Gym Debate: Is it more reaonable to believe that God exists than not? (Spacefoetus vs. MikeWright)

[Kelp]

Gym Debate Notice:

This debate thread is open to debate the following issue:

It is more reasonable to believe in God's Existence than God's non-Existence.
MikeWright will be defending the negative and Spacefoetus will be defending the affirmative. This debate will begin as soon as Spacefoetus makes his first post. The debate will last 5 rounds.


From this point on, the only posts allowed in this thread are to be made by the participants and Moderators. All others will be deleted.

Spectator commentary is welcome here.

If you are up and unable to meet your deadline please contact a moderator ASAP.
Please do not edit your post after this notice is posted.
If you are not a participant please feel free to participate in the commentary thread noted in the first post of this debate.

[Spacefoetus]

Before we get into this little "battle" I'd like to thank MikeWright for agreeing to this debate and also TheologyWeb for hosting.

So, today I will be trying to show that it is indeed more reasonable to believe in God's existence than God's non-existence. In doing so, I will be taking the evidential approach and many people will likely recognise the approach I use as....lets just say "similar" to a popular Christian philosopher. I won't apologise by plagerising their format (I prefer the term "homaging" but whatever) as I value truth over creativity.
It must also be pointed out that Mike, in trying to show that belief in God's non-existence is reasonable to believe, must also provide evidence because he is making a positive claim to knowledge, ie the knowledge that God does not exist. Mike can critique my evidence all he wants, but unless he supplies evidence for HIs particular viewpoint, he will fail the debate.
But I'd rather give Mike a chance to raise his own objections,and so, with out further adue, I will now present my case.

Consider this set of statements Mike:

1. Everything which begins to exist requires a cause
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore the Universe requires a cause.

Think about each premise carefully. What about point number one? Well, this is mere comman sense. Things don;t just pop into existence out of nothing. If you turned around right now and I was dancing naked behind you, would it even cross your mind that I perhaps just popped into existence right at that moment? No? Then why suspect the same of the entire Universe which INCLUDES me dancing naked. To do so would be to commit the special pleading fallacy to the highest possible degree, literally.
(I'm interested to know if anyone actually turned around there btw).

The only thing that could perhaps appear without cause are protons in the quantum vacuum. I say "perhaps" because this is not a proven fact, and other theories make the point that there could indeed be a cause, we just don't know it yet. However, let us assume for Mike's sake that the uncaused theory is true- this makes no difference to the case. This example can only be valid if the universe came from a quantum vacuum (such a vacuum is by no means an empty space by the way- it's a vast sea of energy that constantly fluctuates) a theory which, while once was popular, has been out of date since the late 1980s. So we can be confident that premise one is true.

What about premise two? Did the universe have a beginning? Of course! Science tells us so! I don't expect you to disagree with me here, because I happen to know that you are a Big Bang proponent, but I have to correct a comman misconception here. The Big Bang theory does NOT remove the need for a creator. In fact, it reinforeces it. Prior to the Big bang theory, scientists believed the Universe was eternal and therefore this particular argument I'm sharing with you was renered moot. However, we now know the universe has a beginning. But SOMETHING MUST HAVE CAUSED THE BIG BANG. It must have. Even David Hume agreed with this, in his famous analogy where a loud bang is heard and someone proposes this *bang* was caused by nothing and his proposal was immediatly dismissed as ridiculous.

So we can see the conclusion looking over the horizon- the universe requires a cause. But then, what can this "cause" be? Can it be composed of matter, or energy? No! Because all matter and energy was created in the Big Bang- if this were true, then matter created itself and energy created itself which is a logical impossibility. Can this "cause" be bound by time? No! Because time was also created at the Big Bang, therefore if it were true, time would've created itself which is again a logical impossibility.

So, this "cause" must be immaterial and timeless. What can possibily fulfill such criteria? Well, there are two possible options:

1. An abstract object eg a number or a set.
2. A disembodied mind.

But it cannot be an abstract number, after all abstract things cannot create- that is part of what it means to be abstract. Therefore it MUST be a disembodied mind.

So this cause is a disembodied, immaterial, timeless mind which caused the universe. This is very close to our definition of God, but not quite there, because we have not yet demonstrated that this first cause is uncaused.

Before we do however, lets look to the methodological principle of Occam's Razor. The rule here is "do not multiply causes unnecessarily". In other words, if one cause has enough explanatory power and scope, then to posit more than one cause unnecessarily is illogical. We can show that maybe the cause for our universe was caused by another uncaused cause, but this then posits two causes, which severly blunts the razor and should therefore not be done. So, if we can conclude that the universes's cause can be uncaused, we must assume that it is THE uncaused cause- to do anything else woiuld be to breach the rules of proper theorising.

So, why does there have to be an uncaused cause? Why not an infinite regression of caused causes?

Imagine a line of dominoes if you will. Such a line represents an infinite regression of causes. Each domino represents a different cause, the falling of the domino representing the cause comming into existence. The last domino in the line is our universe. Now, in order for our dominoto fall over, all the othe dominos before it must fall over. However, stretching out to the left of our domino is an infinite line of dominios. It is impossible for infinity to be reached by a constant addition. But this then means that our domino wil never fall over. The implications of this are obvious- our universe doesn't exist. I don't exist. You don;t exist. TWeb doesn't exist. But...I do exist. "I think therefore I am". Therefore an infinite regression of causes is impossible. So there MUST be an uncaused cause.

So this cause is an personal mind that is immaterial, timeless, caused our universe and is uncaused in itself. In other words, this cause is "God".

Lets look at this argument from another perspective. Consider these statements:

1. Everything that exists, requires an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or by an exterior cause.
2. If the Universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The Universe Exists
4. Therefore the Universe has an explanation for its existence
5. therefore God exists.

Again examine each statement, starting with number one. Again, this is obvious. To deny this, is to deny science and halt progress altogether. It also defies basic logic. If you were to find a glowing ball in the forest, you would expect it had some sort of explanation for its existence. If this ball was the size of a country, the same logic would apply. Same if it was the size of a planet. Or a galaxy. Or the universe. With this line of thinking in mind we must conclude that even the Universe itself requires an explanation for its existence.

Consider statement two now: this was demonstrated earlier on, but think about it further. It is a general consensus among various atheists such as David Hume or Carl Sagan that God doesn;t exist, therefore the universe has no explanation for its existence. But whats the logical conclusion from this? What if we state this more positivly? Why, we come up with premise two, "If the Universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God".
It should be very obvious that the universe exists. It should then be obvious that the universe requires an explanation for its existence. But, bearing in mind premise two, it then becomes painstakingly obvious that God exists!

The only way to combat this line of thinking is to suggest that the universe is a necessary being. But this is ridiculous, and no scientist would agree with you. Is it possible that the universe couldn't exist? Yes! Does the universe possess any properties that will lead us to believe the whole thing is one contingent reality? No! Of course not.

As we can see, the universe itself is marvellous evidence for the existence of God, and a naturalist will be hard pressed to provide a more adequate explanation for its existence, without venturing into the territory of ridiculousness or defying Occam's Razor with unreasonable speculations.

And yet the universe provides even more evidence for an intellignet creator- this time in the form of its incredible fine tuning of the inital conditions after the Big bang that allowed for life to exist anywhere. They really are remarkable. I will give an example of one condition that is immensly finely tuned- that of gravity.

What were the chances that gravity would randomly arrive at life allowing levels?

1 in 1 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Thats one with one hundred zeros after it. Do you like those odds Mikey? And thats just one condition. would you bet your house on something that contained odds of 1 in 10? No? Then why are you willing to bet your potential eternity on such an incredibly small gambit? But enough talk of wagers of the Pascal variety. Lets formulate an argument here.

1. First we present a tri-lemma: The fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe can be explained by either law, chance or intelligent design.
2. Law or chance does not explain them.
3. Therefore an intellignet designer exists.

But why does law or chance not explain the conditions?

Well, firstly, if law clearly DOESN'T explain the conditions at all. It is obviously possible that the conditions could've been set at life prohibiting levels. Even if it was possible that it was law, it would only explain certian constants and NOT the arbitary quantities. It would leave them up to chance:

As you can see from the odds that it is highly unreasonable to believe it arose from chance. Sure, you may say, improbabiliteis happen all the time: and you'd be correct. But this is SPECIFIED IMPROBABILITY, ie immprobablility that conforms to an independently given pattern, ie the life allowing pattern. Combined with astronomical odds, we are VERY reasonble to believe that such specified probabilites are in fact the products of design.

The main objection to this now, is the proposition of the Many Worlds Hypothesis (MWH). This is good for the theist for a number of reasons.

1. There is no evidence for these multiple worlds EXCEPT for the fine tuning of the universe. BUT- this fine tuning is also evidence for God, and for god we also have cosmological arguments, arguemets from contingency, morality, the Ressurection, many many other things, as well as pressuppositional arguments that I don't know enough about yet to bring to the table but are devastating to the atheists case.
2. Occam's Razor- MWH= an infinite amount of causes
- God= one cause.
Therefore according to the razor, God wins.
3. The MWH only has one realistic mechanism- the chaotic inflattory model. This model requires a beginning, and thus, using a cosmological method we can deduce that even if the MWH was true, God was still be necessary!

When the Bible spoke of the Universe as a marvellous testimony to the existence of God, it was dead right. But lets leave tangible things for a while, and look at the moral aspects of our universe.

