for as a coping mechanism. It provides an explanation for an otherwise inexplicably pervasive belief in something for which there is no proof. How on earth does that explanation prove that god exists? If you are going the "god clearly gave us this imagination route" then (a) you have no proof or sound scientific reasoning to justify that claim whereas evolutionary theory is sound; and (b) you have to explain why a god(s) would then create so many different imaginations of god(s) and cause all of the strife that there is on account of those disparate beliefs. 3. Sorry to say, but I just did. Or at the very least I gave considerably more proof than the theist side of this debate ever has. Side: No
Response to Professor Craig (with his main points bolded and broken into lettered sub-points, to which there is a response for each). 1. There are good reasons to think that theism is true (aka God makes sense of the world). [A] The Origin of the Universe is not infinite in origin as atheists claim, and God must exist because something had to create an absolute beginning. Response: If the issue is that infinity does not exist then God is just as illogical because God either had to have existed in infinity prior to creating the universe or was otherwise created by something else, which becomes an infinite extrapolation. Effectively, theism does not establish an absolute beginning at all but instead introduces an abstract idea of God that falls to the same critique. [B] Initial conditions of the Big Bang were fine-tuned with delicacy and precision to create intelligent life that defies human comprehension. This cannot be due to chance because there is a pattern to which the event of creation adheres. Response This argument makes the usual fallacy of mistaking a lack of knowledge as a validation for an unsubstantiated idea. There is no reason whatsoever that chance could not produce patterns, and Professor Craig never actually gives a rationale as to why patterns are a unique hallmark of design (he just asserts it). [C] There are objective moral values and duties in the world that cannot exist without theism. Response Morality is inherently relative and is a biologically and socially constructed consequence of evolution. There is no deeper meaning, and wanting there to be does not make it so. This argument is purely based upon an emotional desire and has no proof (whereas the socio-biological explanation does). There is no good and evil, and not believing in those ideas does not mean you must except evolutionarily disadvantageous behavior. [D] The historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth. He claimed divinity and was resurrected. Resurrection is “proven” by: empty tomb, people say they saw him post-death, and his disciples said so. There is no other explanation of these facts. Response Tombs can be empty for multiple reasons, and this does not prove resurrection. People can mistakenly observe someone who looks similar or accounts could have been entirely fabricated. And the disciples’ beliefs were written by the men who wrote the Bible. Hearsay is not admissible as actual evidence in any legitimate debate. There absolutely is a rational explanation for all of the above: the body was never placed in the tomb or was moved, the citings were fabricated, and the disciples’ accounts were prejudiced. [E]The personal experience of God. Response In other words, because you can experience a delusion it must be true. If one personally experiences that there are bugs on ones arms when there are not that does not make the bugs real. This is not even a remote approximation of a valid argument or proof.
2.There are not comparably good reasons to think that atheism is true. Professor Craig never spoke to this beyond the assertion, and I redirect you to my post in reply. P.S. You are welcome for doing all of your work for you. It is good form to actually summarize the argument instead of making your opponent articulate your argument and refute it. Side: No
1
point
1
point
I don't believe there is a god, I can't prove god doesn't exist however there still isn't a reason to believe in the first place. I can't disprove unicorns, and the statement "unicorns don't exist" is unbacked technically, howeverI don't believe unicorns don't exist as to ponder the question if they don't exist is silly since I have no reason to ponder that unicorns do exist in the first place. Side: No
1
point
1
point
I never looked at it that way, I hold the position of agnostic atheism in an effort of reasoning with the theistic attitude. As an atheist I'd prefer if people left their ungrounded beliefs behind, and I hate taking the time of arguing against the "you can't probe god doesn't exist" argument, of which is ridiculous since we don't apply that logic to most other possible assertions. Though I suppose "special pleading" does apply here, though I still consider myself agnostic since technically we do not know even if it is in the same sense we don't know unicorns exist or not. Side: No
1
point
|