cowboy0108 (PRO)I am only taking part in this debate because I was invited to. I normally do not like to debate this because the judges will typically vote based on their beliefs in which case, the winner is the one who agrees with the majority of the members on the site.
My arguments will consist of:
1. Attempting to disprove common views that explain the creation of the universe and origins of life that do not involve God.
2. Attempt to prove that belief in God is more rational than belief in evolution, big bang, etc.
Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-08 03:26:00
| Speak Round
NightofTheLivingCats (CON)I see we are making intros first.
Ah well.
To remind people, I am CON to the resolution.
My end of the bargain is to shoot down cowboy's arguments and defend my arguments(although, I dont really NEED to).
But, cowboys point 1 and 2("1. Attempting to disprove common views that explain the creation of the universe and origins of life that do not involve God. 2. Attempt to prove that belief in God is more rational than belief in evolution, big bang, etc.") are a red herring. But before I judge, I will let him fire opening shots.
Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-08 08:43:48
| Speak Roundcowboy0108 (PRO)1. The big bang theory-the big bang theory is illogical and not scientific. Science is about experimentation and observation. Do you ever see particles colliding to create incredible amounts of matter? No, so the big bang theory is nothing more than a shot in the dark for scientists. To continue my arguments against the big bang theory, I will address the fact that science says that their was nothing before the universe. So where did the paricles that exploded come from? What are you going to say, something came from nothing? Only God could do that. Then again, you don't believe in God.
2. Primordial soup-this theory teaches that life came from a bunch of molecules that got together and were basically struck by lighting and BOOM! You have life. Tell me, has anyone ever actually seen life emerge from a bunch of molecules getting struck by lightning.
With this section of my argument, I am attempting to prove that atheistic views are not as "logical" as people seem to make them out to be. Thus, by disproving atheistic views, the readers of this debate and my opponent himself can see that if the view that God does not exist is wrong, than God must exist.
Now I will attempt to support the existence of God. Keep in mind that much of what I am about to say may be meaningles to my readers and opponent if they are unwilling to take anything to faith.
1. Extreme coincidences. Please, imagine a person taking medicine. He is supposed to take five of one type of pill but he grabs the wrong pill bottle and takes five of those pills instead. This pill bottle contains Phintermine. This is a powerful amphetimine. This boy is small and one of those pills would kill him. However, right before he walks away, he barely sees another identical pill bottle out of the corner of his eye. He investigates it and suddenly considers that he took the wrong pills. He opened up the bottle of what he took and noticed that they had blue specks, which he noticed shortly before taking them. He, at that point, knew what he did and got his parents. Yes, you could argue that the only reason the boy lived was that he had EXTREME eagle vision. You could argue that he just had EXTREME deductive reasoning skills. You could argue anything that says that it is just a happy coincidence. However, how far are you willing to go before you admit that it seems as if God intervened. Now, you may just not believe this story at all. You should because this is my story. This happened to ME!
2. God just makes sense. Everything that the Bible says that God has the power to do explains every thing about our world and the things that happen to us. Just consider this and I will develop the idea futher next round.
Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-11 04:02:56
| Speak RoundNightofTheLivingCats (CON)How the hell do I bold?)
(COWBOY)1. The big bang theory-the big bang theory is illogical and not scientific. Science is about experimentation and observation. Do you ever see particles colliding to create incredible amounts of matter? No, so the big bang theory is nothing more than a shot in the dark for scientists. To continue my arguments against the big bang theory, I will address the fact that science says that their was nothing before the universe. So where did the paricles that exploded come from? What are you going to say, something came from nothing? Only God could do that. Then again, you don't believe in God.(COWBOY)
(CATS)
Weeeeellll. I don't want to get into semantics but The Big Bang theory can be both wrong and have God not exist.
But I never really debated the KCA before, but I will say this. Is a 'beginning; objective? If so, then a circle has no beginning because what you think the circles's "beginning" might be different then mine.(CATS)
(COWBOY)2. Primordial soup-this theory teaches that life came from a bunch of molecules that got together and were basically struck by lighting and BOOM! You have life. Tell me, has anyone ever actually seen life emerge from a bunch of molecules getting struck by lightning.
With this section of my argument, I am attempting to prove that atheistic views are not as "logical" as people seem to make them out to be. Thus, by disproving atheistic views, the readers of this debate and my opponent himself can see that if the view that God does not exist is wrong, than God must exist.(COWBOY)
(CATS)I never saw Australia in person. Does Australia exist? Please don't mistake atheism for what you painted it as. Again I said why this section is a red herring. (CATS)
(COWBOY)1. Extreme coincidences. Please, imagine a person taking medicine. He is supposed to take five of one type of pill but he grabs the wrong pill bottle and takes five of those pills instead. This pill bottle contains Phintermine. This is a powerful amphetimine. This boy is small and one of those pills would kill him. However, right before he walks away, he barely sees another identical pill bottle out of the corner of his eye. He investigates it and suddenly considers that he took the wrong pills. He opened up the bottle of what he took and noticed that they had blue specks, which he noticed shortly before taking them. He, at that point, knew what he did and got his parents. Yes, you could argue that the only reason the boy lived was that he had EXTREME eagle vision. You could argue that he just had EXTREME deductive reasoning skills. You could argue anything that says that it is just a happy coincidence. However, how far are you willing to go before you admit that it seems as if God intervened. Now, you may just not believe this story at all. You should because this is my story. This happened to ME! (COWBOY)
(CATS)Interesting that your God didn't cure your disease himself. Im afraid this is a Appeal to Emotion. (CATS)
(COWBOY)2. God just makes sense. Everything that the Bible says that God has the power to do explains every thing about our world and the things that happen to us. Just consider this and I will develop the idea futher next round.(COWBOY)
Okay.