Consider this argument:

1. Objective morality can only exist in the case of God
2. Objective morality exists
3. Therefore God exists.

Now, premise one is evidently true- without a transcendant law giver, morality is nothing more than personal taste. If I were to say you are wrong to murder, I would be just as justified to say, Coke is superior to Pepsi (it isn't by the way). Morality is nothing but personal choice in this circumstance and acts are really morally neutral.

But objective morality does exist. We humans know this, and without that fact, society would not exist. Can you think of any set of circumstances where child molestation is correct? But imagine this- what if 10 men dug up a baby corpse and raped it repeatidly then buried it and no-one ever found out. Why, there was no-one there to judge them, and the men certianly enjoyed it. But if someone DID find out, they woudl have the men thrown in jail. But why? No-one was harmed. The childs family never found out. Whats the problem?

The problem is, what they did WAS objectvily wrong. Now, you may disagree with such a thing, but tell me, on what basis do you say its unfair for TWeb to moderate your blasphemous posts? By calling it unfair, you are shamelessly borrowing from the very view you so childishly mock.

Any attempt to disprove objecitve morality can also be used to disprove objective reality, leading to a breakdown in epistomology and causes the disproof to commit suicide.

But if all these facts are true, this means that God exists!

The Universe and the moral realm all point towards the existence of God, but what of history?

Well, historians unanimously agree on certian points of the life of Jesus of Nazerith (I say "unanimoulsy" but that is incorrect. Some fringes believe Jesus didn't exist. Bring them up sure, I'll refute them.) These facts include:

1. Jesus was crucified on the Friday
2. He was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea
3. On the third day, his women disciples discovered the tomb was empty
4. Around this time, the disciples claimed to see Jesus, including a crowd of 500 witnesses.
5. Again, the disciples turned from cowering in their houses into a fearless band of religious men who went out and spreasd the word that Jesus was ressurected, despite constant persecution.

Now, there are many scenarios as to how this happened

1. The disciples/the Jews stole the body.

Now this is unreaosnable. Firslty, the disciples wne tthrough a change of cowardice to bravery following suppsoed visions of Christ- if they actually stole the body, that renders these facts inexplainable. It also means they were prepared to go to horrible deaths for a lie- perhaps possible if they were cocky all the way through, but they experienced a quick changed in confidence so this cannot be true. Also, theres the matter of how they got past the guards. Also, the Jews would have NO motive whatsoever to steal the body at all. In fact, it was in their interest that the body stay in the tomb.

2. The women went to the wrong tomb.

Now this IS ridiculous. it wouldn't explain the appearences or the renewed confidence unless such appearences where hallucinations- but they didn't fullfill the criteria necessary to be hallucinations. Also, the tomb was owned by a well known Jew. To suggest they went to the wrong tomb is quite franky idiotic.

3. The "swoon" theory.

The idea that Jesus somehow survived the crucifixtion, then rolled away his stone after comming back into conciousness on the third day, fighting off the guards and then appearing to the disciples in his broken form.

Too bad it contradicts all science.

(Mike has recently put forward a more "extra-terrestrial" objection to this, I hope he doesn;t use it, or ill lose the debate for sure*)

*sarcasm

4. The Ressurection theory.

What if Jesus was actually Ressurected? Its only impossible if you disbelieve miracles which is only possible through circular reasoning (plus, ive heard of many miracles happening to others I know). Plus, ot makes sense of ALL the data available- empty tomb, appearences, renewed confidence ect.

But if the Ressurection theory is true, then what? Why, Jesus claimed God would Ressurect him. But this means that God must exist. You see? He exists!

Well Mikey, there you go. Evidence for the existence of God in a nutshell. I anticipate your response and look forward to your evidence for the non-existence of God.

Goodbye and God bless!

Andrew.

[MikeWright]

Well, Spacefoestus has agreed to be shredded to pieces in this debate and I suspect me winning is a foregone conclusion. Anyway, lets watch him loose. He says he is getting his arguments from christian philosophers, well i'm getting my argumens from some of the greatest thinkers of all times: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, Robert Price, Sam Harris, Brian Sapient etc etc and getting my facts from reliable sources such as Wikipedia

Now there seems to be a misunderstandinng. Im an atheist so i dont believe anything and so I dont have to provide evidence for my beliefs. Imagine Spaceofoestus said a teapot was orbiting between here and mars, would the fact i cant disprove him prove that such a teapot existed? Thus our default assumption is that the universe came from nowhere.

Now spacefoestus thinks that everything that had a beginning has a cause however the universe is growing and shrinking so it had no cause. You see we are the result of an imploded universe which came before us and so had no beginning. Now Spacefoestus argument is really stupid as it simply raises the question 'who made god?' god is more compelx than anything else and so god cannot have made the universe.

If time and space were created in the big bang then it would be impossible for anything to exist outside of it. A mind requires a brain and a brain is made of matter and matter requires space.

You seem to take the attitude that if we dont know something like who made the universe then goddidit(TM) The big bang contradicts the bibles view that the world was made in 6000 years as well. Science has put man on the moon, given us the computer and even electric toasters making the gaps which god needs to explain smaller and smaller.

You could have an infinite amount of dominos. If I had a domino factory and it made dominos and my domino factory existed outside of time, like your god, then it would have as long as it wants to make all the dominos and if it had as long as it wanted then i would have an infinite number. Therefore an infinite regression is possible. Now you might ask why you cant have an infinite regression of gods then, however each god would need to be more complex than the previous one.

Why shuld god be any more of an explantion than the flying spagetti monster? I could say that the flying spagetti monster exists outside of time.

Now the fine tuning commits the anthropic principle. There must have at some point in history been an honest guy who dealt himself a perfect hand of bridge several games in a row and i bet his friends accused him of cheating. Now the guy had just been lucky and so are we living in such a finely tuned universe. If you won the lottery would you say 'oh, the chance of me having this winning ticket is so so small, it cant be luck'.

Some scientists say that we are part of a multivers and so if thats the case then its not surprising the universe if finetuned. Imagine you were a goldfish sitting in a goldfish bowl and you ask why your water is the right temperature. Well if there were a million other goldfish bowls all of different temperatures, some to cold for goldfish and others too hot for goldfish it wouldnt be suprising that yours was the right temperature.

FInally, Richard Dawkins says that Victor Strenger says that the univers isnt fine tuned. If i can show that there is a possability god doesnt exist then god doesnt exist as god is complex and who made god?

Now the universe doesnt seem that well designed to me. Now if a fair and loving god made the universe then he would make everybody look and think the same. How many wars are started by people disagreeing? If we all thought alike that wouldnt be a problem. Why does god give some men a bigger penis than others if god loves everyone the same? The argument from unintelligent design shows that the universe is not designed.

Now atheists can be moral and so your argument from moraility fails. Infact the crusaders, Stalin, Hitler and all the nasty people in history were theists and so atheists are more moral than you. We are also more modest as we believe that we are the result of one big accident. God his self is immorral sending people to hell because they were scientists and so your argument from morality goes against you.

Now you seem to argue that pepsi is better than coke however this is clearly not true. I have tasted both and all my friends agree with me. Coke also sells more and is more well know and i drink it. If your judgement on such a simple matter as this is wrong how can we trust you on anything else?

Robert Price points out that most people who study the historicity of Jesus are Christians and so they would accept those facts. Clearly the resurrection was about the sun rising tying in to sun god worship. This later changed to son god worship through copying errors in the gospels. Theyve just found a table which proves beyond all dount that your faith came from paganism. As Richard Dawkins pointed out to John Lennox in their discussion, the fact you believe in the resurrection shows that your an idiot and if your an idiot then your wrong. the resurrection is clearly a myth.

Next Frank Zindler says that Joseph of Arimathia didnt exist and so jesus cant have been buried in his tomb.

Next it cant have been the third day as the bible contradicts itself over this.

Next there were never 500 eyewitnesses. Imagine I wrote 'Bob was buried in Freds tomb and 3 days later 2 billion people saw him risen' would thant make what i wrote true? How do you know that the gospels werent written as fiction?

Next there is no evidence that the disciples were persecuted, as Early Dohrethy points out.

Now even if we were to grant those facts youve missed off the optinos that jesus had a long lost twin brother, aliens raised jesus from the dead with their superior technology, aliens made a robot of jesus and that was what people saw, the disciples had discovered a medicine which could bring people back to life, they crucified the wrong person (like on Monty pythons life of brian), Jesus came back to life through a random quantum flux. Now none of these are likely but all are more likely than goddidit.

Although i dont have to provide evidence i can show that your faith is almost certainly not true. Firstly didnt god get bored before he made the universe, but if god is perfect how did he get bored? But before god had made anything how can god think about anything?

Secondly the universe is to big for god to have made it. A Christian once pointed out to me that kings would live in big palace to show their authroity and so mybe god made the universe so big to show he is king however if that were so then that would make god an arrogant control freak.

Finally we are all athists whjen it comes to zeus, mithras, allah, the monster under your bed etc etc, Ive just gone one god further.

I think ive shown beyond any doubt that all the evidence for god is refutable and that there are extremely good reasons to assume god doesnt exist.

Now you might want to give up now or you can be made to look stupid by me yet again. I dont believe in god because i dont believe in mother goose.

[Spacefoetus]

Thank you MikeWright for responding so quickly to my opening post. I do not believe your case is good enough to show that it is reasonable to believe in God's non-existence at all and I will demonstrate why very soon.

Firstly, I have to point out that in your list of "greatest thinkers of all time", you have undoubtedly listed some amazing thinkers- but it also seems that you've thrown some less than great names in there as philosophical filler. Firstly, Richard Dawkins, while a brilliant Evolutionary biologist, is of virtually no calibre in the philosophical world. His weak arguments are useful only for those atheists who seek justification for their world-view but are not prepared to look further than the "best seller" list in their local Wal-Mart. Secondly Brian Sapient is definitely not one of the greatest thinkers of all time- in fact he has received international recognition, not for his amazing articles, but simply for encouraging people to be blasphemous on You-Tube. Some achievement. Secondly, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a valid source when it comes to philosophy as it appears to be very one sided. In their article on the Argument from Morality they claim that it is now invalid due to the Euthypro dilemma. But ANY study in the field of divine ethics will show that the dilemma has been solved for a long, long time.

Mike, you now claim that you do not need to show evidence for your belief. You argue that because "(you) don't believe in anything" this somehow absolves you from the requirement to provide evidence on your part.

Now Mike, this is truly ridiculous. You don't believe in anything? Come on. You are an atheist; therefore you believe there is no God. That is the definition of atheism. You are making a positive claim to knowledge; therefore you need to provide proof. But don't take my word for it: here is the definition of atheism from a philosophical dictionary:

"Belief that god does not exist. Unlike the agnostic, who merely criticizes traditional arguments for the existence of a deity, the atheist must offer evidence (such as the problem of evil) that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying what is not known to be true."

Now, you have attempted the latter by presenting Russell’s teapot, but in doing so you have made a fatal flaw. Here’s why:

1. There is no strong ingrained nature in human beings that causes us to believe in and even reach out to this tea pot.
2. There are no cosmological, teleological, or ontological arguments for the existence of this teapot.
3. Many people have not claimed to have interacted with the teapot, nor felt any strong feelings of the teapots presence.
4. The idea that there is teapot floating around space is ridiculous, as there is no way the teapot could've gotten up there. However, if modern cosmology is correct then God is a NECESSARY BEING required for the existence of anything.
5. Disbelieving in the teapot has no moral or epistemological consequences- however disbelieving in God does.
6. Also, no-one believes in this teapot at all. However, many brilliant thinkers believe in God and there is no "common consensus" amongst philosophers regarding the existence of God at all. There is a wealth of resources on the question (how many resources are there for this teapot?) and to immediately assume that there is no evidence for God is extremely arrogant, unless you've read many books on the topic displaying both sides.

But let us remind ourselves what the topic we are debating is- "It is more reasonable to believe in God's existence than God's non-existence.” "Reasonable" Mike. "Reasonable". Do you realise the implications of this four syllable word? It meanns you have to supply REASONS as to why God doesn't exist, and not just make that assumption, which is what you are trying to do with Russell’s teapot.

Even if the teapot analogy was irrefutable, it would still lend no aid to your case- in fact it would do your case much harm. Why? Because you have agreed to show how God does not exist, but in your very first analogy have claimed that it’s impossible to do so. Your argument commits suicide.

You also make the default assumption that "The universe came from nothing". This wouldn't be too bad, except for the fact that it defies all logic and so it definitely requires evidence if we are to take it seriously.

But lets move on to your critiques to my arguments for the existence of God. You propose that our universe had no beginning as it is part of a growing and shrinking cycle. What you have just done, whether you know it or not, is cite an alternative theory to the widely believed Big Bang theory, known as the "Oscillating Universe theory". This theory is years out of date and is of no threat to the Cosmological argument. It has in fact been refuted by Stephen Hawking. The reasons why are very mathematical and scientific and so I will present two of them simply.

1. For such a model to work it would require entirely new physics that have not been discovered.
2. Even if it could, scientists have calculated from entropy levels that, while the universe could oscillate forever into the future, it only had a finite past. THEREFORE THE UNIVERSE STILL HAD A BEGINNING. So the argument still stands, even if this unrelieved model WAS true.

Your "who made God" question is irrelevant. If you discovered some hi-tek machinery including light sabres and flying cars on Pluto, would you claim they arose via chance or just popped into being from nothing? Why no. You would assume that some intelligent life designed them. But wait...by your logic, if we don't know much about the cause, or if the cause is complex, then the cause doesn't exist. So...the alien designers DON'T exist. If we applied your logic to archaeology, why, we would have to forget about many ancient cultures who we know little about besides artefacts discovered which we attribute to them. In fact, you propose that we can't know a cause exists unless we know what caused the cause- can’t you see where this will lead us? Everything will be questioned, and in the end we'll come to the conclusion that not even our questioning minds can be trusted and so all science will fall apart.

And is God so complex? Well no. He's a disembodied mind and not composed of material, therefore, as a being, he is relatively simple. So, even if your "complexity rules out existence" rule was valid, would it apply to God? No. No it wouldn't.

Next you claim that NOTHING can exist prior to the existence of matter and energy and time. Well, before something can exist it must have existence potential. But according to your logic, NOTHING can exist, not even the potential to exist. But in the absence of this potential the universe cannot come into being. Yet it clearly did. Therefore there’s something completely wrong with your logic.

And a mind requires a brain? Since when? I would be grateful if you supplied some evidence for this assertion.

After demonstrating your universe prohibiting logic, you proceed to accuse me of "God of the Gaps":

Originally posted by Mike Wright

You seem to take the attitude that if we dont know something like who made the universe then goddidit™

Interestingly enough, I've done no such thing. Mike, remember my first argument? Did I just posit an unknown then used God to fill the gap? No. If you recall, I established that the universe needed a cause and then went through the properties this cause required- the properties then revealed that such a cause was God. Naming God as the cause was not arbitrary; it was done through a logical thought process. So you'll need to do better than screaming "God of the Gaps! God of the Gaps!" if you want to prove that God doesn't exist.

You then claim that the Big Bang theory contradicts the Bible because the Bible claims that the Earth is 6000 years old. I would disagree- you will never find the bible saying "the Earth is 6000 years old!"- This date of the Earth is only reached by a faulty interpretation. In any case, this debate is not over Christianity- it is merely over God’s existence. If Christianity was not true, would that rule out God's existence? No, of course not. God could still exist as described by any other belief system such as Judaism, Islam or Hinduism...he could even exist purely in a deistic since. So this "critique" of the Bible proves nothing.

Now you attempt to refute my domino analogy and you come off with some of the worst logic ever here- this isn't a poor attempt at rhetoric, you really, really do.

First off you state that if the domino factory exists outside of time then it could make an infinite amount of dominos...because it has an infinite amount of time to do so. This is ridiculous, because it uses temporal terms when there IS no time. Even so, it does nothing to refute the mathematical fact that infinity can never be reached by addition. Therefore an infinite regression still can't exist.

You then allow that it could be a regression of gods, but you claim this is impossible because each God would have to be more complex than the other. Tell me Mike- where did you get this "causes must be more complex than effect" rule? Why does it only apply to beings labelled gods? Should it not apply to EVERYTHING?

If it does, we soon see the problem.. Every cause is more complex than the effect- and the causes stretch back into infinite. So this means an infinitely complex cause must exist. However, you claim while critiquing my first argument, that infinitely complex things are impossible! So by your logic, we have to assume that nothing exists.

But your infinite chain creates more problems. What about this infinitely complex cause? By your rules, something must've caused it- but this thing must also be more complex than it. But nothing can be more complex than an infinity complex thing! Therefore we must say that it’s uncaused. So you've basically proven God for me there Mike- thanks! (You could escape this by saying that infinite can never be reached by addition....however, as I have pointed out such an admission would destroy your domino factory analogy and thus prove an infinite regression impossible anyway. So you're kinda stuck here Mikey.)

You then ask why God should be more of an answer than a flying spaghetti monster. Well, because I've shown that an uncaused cause must exist, then shown what properties it must exhibit and none of these properties included pasta! That’s why! They did however correspond to a deistic definition of God!

So, the Cosmological argument is safe. You didn't even try and tackle the argument from contingency, so it’s safe as well. So far, we still have two very good reasons to believe in God.

You then move on to try and refute the Teleological argument.

You've brought up the anthropic principle, as I've known you would, and used an example of a man receiving awesome bridge hands as an example. However, you admit that this man who won bridge dealt SEVERAL good bridge hands and it is an isolated incident compared to the MANY Bridge hands ever revealed in history. Therefore, in order for this analogy to be consistent with reality, you must allow for MANY universes. This leads to the MWH and the problems that come with it, problems that you have done nothing to refute. So they still stand- God exists.

You then claim that some scientists claim that the universe isn't complex. Unlike me, you've shown no examples. So I can just ignore that.

"God is complex so if I can show that its POSSIBLE for God not to exist, then he doesn't exist". Huhh? In other words if you present a method for falsifying God’s existence, then even if he never was falsified we could still assume he doesn’t exist because he’s complicated? OK fine we'll go along with this logic...oh dear, it turns out EVERY COMPLICATED SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS UNTRUE. Looks like civilisations gonna collapse....unless of course your logic is just terrible again....and it is.

You then complain that the universe isn't well designed because some men have bigger penises than others. It’s a good thing that has NOTHING to do with the fine tuning of the universe.

But even if you could somehow prove God was unloving...this would only disprove the Christian God. Remember Mike, we are debating God's EXISTENCE here not his attributes.

Mikey, you seem to misunderstand my argument from morality- I'm not saying atheists are immoral at all. Where did I state this? You are burning a straw man here. I'll re-present the argument here for your benefit.