Now it's time for the age old classic; the Problem of Evil.
P1:God is all-loving.
P2: God is all-knowing.
P3: God is all-powerful.
P4: A God who can predictably see the future would make a effort to try to stop it, in a same way a God that hates gingers who has the capabilities the wipe us out would do so. But since I still have red hair and freckles, our ginger-hating God in question doesn't exist.
P5: Evil exists;If God indeed exists it is under these outcomes:
a.God is not all-loving
b.God is not all-knowing
c.God is not all-powerful
C: God does not exist.
Thank you.
Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-11 08:49:50
| Speak Roundcowboy0108 (PRO)I am not saying that the BBT and primordial soup theories being false proves Christianity, I am saying that the running theories make no sense and that another solution must be found, which opens the possiblity for God.
My opponent treats appeals to emotion as if they are not valid. They are indeed valid. However, this is not simply just emotional, there is a logic to this as well.
To answer your view on the problem of evil:
You used syllogistic reasoning. This is not normally bad, however, if even one of your points were slightly incorrect, the entire logic falls apart. Allow me to explain possibile flaws in your reasoning(I only say possible flaws because neither you nor I can understand God):
I see no flaws in the first three points of your syllogism. However, the conclusion you draw states that God is not all knowing, loving, and powerful. Let us assume for a second that God really does exist and their is no question about it. Are you saying that you know more than the God described by Christianity. In order to say that someone is wrong, you must know more. You DO NOT know more than an omnipotent God, no matter how smart you are. My point in describing this is that you cannot question nor explain the reasoning of someone who knows everything. To draw a comparison: Would Forrest Gump tell Einstein that he is wrong about the theory of relativity? Would Forrest even know what the theory is? By telling people that God's plan is flawed, you are saying that something you do not even know is wrong and you are telling it to someone with an IQ that is infinitely greater than your own.
If I had to guess God's plan, I would say that he is testing us. How would a parent know that their child is "good" if they lock their child in a room for their entire lives and do not expose them to temptation? A parent would have to give their child leway to TEST them. I think that this is God's purpose in allowing sin to continue. If people love God because they have no choice, they do not truly love God. However, if they do get a choice, the love is sincere.
Thank you.
Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-13 03:43:20
| Speak RoundNightofTheLivingCats (CON)(COWBOY)I am not saying that the BBT and primordial soup theories being false proves Christianity, I am saying that the running theories make no sense and that another solution must be found, which opens the possiblity for God.
My opponent treats appeals to emotion as if they are not valid. They are indeed valid. However, this is not simply just emotional, there is a logic to this as well. (COWBOY)
What I am saying that they were Red Herrings.
Also, if the Big Bang was proven false, I could say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. It's now open. This is simply absurd and means nothing. Appeals to Emotion also mean nothing.
(COWBOY)To answer your view on the problem of evil:
You used syllogistic reasoning. This is not normally bad, however, if even one of your points were slightly incorrect, the entire logic falls apart. Allow me to explain possibile flaws in your reasoning(I only say possible flaws because neither you nor I can understand God):(COWBOY)
Odd then God would release the Bible into the masses to try to teach us if he knew this. Ah well. God works in odd ways.
(CCOWBOYI see no flaws in the first three points of your syllogism. However, the conclusion you draw states that God is not all knowing, loving, and powerful. Let us assume for a second that God really does exist and their is no question about it. Are you saying that you know more than the God described by Christianity. In order to say that someone is wrong, you must know more. You DO NOT know more than an omnipotent God, no matter how smart you are.(COWBOY)
I dont need to be smarter than God. If God chose evil to exist then he is not all-loving. Any excuse means he is not God as we know.
(COWBOY)My point in describing this is that you cannot question nor explain the reasoning of someone who knows everything. To draw a comparison: Would Forrest Gump tell Einstein that he is wrong about the theory of relativity? Would Forrest even know what the theory is? By telling people that God's plan is flawed, you are saying that something you do not even know is wrong and you are telling it to someone with an IQ that is infinitely greater than your own. (COWBOY)
And this is a subtle Circular Reasoning. "You can't prove God because that means you have to be smarter than him."
For this simple reason this rebuttal doesn't work.
(COWBOY)If I had to guess God's plan, I would say that he is testing us. How would a parent know that their child is "good" if they lock their child in a room for their entire lives and do not expose them to temptation? A parent would have to give their child leway to TEST them. I think that this is God's purpose in allowing sin to continue. If people love God because they have no choice, they do not truly love God. However, if they do get a choice, the love is sincere.
Thank you.(COWBOY)
This is circular logic, as explained above.
I will remind voters then the BOP is on Cowboy. No arguments on his part is generally fatal. I have rebut his arguments and he has sidestepped my rebuttals. I hope the best of luck for cowboy.
Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-13 11:31:49
| Speak Roundcowboy0108 (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-16 11:32:01
| Speak Round
Let's say your extreme coincidence is a one in and million event. Mathematically, a one in a million event should take place every 35 days. Look up Littlewood's law.Posted 2013-11-12 04:39:31