1. Without God, objective morality cannot exist.
2. Objective morality exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Now, by claiming that atheists CAN be moral, you are affirming point number 2. But you do nothing to challenge point number 1. Therefore it still stands. Therefore the conclusion still stands- "God exists."

Pepsi is nicer than Coke, but that has nothing to do with the existence of God, se lets not chase that red herring.

OK, so my four arguments for the existence of God are safe and therefore still stands. But, what of my fifth argument, the argument from the Resurrection?

Well, firstly you try and dispute the main facts that are agreed on by most historians by saying that most historians are Christians. Hey Mike! Did you know that most people, who study Evolution, believe Evolution?! This means that evolution is false!!!

I clearly meant that in tongue and cheek, so don't try and debate evolution here. Basically the fact that most people who study the N.T. are Christians has nothing to do with the reliability of their findings. Such a thing is judged independent of belief, and that is why the Christians are judged the best scholars and fringes like Robert Price are rejected by the mainstream. (Of course we are quite rudely forgetting atheist historians, such as Michael Grant, who hold to these facts.)

You then suggest a lot of un-substantiated crap like "son of god" is a typing error from "Sun God" despite the fact that there’s no evidence for this.

You then claim that a recently discovered tablet proves my belief came from paganism. This is laughable for a couple of reasons.

1. It wasn't a recent discovery- it was found about 30 years ago.
2. The tablet came from a sect of Jews, not pagans
3. It only POSSIBLY anticipates a resurrected messiah, which is unsurprising due to messianic prophecies in the Old Testament.

You then present the following argument from Richard Dawkins.

1. People who believe in the Resurrection are wrong.
2. They are wrong because they are idiots
3. They are idiots for believing in the resurrection
4. The reason why it is an idiotic belief, is because it is wrong.

Talk about begging the question!

You then dispute the witnesses to the Resurrection. Mikey, if you REALLY wanted us to believe that Bob was risen from the dead, would you REALLY want to mention that 2, 000, 000 people saw him? Especially since you've just made an easily falsifiable claim?

Anyway, imagine if there were NOT 500 witnesses- there are still the witnesses of the disciples etc. You have NOT dealt with those, so the argument still stands.

Again, there IS evidence of persecution of early disciples. Ever heard of Tacitus and his famous passages telling of how Nero used Christians as human candles in his garden?

Lastly, you grant that all the facts ARE true (you HAVE to grant this, because they evidently are- any decent evidence to the contrary is yet to be shown). You then go and present other scenarios that could explain the resurrection of Jesus without God. Let’s take a look at them. Bear in mind, that the post Resurrection appearances of Jesus often involved Jesus appearing, then disappearing in a flash.

Twin brothers cannot do this!
Robots cannot do this!
People resurrected by medicine cannot do this!
A Jesus who was never crucified can not do this!
A random quantum flux would not give anyone the ability to do this!

But let’s look at them anyway, and see it they beat God in explanatory power (Simplicity can be sacrificed for explanatory power).

Twin brother? That NO-ONE ever met prior to Jesus’ death? No, this is false; such a man did not exist. Even if he did, do you really believe that he could have fought of the guards, rolled away the stone, stolen Jesus’ body, then went about pretending to be him? Even fooling Jesus’ MOTHER, who would've GIVEN BIRTH to him?!!!! Come on.

Aliens turning Jesus into a robot? Why would they do this? For what purpose? How come the disciples touched Jesus and he wasn't metallic? How come they were able to touch his WOUNDS?! This scenario is completely idiotic and has no evidence for it: instead consider the God scenario- some people expected God to raise the Messiah from death, as your tablet shows: Jesus himself called himself God and said he would rise again: Jesus performed many miracles before he was "a robot". God even talked to him!!

Special medicine? No such medicine could heal up crucifixion wounds and even so how would the disciples administer such a thing? They couldn’t have had contact with the body until the third day- by then Jesus was already resurrected! Sorry, you're wrong.

The crucified the wrong person? Well, this would deny the historical fact you are affirming, that JESUS was crucified. Such a thing is impossible- how could the wrong guy be crucified? How come no-one realised this? Why was the unlucky fellow who was accidently crucified missing from his tomb on the third day? Why did people not see a whole lot more of Jesus? This option has no explanatory power whatsoever.

Quantum flux? Do such things even exist? Even so, they can’t resurrect someone, that’s just stupid.

Anyway, as we've discussed God IS relativly simple as an explanation and NOT overly complex! So he clearly is a valid answer, even by your twisted criteria!

So all five evidences for the existence of God are safe. You now attempt to show WHY God can't exist.

Firstly you ask what God did before the universe? This word "before" is misused as it is a temporal word used to describe something that happened while there was no time. But you say God got bored, but he can’t get bored because he’s perfect, so he doesn't exist.

Little do you realise, you just answered yourself. "God can't get bored because he’s perfect"- therefore he didn't get bored!

Unless of course, you’re willing to prove that he DID in fact get bored…

"Before God made anything how could God think about anything?"

Why couldn't he?!

God doesn't need a small universe to exist, that’s a stupid argument that relies on ad hoc premises just invented by you on the spot.

And then we come to your closing quote.

Finally we are all athists whjen it comes to zeus, mithras, allah, the monster under your bed etc etc, Ive just gone one god further.

Are we? An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in ANY God at all.

So when it comes to Mithras I say- "well, he’s not God, but I still believe in one"
Zeus- "Same for Mithras"
Allah- "Same for Zeus"
Monster under my bed- "Whaaa?? He’s not even a deity- you may as well say "when it comes to telephones, we're all atheists!" In any case, I STILL believe in a God".

So even your quote is false.

Well mike, I hope I didn't make myself look TOOO stupid. Thanks for reading.

Goodbye and God bless,

Andrew

[MikeWright]

I was expecting a bad response from spacefoetus however who knew it would be that bad. Now he criticises me for listing richard dawkins and brian sapient as the greatest thinkers of all time yet i bet more people have heard of them than have heard of spacefoestus. We must also note that spacefoestus is keeping very quite over who he is getting his information from. To it seems like a load of christian apologists who make up excuses for him and then he acuses me of getting my information from bad sources. The difference between a christian and a true thinker is that when someone asks a question the thinker accepts that there is yet another difficulty for christianity whilst the christian goes around making excuses for their faith. If god wants people to believe in him then why doesnt he go and edit all the errors on wikipedia them? if he could write a bible then he could edit wikipedia. He could even sign on under a false name an nobody would know it was him.

Now you dont seem to understand how atheism works. A means without, as in amoral, and theist means belief in imaginary gods. So the word atheist means you lack a belief in god. in other words i lack a belief in god just as I lack a belief in faries and santa clause. Thus i do lack a belief in god. Now you seem to think that I hold afirmative claims about the nature of the universe however this is just not true and anything i believe about the universe is based on science.

Now you seem to think that you know better than bertrand russell however you dont. Firstly it has been shown beyond all doubt that belief in god is the same as an insect flying towards a light. secondly there is cosmological evidence for the universe as if we live in a multiverse then surely in one of those universes matter would have stuck together to form a teapot by accident. Next i can claim to have experienced a teapot if i wanted to. I might as well say women have a desire to buy shoes and have a shoe shopping experience and so a shoe is obriting mars. So you must accept that your wrong on this.

I will be generous and give you some more arguments against the existance of god. Firstly evolution, god would have not made us in this way. Secondly he would make healthy food taste nice if he was loving. Thirdly, who made god? Fourthly, the problem of bauldness, why would god make men go bauld when they get old? Fithly the problem with lack of evidence. Sixthly, why does god allow idiots such as george bush to become president. Seventhly, the existance of dirohea, Eightly, why doesnt god heal amputees? Ninethly, if there are so many different religions it seems logical to assume that theyre all worng and tenthly, prayer doesnt obviously work (why doesnt your head turn green or somemethiong so that scientists can observe prayer?) So there are 10 pieces of evidence against god.

According to wikipedia: "The theory has been revived in brane cosmology as the cyclic model, which evades most of the arguments leveled against the oscillatory universe in the sixties"

Your machinery example is laugable as clearly whoever made your machinery evolved however you dont believe god evolved do you. mwho made god is still unanswerd.

your are using god of the gaps as you are assumiong that just because science cannot answer your questions yet it wont in the future.

Now you are a real hypictite. You use the resurrection of jesus as evidence for god however i cant use errors in the bible as evidence against god. Either neithe rof us can use the bible in this debate or both of us can.

Im going to turn your domino analogy around.

1)Domino factories cannot exist outside of time and space
2)A domino is less complex than a person, so if god made people he must be even more complex than a domino factory
3)Thus god cannot exist outside of time and space either.

Now you ask where i get the idea that god must be complex from: simply the god delusion.

Next, you havent refuted the multiworld hypoteses. We know that one universe exists and so it seems reasonable to assume others do as well.

The moral argument is easy to refute, are things moral because god said they were or is god moral because morality exists independanlty of god?

I think everyone seems to have got carried away with my pepsi vs coke argument, all it does is bring into question your sensibleness and needs to be seen alongside my other arguments.

I think the phrase christian scholar is a contradiction in terms. Whilst atheists go where the evidence leads christians go where their bible leads.

Now Richard Dawkins makes a good point, I will give it to you in his own words:

"Then came this recorded conversation in Trinity College, Oxford, and I couldn't believe my luck. This was pure gold, and I hardly needed to prompt him, certainly no need to trick him into making damaging admissions. He openly admitted, on the record, that he not only believed in the resurrection (that's standard issue for all Christians) and the Virgin Birth (surprisingly common). Lennox admitted, indeed proudly proclaimed, that he believes in all the miracles, even Jesus turning water into wine. I thought nobody believed in that one except fundamentalist wingnuts. I didn't need to argue with him, didn't need to give him rope to hang himself, he was cheerfully damning himself out of his own mouth. I just sat back and revelled in it." (Source)

O.K I can claim "bob had some disciples who saw him risen from the dead"

Im not saying that the alien robot example is likely, just more likely than godidit(TM)

Next there is no evidence that the disciples touched jesus and he appeared, I dont accept the bible im afraid. You need to prove the resurection without quoting the bible at me.

I can prove that god got bored:
1)I get bored when i have nothing to think about
2)there was nothing before the universe was created so god would have had nothiong to think about
3)therefore god got bored.

Finally you dont understand the 'we are all atheists' argument. Why would there be lots fo different religions if god existed?

Well your arguments are even more trashed now than they were before.

[Spacefoetus]

Thank you again MikeWright for your quick response to my rebuttal. I'm sorry that you thought my response was extremely bad- I mean, I have read critiques of my opening statement from others, and I would agree that I am not delving into a lot of detail at all, as far as defence goes. But I didn't realise how terrible my responses actually were. I will try and make this one to your standard of approval Mike.

It’s quite strange that in an argument for the existence of God, you would devote your largest paragraph to defending Dawkin's and Sapient's place in the "Greatest Thinkers in History". You're justification really only consists of informing me that those two people are more well known that I am (I guess we have to include Walt Disney as one of the greatest thinkers too then) and then you blaze off in a huge rant consisting of seemingly endless ad hominems directed towards Christian apologists.

I am getting the majority of my information from a Christian philosopher, William Lane Craig. But debates aren’t won by who has the best sources Mikey. Even if Sapient was one of the greatest thinkers in the world, I am not debating him...I am debating you. It is up to you to use your sources in a way which will show that it is reasonable to believe in God's non-existence.

You then question why God doesn't edit Wikipedia under a false name so that we all believe in him? Mikey, this is irrelevant. I'm not trying to show that a God exists who will try anything to get us to believe in him- I am trying to show a God exists period.

You then try and defend the notion that you don't have to offer evidence for your "lack of belief" in God. In doing so, you examine the word "atheist". You are correct that, literally, atheist means "without God". However, words are rarely defined by their literal meaning. For example, I am a Christian- this word literally means "Little Christ"; yet am I midget who walks about turning water into wine? No, of course not.

I once again show you the definition of "atheism" from a philosophical dictionary:

"Belief that god does not exist. Unlike the agnostic, who merely criticizes traditional arguments for the existence of a deity, the atheist must offer evidence (such as the problem of evil) that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying what is not known to be true."

But despite what you say regarding the definition of atheism, allow me to re-iterate what I've already said:

YOU HAVE AGREED TO SUPPLY REASONS FOR BELIEVEING IN GOD'S NON-EXISTENCE.

If you thought it impossible to do so, then why on Earth did you agree to this debate?!

But no, instead of doing what you're supposed to, you then proceed to defend Russell’s teapot some more.

You try and poison the well with an appeal to authority- suggesting that I, a layperson, cannot single handedly defeat the ideas of the great Bertrand Russell. And you know what? I'm inclined to agree with you. After all, I'm no scientist or philosopher; I'm just a bored teenager with a laptop and unlimited internet access. But it’s not ME refuting the teapot- I am getting the refutations from other sources, from people who ARE qualified to debunk Russell. So enough of this "you seem to think you know better than Bertrand Russell" crap.

How has it been proved beyond all doubt that belief in God is like an insect flying towards a light?! That analogy makes no sense at all, and there’s no evidence for it. Why should I swallow this idiotic sound bite?

Where is this supposed Cosmological evidence that we live in a multiverse? You do realise that even if such a thing where true, THE MUTLIVERSE WOULD STILL HAVE A BEGINNING, THEREFORE THE ARGUMENT STILL STANDS? I mean, I DID mention it in BOTH my posts in this debate!

Matter stuck together to form a teapot? Are you trying to parody the Anthropic Principle so that you can "prove" Russell’s teapot? Well, no. Matter can't "stick together" to form teapots, what you're suggesting is far beyond the realms of possibility. Even so, the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical and such a thing would be completely contingent, unlike God who I've shown to be necessary (although you've ignored that so far).
Yes, if you really want to, you can claim you've experienced the teapot, the difference is YOU'RE LYING WHILE MANY PEOPLE WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE EXPERIENCED GOD OR FELT HIS PRESENCE ARE TELLING THE TRUTH.
And your shoe shop analogy is a bad example. When I talk about a need, I mean a deeply ingrained need, not something totally flippant. For example, we get hungry, because we are designed to eat, we get thirty because we are designed to drink, we get tired because we are designed to sleep: we deeply search for something "more" because we know that something "more" exists.

Unlike the teapot.

So, more than a quarter of your post in a debate where the purpose is to provide evidence as to the non-existence of God....has been taken up by you showing why you don’t have to give evidence for the non-existence of God.

But thankfully, you're "generous" and supplied a multitude of arguments. That’s more like it! So, let’s examine these arguments...

1. You claim that God would not have made us by Evolution. I say "he evidently did". Evolution only possibly refutes William Paley’s original "Argument From design" which is an argument I didn't even submit. So bringing up Evolution seems a tad odd to me.
2. Next you ask why a loving God would make healthy food not taste nice. When did I ever claim God was loving? Remember, we are debating God's existence, not his attributes. In any case, food's taste is entirely subjective and this is no more than an argument from outrage in the strangest form I've ever seen,
3. "Who made God?" No-one. As I've said before, he is an "uncaused cause".
4. The problem of baldness?! What’s wrong with being bald? More argument from outrage in the vein of number 2.
5. Lack of evidence? I've given 5 proofs so far- you attempted to refute four of them in your first rebuttal and failed.
6. Why does God allow idiots like George Bush to become president?! More outrage, see answer 2.
7. diorreah- see answer 2.
8. amputees- see answer 2.
9. Because there are so many religions, they all must be wrong? That’s terrible logic- explain it if you want to defend it adequately. Besides, every religion in the world could be wrong, but God could still exist.
10. Whether prayer works or not is irrelevant, because God could still exist and not answer prayer.

So ten pieces of evidence...all unsound. Unlucky.

You then attempt to refute the Cosmological argument by presenting a defence of the Oscillating Universe theory. In doing so, you break the original rules we agreed on as you can see in the Sign Up Sheet forum: No arguments by links.

Even so, you're guilty of quote mining. Looking at that article, I discovered you conveniently forget to include the final sentence:

"Despite some success, the theory is still controversial, largely because there is no satisfactory string theoretic description of the bounce in this model."

Would you like to present a satisfactory string theoretic description of the bounce in this model?

Besides, recent studies of the microwave background radiation from the WMAP mission indicates that the Universe will expand forever and that the expansion rate is in fact accelerating. So, as far as evidence goes, the oscillating universe theory seems to be very unlikely.

In response to your rebuttal to my "machinery example"...um what? What machinery example?! I DO believe God evolved me!! "Who made God" HAS been answered!!!

Now you're objections are coming thick and fast and in one sentence form, so I'll use the "quote refute" method of dealing with them from here on in:

your are using god of the gaps as you are assumiong that just because science cannot answer your questions yet it wont in the future.

*Sigh* Mikey please, I've dealt with this in my last rebuttal. Please show me exactly WHERE and HOW I'm using "God of the Gaps" then I'll take your objection seriously.

Now you are a real hypictite. You use the resurrection of jesus as evidence for god however i cant use errors in the bible as evidence against god. Either neithe rof us can use the bible in this debate or both of us can.

I assume you're referring to fact that I said that even if the Bible was wrong on the age of the Earth, it still isn’t evidence against God? Well, Mikey, there’s a good reason for that: I am NOT looking to the Bible as an inspired book here; I'm looking to at as an historical document. Upon examining it as one, it is clear that the events I mentioned, as described in the Gospels occurred. I then went on to show how the Resurrection theory is the best explanation of the events. No hypocrisy there.

Im going to turn your domino analogy around.

1)Domino factories cannot exist outside of time and space
2)A domino is less complex than a person, so if god made people he must be even more complex than a domino factory
3)Thus god cannot exist outside of time and space either.

Point one is correct- but NOT because it is complex, as you seem to think, but because such a thing is composed of matter, and matter cannot exist outside of matter.

Point two is incorrect, because things do not have to be more complex than their effects. I've already demonstrated to you what happens in that scenario- you get God anyway. God is relatively SIMPLE as I've also already demonstrated.

Even given the accuracy of the two premises, the conclusion is still not correct: the reason why things can't exist outside of space/time has nothing to do with complexity, rather what it is composed of. In fact, you've proven that the cause of the universe has to be immaterial and timeless, so you're actually aiding my case. Thanks!

Now you ask where i get the idea that god must be complex from: simply the god delusion.

Well, I've demonstrated time and time again that God is simple, so unless you want to challenge me then you’re clearly wrong.

Next, you havent refuted the multiworld hypoteses. We know that one universe exists and so it seems reasonable to assume others do as well.

"One thing exists, therefore an infinite amount of things exist"? That’s not very good logic. You're gonna have to prove that. Only one MikeWright exists as far as I know.

Besides, you still haven’t addressed the fact that even given the MWH, A GOD IS STILL NECESSARY.

The moral argument is easy to refute, are things moral because god said they were or is god moral because morality exists independanlty of god?

Very good- a real argument. The Euthypro dilemma. However, this is easily answered- God wills something because he is good. Your question is like asking "Is this H20 because it is water, or is it water because it’s H2O"? It’s meaningless.

think everyone seems to have got carried away with my pepsi vs coke argument, all it does is bring into question your sensibleness and needs to be seen alongside my other arguments.

Someone make a Wikipedia entry on "The Problem of Pepsi"!

I think the phrase christian scholar is a contradiction in terms. Whilst atheists go where the evidence leads christians go where their bible leads.

No, Christians go where the evidence leads....and the evidence leads to the Bible. Or so it would seem in this debate anyway. Unless you would like to provide some evidence that leads to atheism?

Now Richard Dawkins makes a good point, I will give it to you in his own words:

"Then came this recorded conversation in Trinity College, Oxford, and I couldn't believe my luck. This was pure gold, and I hardly needed to prompt him, certainly no need to trick him into making damaging admissions. He openly admitted, on the record, that he not only believed in the resurrection (that's standard issue for all Christians) and the Virgin Birth (surprisingly common). Lennox admitted, indeed proudly proclaimed, that he believes in all the miracles, even Jesus turning water into wine. I thought nobody believed in that one except fundamentalist wingnuts. I didn't need to argue with him, didn't need to give him rope to hang himself, he was cheerfully damning himself out of his own mouth. I just sat back and revelled in it." (Source)

That’s just a quote of Dawkins arrogantly making fun of someone; it proves nothing other than the fact that Dawkins is an arrogant jerk. Sadly, this is not what the debate is on.

O.K I can claim "bob had some disciples who saw him risen from the dead"

Yes you can. The difference is, historians won't verify your claims, becuase they are bogus.

Im not saying that the alien robot example is likely, just more likely than godidit™

And I just showed, if you recall, that you're completely wrong.

Next there is no evidence that the disciples touched jesus and he appeared, I dont accept the bible im afraid. You need to prove the resurection without quoting the bible at me.

Fine, ignore the evidence, that’s a good tactic.

I can prove that god got bored:
1)I get bored when i have nothing to think about
2)there was nothing before the universe was created so god would have had nothiong to think about
3)therefore god got bored.

Lets examine this argument

1. I don't doubt that at all.
2. Again, the use of temporal terms- there was no time Mikey! How can God get bored unless he’s bound by time??!!
3. Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises, because God is not like you at all. He is perfect. He is not a human being that requires constant stimulus of the 5 senses. He is not bound by time. You can use you're argument to prove that leaves get bored.

Finally you dont understand the 'we are all atheists' argument. Why would there be lots fo different religions if god existed?

It’s not an argument, but a quip. And an illogical one. Religions falsify God’s existence? Ehhh, no they don't.

Well there you go Mike, I hope that response wasn’t too bad for you.

Goodbye and God bless,

Andrew

[MikeWright]

If you want to increase the standard of your posts to that of mine then firstly stop using christian sources to get your information and start using neutral and unbiased sources such as Wikipedia or google searches. Secondly stop assuming god exists and finally stop claiming that i have to give evidence for my beliefs. Oh, and start using logic, science and reason.

You seem to think that being an atheist automatically stops someone from being a great thinker however its actually the other way around. If someone believes in imaginary friends then they are deluded and if someone is deluded how can they be a great thinker? William lane craig is an idiot and demonstrated that when he debated bill cooke

I dont know which dictionary you used however google definitions defines atheism as 'Absence of belief in the existence of God or gods' I also found this interesting definition: "Absence of belief in god(s). [It should also be noted that the early Christians were labeled Atheists because they lacked a belief in the gods of Rome]." So you are an atheist by many definitions.

I have given reasons for believing in gods non-existance: lack of evidence for god. if god existed he would give me as much evidence as i wanted and would have no problem with me holding him up to as much skeptecism as i want.

You ask how it has been proven that belief in god is like an insect flying towards a light however have you read the god delusion?

How do you know that the multiverse had a beginning? Just because this one did doesnt mean that every universe does. Maybe we have a parent universe which we bubbled off and didnt have a beginning?

If im lying when i say i have a desire to believe a teapot of orbiting around the planet mars how do i know that your not lying when you say you have a desire to believe in god.

Next you aknowledge that god is evil however say that you believe in an evil god who lets people get dirohea and thinks its funny or gives people small penises and laughs at them. But if god isnt loving then are they god. how do you define god?

if you blieve god is uncreated then why cant atheists before dawin say we were uncreated beings? Are you saying that you could only show god exists if you live in the 21st century?

Your whole post has been god of the gaps as you are trying to say that god made the universe rather than science did.

If the bible is wrong about the age of the universe then it must be wrong about everything and so we can doubt the existance of jesus. Historians dont trust biased sources with mistakes in them and when an error has been discovered they just throw them out.

youve misunderstood my domino factory argument

you havent argued against my problem of pepsi argument, youve just poked fun at it. I assume the people being silly about it are the same people who thought debunking crap was funny

How does the evidence lead to a book written by iliterate bronze age • Edited by a Moderator • people?

Richard dawkins isnt an arrogant jerk, he admits the limits of his expertise (for example he aknowledged that if it came to something like golf there are people out there more knowledgeable on the subject than him) and doesnt believe, like you, that the universe was made just for him

you have given me no evidence that the disciples touced jesus other than the bible, which i have shown is no more historially credible than a book on jack and the beanstalk.

I will end with another devestating argument against god. Most things in nature are green: trees, plants, grass etc. So is green gods favorite colour? But if god is god then god wouldnt show favoritusm towards one colour rather than another. Think about it

Moderated By: Kelp

What makes you think racial slurs would be allowed on Tweb?

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Spacefoetus]

Here we go again!

If you want to increase the standard of your posts to that of mine then firstly stop using christian sources to get your information and start using neutral and unbiased sources such as Wikipedia or google searches

I'll never reach your standard of post Mike, so theres really no point in offering advice, Your debating skills are superior to mine in every single way, especially spelling. As for sources...look Mikey, like I said, arguments arn't won by whoever has the best sources, its up to you to use your sources and present a good argument or two. Also...

1. Of course Christian sources are "biased" towards Christianity...but that doesn't automatically discount everything Christians say. If that where the case, then why bother even debating me, I'm just a "biased Christian". Honestly Mike, in our GCSE History exam, we have to asses the reliebility of sources- and we wern't allowed to say "they're unreleible because they're biased!" beause the teacher said that was a far too simplistic was of saying things.
2. At least with christian sources the biases are clear- with Wikipedia, you never know WHOSE writing the articles....so they could have all sorts of strange baises you won't know about and could post in way that conforms to those biases...and you won't even know about it.
3. EVERYONE is biased....even atheists. OK?

Secondly stop assuming god exists and finally stop claiming that i have to give evidence for my beliefs.

1. I never "assumed" God exist, I provided evidence that he did- evidence that you still havn't refuted, in fact you havn't even tackeled the argument from contingency yet.
2. See, theres were we have the hippocrisy. You falsy call me down for assuming something about God....then complain that I'm correctly calling you down for the same crime. Listen, as an atheist you are denying God's existence, you are making a positive claim to knowledge, therefore you need to provide EVIDENCE. And, as I've pointed out before already, the debate is to prove its more reasonable to believe in God's existence than his non-existence. "Reasonable"- this means you need to supply REASONS aka EVIDENCE.

Oh, and start using logic, science and reason.

I've used logic numurous times as well as citing scientific theories. You have demonstrated relativly poor logic, for example when you claimed that many religions falsifys God's existence. Your conclusion does not follow from the premises therefore you are using bad logic. As for science, all you have done in that department is endorse a cosmological model thats 20 years out of date, and randomly and irrelevantly mention Evolution.

You seem to think that being an atheist automatically stops someone from being a great thinker however its actually the other way around

How can you accuse me of thinking such a thing when I acknowledged Betrand Russell as a great thinker?

f someone believes in imaginary friends then they are deluded and if someone is deluded how can they be a great thinker?

I agree with you Mike. But God isnt an "imaginary friend". Or at least as far as this debate goes he isn't- you have yet to gove any good evidence that God doesn't exist and refute my evidence that He does.

William lane craig is an idiot and demonstrated that when he debated bill cooke

Even the atheists who were present at the debate agreed that Bill Criag won. Man, I can't believe we're discussing this in a debate regarding God's existence, but I guess you need some "filler" otherwise your posts would be extrememly short.

Its also useful to note that in that debate Bill Cooke ignored the debates subject and instead whined about how he didn't need to provide evidence....oh the irony.

I dont know which dictionary you used however google definitions defines atheism as 'Absence of belief in the existence of God or gods' I also found this interesting definition: "Absence of belief in god(s). [It should also be noted that the early Christians were labeled Atheists because they lacked a belief in the gods of Rome]." So you are an atheist by many definitions.

Oh, the Google dictionary. Sorry, I forgot that annonymous people on the internet know more about philosophy than actual philosophers. How stupid of me. Anyway, regardless of the definition of atheism, the very subject of this debate requires you to supply evidence for your position. And yes, Christians were once called atheists because they didn't believe in the polytheistic religion of the greeks and romans. The definition was still the same "Someone who disbelieves in God" but the word was just misused.

I have given reasons for believing in gods non-existance: lack of evidence for god. if god existed he would give me as much evidence as i wanted and would have no problem with me holding him up to as much skeptecism as i want.

Thats a terrible reason for not believeing in God's existence, considering I supplied at least 5 evidences for God's existence. And remember, we arn;t discussing a God that will try anything to get even the most arrogant skeptic to believe. Not even the Christian God promises this.

You ask how it has been proven that belief in god is like an insect flying towards a light however have you read the god delusion?

No, I havn't read the God Delusion, although I would like to, for a laugh. I would however appreciate it if you actually explained to me here in the debate why belief in God is like an insect flying towards a light.

How do you know that the multiverse had a beginning? Just because this one did doesnt mean that every universe does. Maybe we have a parent universe which we bubbled off and didnt have a beginning?

Mike, the Multiverse you are proposing is based of the chaotic inflattory model, suggested by Friedman, I think. Based on complex mathematic equations ect. and of course, the simple philosophical fact that if time was infinite in the past then we wouldn't even be here, scientists have worked out that the chaotic inflattory model requires a beginning.

If im lying when i say i have a desire to believe a teapot of orbiting around the planet mars how do i know that your not lying when you say you have a desire to believe in god.

I know when I'm not lying, Mike.

Next you aknowledge that god is evil however say that you believe in an evil god who lets people get dirohea and thinks its funny or gives people small penises and laughs at them. But if god isnt loving then are they god. how do you define god?

I never acknowledged that God was evil at all- I merely stated that we are discussing god's existence, not His attributes. How do I define God? In a deistic sense- an immaterial, uncaused, powerful, timeless being.

if you blieve god is uncreated then why cant atheists before dawin say we were uncreated beings? Are you saying that you could only show god exists if you live in the 21st century?

That makes no sense. God is uncreated, because an uncreated God is necessary for the existence of everything. Atheists before Darwins day can say we're uncreated if they want, the problem is they're wrong. The Big Bang clearly shows that the universe had a beginning, cause and effect laws clearly show that everything that begins to exist has a cause, therefore the universe must have a cause. And, as I've shown, that cause must be immaterial, timeless, uncaused etc.

Your whole post has been god of the gaps as you are trying to say that god made the universe rather than science did.

I asked where I used God of the Gaps....this was your reply? Science didn't make the Universe, science is the tool we humans use to understand the universe.

If the bible is wrong about the age of the universe then it must be wrong about everything and so we can doubt the existance of jesus

The Bible ISN'T wrong about the age of the universe, but thats not the point. The Bible isn;t one big book, its 66 separate books. Even if Genesis was wrong, that would have no bearing on the releibility of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Revelation or all the Epistles. Nor does it cast doubt on extra-biblical sources for Jesus, including Tacitus and Josephus.

Historians dont trust biased sources with mistakes in them and when an error has been discovered they just throw them out.

Like I said, on the whole "biased" issue you wouldn;t even pass a GCSE history exam, so I highly doubt you can legitimatly speak for all historians here. And they don't just toss out sources with mistakes at all. For example, the two reposts of Hannibals crossing contradict eachother, but historians still see them as useful and use them to work out what REALLY happened.

youve misunderstood my domino factory argument

Explain how.

you havent argued against my problem of pepsi argument, youve just poked fun at it. I assume the people being silly about it are the same people who thought debunking crap was funny

OK, fine.

1. I thinkt that Pepsi better than Coke
2. Coke is better than Pepsi because you think so and all your friends agree
3. Therefore, if I'm wrong on that, I can't be trusted on matters of God.
4. Therefore God doesn't exist.

Premise one is evidently true.
Premise two is partially true. You and your friends think that Coke is better than Pepsi. However, it is not an objective fact, it is entirely sunjective, therefore that premise is wrong, therefore the entire argument is.
Premise three is wrong- I can be wrong about Pepsi vs. Coke, however, that is not what the debate is on- it is on the existence of God. Evidence is to be judged independently of soft drink preferences.
conclusion- again false. Other theists may like Coke better, this means that they could be correct about God.

I can't believe I even humoured your "Problem of Pepsi". I should have used the AngelDragon approach, but I decided to take it seriously.

How does the evidence lead to a book written by iliterate bronze age • Edited by a Moderator • people?

1. If they were illiterate, how did they write books?
2. The bible was written way after the Bronze Age
3. A good portion of it was not written by nomadic Jews.
4. Whether the evidence or not leads to the Bible is irrelevant as this is about God and not YHWH.

Richard dawkins isnt an arrogant jerk, he admits the limits of his expertise (for example he aknowledged that if it came to something like golf there are people out there more knowledgeable on the subject than him) and doesnt believe, like you, that the universe was made just for him

Dawkins is no expert in philosophy no matter how much you want to believe he is. I don;t believe the universe was created just for me, I think it was created for the glory of God.

you have given me no evidence that the disciples touced jesus other than the bible, which i have shown is no more historially credible than a book on jack and the beanstalk.

you havn't demonstrated that at all.

I will end with another devestating argument against god. Most things in nature are green: trees, plants, grass etc. So is green gods favorite colour? But if god is god then god wouldnt show favoritusm towards one colour rather than another. Think about it

Have you seen the entire universe? For all you know, there could be other colours that appear just as much as green. Even so, why can God not have a favourite colour?

again, i question why I even bothered to answer that.

I'd run it through spell check, but I couldn;t be bothered.

Bye!

[MikeWright]

Well you can tell im winning when spacefoestus admits in his opening paragraph that "Your debating skills are superior to mine in every single way" So if spacefoetus admits that ive won this debate then who can disagree?

Now atheists arent biased. We have no church who tells us what to believe, no reason to want to live out our lives like you see in the bible. All we want to do is follow the evidence. Christians, however, cant be trusted to get anything right as have been demonstrated time and time again. Now some sources are neutral, encyclopedias are designed to be that way which is why i get my information from wikipedia. Achademics who are atheists are neutral which is why i listen to richard dawkins. Most people realise that Richard Dawkins is intelligent and the ultimate authority on everything as this article shows. Now im not arguing by link, im just giving a source for richard dawkins being right all of the time.

Now many religions do falsify gods existance as logically when there are many different things to choose from all of the options must be false. If you were born in india youd be a muslim, if you were born in roman times youd be a mirhtras worshiper. Why would god allow your religion to be an accident of where you are born?

if you admit that russell was a great thinker then you must accept his teapot argument.

Next john loftus thought that bill cooke won the debate with william lane craig so many respectable people agree with me.

google dictionary is a perfectly respected source in the circles i mix in, just because google proves your silly religion to be false is not my fault.

Now you say that an atheist is someone who disbelives in god and thats what im saying, i dis (or lack) a belif in god and so I dont have to give evidence and can just sit back until you convince me.

Now you seem to imply that anyone who isnt a christian is an arrogant sceptic however that clearly not true. Im not arrogant for a start. Knowing your right when you are is not arrogance. Why would god reward people for being gullible and punish those like me just for asking for a bit of evidence? You didnt think of that, did you?

You want me to explain why belief in god is like an insect flying towards a light because you are so badly read you havent read the god delusion. He is Richard Dawkins explanation:

he way I would answer that question is to say that the human brain was selected to develop something which manifests itself as religion under some circumstances. If I take an analogy of... well, one that I'm particularly fond of is the tendency of moths to fly into candle flames, and it's tempting to label that suicidal behaviour in moths, and ask what on earth is the Darwinian advantage of suicidal behaviour in moths. If you put it like that, clearly there isn't any.

But if you say instead 'What is the Darwinian survival value of having the kind of brain which under some circumstances leads moths to fly into candle flames?', then you're getting somewhere, because then you can say 'Well in the world where moths evolved, there weren't any candle flames. The only lights you would see if you were a night-flying moth would be things like the moon and the stars, and they are at optical infinity, which means that their rays are coming parallel. And if you have a rule of thumb in your brain that says 'Steer a steady angle of say 30 degrees to the rays of the moon,' that's a very useful thing to do, because that keeps you going in a dead straight line. That rule of thumb is then misapplied to candles, which are not at optical infinity, where the rays are radiating outwards. And if you follow the same rule of thumb, of keeping an angle of 30 degrees to the candle's rays, then you'll simply spiral into the candle and burn yourself.

So we have rephrased the question. We've said it was the wrong question to say 'Why do moths fly into candle flames?'. The right question is 'Why do they have the kind of brain which in the wild state made them do something which, in the human-dominated state where there are candles, makes them fly into candle flames?'. Now in the case of religion, I think there was something built into the human brain by natural selection which was once useful and which now manifests itself under civilised conditions as religion, but which used not to be religion when it first arose, and when it was useful.

(source)

How do you know that the beginning of your inflamatory model isnt a flying spagetti monster?

Now either you respond to my argument about god giving people small penises or you accpet that god is evil . If you accept that god is evil then that refutes your argument from moraility. Simple really.

How do you know that god is uncreated? He might have a beginning and then he wouldnt exist.

Now science explains how the universe came from nowhere. As Christopher Hitchens argues, if the universe is going nowhere it came from nowhere.

Show me a contradiction in the sources for hannibal crossing the alps - i bet you just made that up.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Now a philopsopher is someone who asks questions and so richard dawkins is an expert philophser as far as im concerned.

You really are loosing this debate, arent you?

Moderated By: Kelp

No arguing with moderation within thread. You've been told before that complaints about moderation must be taken to the Psychotherapy Room.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Spacefoetus]

Well, at last we reach the conclusion of the debate.

Once again, I would like to remidn Mike what the debate was on- "It is more reasonable to believe in God's Existence that God's non-existence".

In my opening statement I presented five arguments for the existence of God.

1. the Kalaam Cosmological Argument.
2. The Argument From Contingency
3. The Teleological Argument
4. The Argument From Morality
5. The Argument From the Ressurection.

Mike attempted to refute arguments 1, 3, 4 and 5. I refuted his refutations and saved the arguments, thus making them viable, yet even granting that Mike's refutations were sound (this is a hypothetical situation of course) The argument From Contingency would still stand, thus providing a solid case for the existence of God. The only way Mikey could get round this is by providing equally strong arguments for God's non-existence.

So far I have seen Mike try to BACK OUT OF THIS with Russel's teapot, even when I showed the teapot to be fallacious.

He has then presented various arguments, most of which are the logically falalcious "arguments from outrage" critiques of the Bible (which is irrelevant as Bible innerency is not the topic of debate) the infamous "Problem of Pepsi" and other equally ridiculous arguments such as "God's favourite colour is green, therefore He doesn't exist".

It seems that in his latest post, Mike has given up trying to defend his side and is basically defending Richard Dawkin's, so here we go, one last time:

Well you can tell im winning when spacefoestus admits in his opening paragraph that "Your debating skills are superior to mine in every single way" So if spacefoetus admits that ive won this debate then who can disagree?

OK Mike...here comes the revelation....I was being sarcastic. Sorry to dissapoint you.

Now atheists arent biased.

Whats this got to do with God? I thought we'd thrown out the whole "sources= biased= false" idea...I'd really like to see you tackle a GCSE history exam Mike. Anyway you're wrong.

We have no church who tells us what to believe, no reason to want to live out our lives like you see in the bible.

No, you have Richard Dawkins to tell you what to believe and a reason to want to live out your life like you see in the God Delusion.

All we want to do is follow the evidence.

Then why won't you AKNOWLEDGE the evidence FOR God? Oh I know why! Because you're BIASED!

I want to follow evidence.

Christians, however, cant be trusted to get anything right as have been demonstrated time and time again.

Sir Issac Newton much?

Now some sources are neutral, encyclopedias are designed to be that way which is why i get my information from wikipedia.

How do you KNOW Wikipedia is neutral? What if biased Christians are editing it?

Achademics who are atheists are neutral which is why i listen to richard dawkins. Most people realise that Richard Dawkins is intelligent and the ultimate authority on everything as this article shows. Now im not arguing by link, im just giving a source for richard dawkins being right all of the time.

Well it turns out God does exist...and God is Richard Dawkins!

Now many religions do falsify gods existance as logically when there are many different things to choose from all of the options must be false. If you were born in india youd be a muslim, if you were born in roman times youd be a mirhtras worshiper. Why would god allow your religion to be an accident of where you are born?

There were many theories as to the mechanisms of Evolution, this means Evolution isn't true? Come on Mikey. We're not debating a God that will do anything to make us believe in him, I highly doubt any deist would agree with you on that. anyway...

1. India is generally Hindu is it not? Not Muslim? I could be wrong here.
2. There were Christians in Roman Times not everyone worshipped Mithra.

if you admit that russell was a great thinker then you must accept his teapot argument.

Terrible, terrible logic. I showed why the teapot is wrong, it is for those reasons I don't believe it. I am looking at evidence unlike you who is blindly following Bertrand Russel.

Next john loftus thought that bill cooke won the debate with william lane craig so many respectable people agree with me.

John Loftus isn't respected. Many more respectable people side with me, including atheists who were actually at the debate.

google dictionary is a perfectly respected source in the circles i mix in, just because google proves your silly religion to be false is not my fault.

How can an online dictionary disprove Christianity? you frustrate me.

Now you say that an atheist is someone who disbelives in god and thats what im saying, i dis (or lack) a belif in god and so I dont have to give evidence and can just sit back until you convince me.

Read the subject of the debate. You've got one post left, lets see what you can salvage.

Now you seem to imply that anyone who isnt a christian is an arrogant sceptic however that clearly not true. Im not arrogant for a start. Knowing your right when you are is not arrogance. Why would god reward people for being gullible and punish those like me just for asking for a bit of evidence? You didnt think of that, did you?

*Sigh*

Mike, I never made such a claim. Also, you ask for evidence, so do I. I have delivered, you havn't. Wake up to reality.

You want me to explain why belief in god is like an insect flying towards a light because you are so badly read you havent read the god delusion. He is Richard Dawkins explanation:

he way I would answer that question is to say that the human brain was selected to develop something which manifests itself as religion under some circumstances. If I take an analogy of... well, one that I'm particularly fond of is the tendency of moths to fly into candle flames, and it's tempting to label that suicidal behaviour in moths, and ask what on earth is the Darwinian advantage of suicidal behaviour in moths. If you put it like that, clearly there isn't any.

But if you say instead 'What is the Darwinian survival value of having the kind of brain which under some circumstances leads moths to fly into candle flames?', then you're getting somewhere, because then you can say 'Well in the world where moths evolved, there weren't any candle flames. The only lights you would see if you were a night-flying moth would be things like the moon and the stars, and they are at optical infinity, which means that their rays are coming parallel. And if you have a rule of thumb in your brain that says 'Steer a steady angle of say 30 degrees to the rays of the moon,' that's a very useful thing to do, because that keeps you going in a dead straight line. That rule of thumb is then misapplied to candles, which are not at optical infinity, where the rays are radiating outwards. And if you follow the same rule of thumb, of keeping an angle of 30 degrees to the candle's rays, then you'll simply spiral into the candle and burn yourself.

So we have rephrased the question. We've said it was the wrong question to say 'Why do moths fly into candle flames?'. The right question is 'Why do they have the kind of brain which in the wild state made them do something which, in the human-dominated state where there are candles, makes them fly into candle flames?'. Now in the case of religion, I think there was something built into the human brain by natural selection which was once useful and which now manifests itself under civilised conditions as religion, but which used not to be religion when it first arose, and when it was useful.

In other words, religion has evolved therefore its untrue. Genetic fallacy. This is why I don't see Dawkins as a great thinker. He uses logical fallacys.

How do you know that the beginning of your inflamatory model isnt a flying spagetti monster?

Because the necessary attributes of this "First Cause" fulfill criteria for a desitic definition of God and do not include pasta. I've already answered this.

Now either you respond to my argument about god giving people small penises or you accpet that god is evil . If you accept that god is evil then that refutes your argument from moraility. Simple really.

If you say that God is objectivly evil, then you are affirming objective morality and thus aiding my case. thanks.

How do you know that god is uncreated? He might have a beginning and then he wouldnt exist.

Because an uncaused cause is a necessary being.

Show me a contradiction in the sources for hannibal crossing the alps - i bet you just made that up.

The routes of hannibal described by Livy are contradictory to the routes described by Polybius.

Now science explains how the universe came from nowhere. As Christopher Hitchens argues, if the universe is going nowhere it came from nowhere.

Terrible, terrible logic.

Now a philopsopher is someone who asks questions and so richard dawkins is an expert philophser as far as im concerned.

"sigh" who cares?

You really are loosing this debate, arent you?

Whatever you say Mike.

[MikeWright]

When I rode in with my arsenal full of richard dawkins books and wikipedia pages, complete with razersharp logic to match, and Spacefoetus stumbled in with a few william lane craig sound bites I think the outcome of this debate was inevitable. And, suprise suprise, I think I won. I notice that spacefoestus posts are longer than mine which shows that whilst I was able to blow his arguments out of the water with the odd sentence he was running around in difficulty. Now I could use the tried and trusted atheist debate technique of simply quoting his posts as their stupidity speaks for themselves however i will be kind and offer some arguments instead.

Spacefoetus has offered 5 arguments which have now been shredded:
-the kalam, but spacefoestus forgot: who made god?
-contingency, but who says the universe is contingent?
-telelogical argument, however wikipedia says this is an argument from design and evolution distroys any creationist argument from design
-moraility, but atheists are moral to
-the resurection, but the only 'evidence' for that is in the bible

spacefoestus is lying when he says that he has shown rusells teapot to be falacious and so this argument still stands.

now spacefoestus cannot decide if he is loosing this debate and resorts to excuses such as 'oh i was being sarcastic.' well then, how do you know jesus wasnt being sarcastic when he said god exists?

It does not matter how id do on a GCSE history exam, rook hawkins admits in his freethoughtpedia biography that he did badly in most of his exams at school and now he is a top historian and so exams mean nothing.

now the reason i dont aknowledge the evidence for god is because there is none, not because im biased

Now you mention isca newton however if he had been born after dawkin hed know about evolution and be an atheist.

If when you mean god you mean richard dawkins then i agree, however richard dawkins never made the universe so technically he isnt a god

now you didnt understand my argument on where people were born, simply attacking the factual acuracy of my premises doesnt effect the conclusion, the point remains that if you were born in india you wouldnt be a christian

I demonstrated in my last post how an online dictionary refutes your silly faith.

Since when does talking about genetics and evolution become a fallacy? This seems like a dumb creationist trick to dismiss genetic science as a fallacy. Sorry, some of us base their beliefs in sience.

now you admit god is evil so why do you worship him?

now where are you getting your info on hannible from?

As this is my last post i will leave with one more devestating argument against theism. The concensus of scholars admits that the gospels quote josephus and were written in the second century. Now you can either do what mat slick did and claim that the rational response squad are irational for going the the scholarly concensus or you can admit god doesnt exist. The choice is yours.

Now i hope i dont make you cry or anything have pwned you in this debate however its not my fault athsim is true and my arguments are better than yours.

[Kelp]

Moderated By: Kelp

Debate concluded. Thread closed.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.