Thanks, to Virtuoso for instigating this debate.
Since many of my own arguments directly relate to my opponents case, I shall intertwine them.
Rebuttals/Arguments
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Theists commonly refer to the KCA when arguing for the existence of a deity. It is a a pretty big philosophical claim, and there is a lot to debate about the premises it raises. A whole debate can easily center around debunking this argument, however since the resolution is broader than this argument itself, I'll try to summarize the rebuttals into a few key points.The KCA is self- refuting, The first cause, and the KCA being an argument from ignorance.If we are to grant that everything has a cause, and still make a case for a God to have created everything, the cosmological argument than has to explain how the deity exists; which is why the KCA uses strict verbiage in it's premises. The first premise, if accepted "Whatever begins to exist has a cause", frames the argument specifically to cater towards a pre-conceived agenda for theism. We can specifically the word "Begins" to see this, suggesting that a God already existed. Obviously the question then is, if nothing was needed to cause a God, how does God surpass the 'irrefutable' logic of causation in the following premises? What is the first actually is the first cause? A proper agnostic-atheistic answer would be that the first cause was created by natural scientific causes that we as humans (simple animals) cannot grasp or understand at our current stage of scientific research.
For Fundamentalists and Apologists to say this is a God, simply due to a lack of understanding seems then, rather fallacious thinking, as we are attributing unknown wonder to that a being with wondrous power, that translates so much into other aspect of human lifestyle, like religious theism. What we are wrongly assuming, is that whatever this mystical non-understood potentially scientific or natural process is, people who advocate for the KCA's accuracy assume that since we cannot quantify it currently in our realm of understanding, that it is an all powerful deity who controls every aspect of material existence. Not only is this an argument from ignorance, isn't this also a false dichotomy to assume that everything was created from nothing, or a God? Why can't there be a plethora of other unknown options attributed to the amazing phenomena of life?My best answer to explain this jump in conclusion, is we are forming opinions based on historical mythology and social constructs already in place from media outlets and learned behaviors.
For example, while alien conspiracies tend to be wide and varying, those who claim to have seen aliens or who have abduction stories conveniently and commonly claim to see aliens that fit the same description that the Aliens depicted in the 1947 depiction of the Roswell incident where aliens were described as being grey, with big eyes, big heads, and lanky skinny bodies.
The popularization of the idea of the Grey alien is commonly associated with the Barney and Betty Hill abduction claim, which purportedly took place in New Hampshire in 1961, although skeptics see precursors in science fiction and earlier paranormal claims; Grey aliens are also famed from earlier depictions of the 1947 Roswell UFO incident. (1)
As the years passed and the ideas of Alien existence entered the minds of fiction writers in books, movies, and Television, many claims were made about alien sightings all conveniently following the same description. The same way many religious individuals claim to have religious experiences based on the historical fictions told by the bible, people will also commonly claim to have mystical experiences based on their churches teachings. Theism is a very popular cultural belief and is easily accepted by a large portion of the world given that only about 14 percent of the worlds population identify as Secular, agnostic or atheist. (2)
All this is to say that intellects in order to rationalize the irrational, created the KSA argument which chooses one popular mythology to justify something we cannot currently explain as being a God, based on what conveniently fits into a pre-existing confirmation bias of the existence of a God.The next part of my opponents arguments refers to Dr. Abel's skepticism of Hawkins theory of the Big Bang theory. While a debate on the validity of the BBT could certainly again be made on its own accord, this point doesn't do a lot for my opponents case. While is it debatable that there is absolute no physical proof for the Big Bang Theories existence, it is at the end of the day just a theory. It is a theory that is best supported about the Universe's existence, but not one that we can adequately rely on to answer most human questions about existence.
My problem with my opponents argument is that simply disproving one theory, doesn't confirm the validity of the opposing theory. The KSA for example, is a theory. As pointed out above, a theory that lacks much substance and is formed based on a forced dichotomy of religious history, which seems far less supported than the evidence for the Big Bang Theory. My opponent says that Hawkins theory "doesn't stand to the scrutiny" of Abel's complaints, but really all Abel is saying is that there isn't hard proof to say that the BBT is the definite theory of the universe's existence. The claim Abel is making out of Hawkins position that the BBT is the end all be all solution for the universe, isn't a claim that Hawkins or most Atheists would say they stand by, even if it is the best supported scientific theorem for the universe.
Argument from Design.
The entire point of the 4 premises here, seem to elaborate the magnificence of the human body, and the specific use and utility in which we humans are able to use this in life. The metaphor with the archer and the arrow is interesting, as it precludes the utility of the human body seeks the ultimate utility of the creator. What the premises here lack, is elaboration on what the archer's target is. The quoted argument by Contra basically can be summarized to say that the specific effect of every cause is designed, but this in and of itself lacks plausible premise. This whole argument seems to boil down to lack of human understanding which my opponent's solution is intelligent design. Just because we don't why we naturally exist, doesn't mean that an equally un-provable creator is the answer.
This all goes back to the argument from ignorance. My opponent's famous statement here in conclusion of this argument is "The complexity of life itself requires a creator and requires moving parts that simply cannot put itself together."My question is why? Why does the miracle of life justify a creator? Why can't the bodies of humans and animals who extremely differing functions pertaining to their own separate survival functionalities? Evolution seems to answer a lot of the questions about design, as species tend to gain and lose abilities over time as needed. Humans and the development of technology no longer require us to swing from trees, as our relative Ape ancestors once needed. Just as cave dwelling species evolve without eyes, as they no longer need them, or house mice develop resistances to poison's (3).
All of natures evolutionary process don't need to be explained by a Diety, or powerful being. In fact they don't need to be explained at all! Accepting that we currently don't fully understand something through is a better alternative than jumping to a conclusion about about meta-physical entities, especially when these conclusions have such drastic changes to the way people act daily when practicing religions. In fact these practices can arguably be harmful in many, many cases. Obvious historical discretion against large numbers of people resulting in killing, to even less harmful (depending on region) modern discrimination based on theism and religious practices.
My argument is more than talking about the harm of religion, because that isn't what this debate is about. It's essentially that my opponent's explanation for the unknown is essentially un-substantiated guesswork, but when people go too far with this type of belief, it commonly creates harmful ideologues, where is seems like accepting the lack of an answer is the most intelligent recourse, and nets less harm.In
Conclusion
My arguments also were attributed in my rebuttals, but in case they were lost in translation I'll summarize my points clearly.The major points I would like to stress are as follows:
1. There is no reasonable quantifiable, or measurable way to prove the existence of a Deity or God.
2. Arguments from ignorance are fallible; We cannot claim and create and entity to justify lack of knowledge about nature.
3. There is so compelling reasonable way to prove the existence of a Deity or God.
4. Current theories of God's are largely based on hysterical mythologies, and social culture and are passed down generations into forced dichotomies. I am excited for the progression of this debate, and eagerly look forward to my opponents response.
Sources:
Lunatic: "We are all just a bunch of neck beards on the internet. Our opinions don't mean anything.
My stance on God should be irrelevant to your belief."
***
Unless, of course, you care about the truth of an issue and/or someone is misaligning an issue and/or creating a mindset that encourages others to do the same.
If you do not believe truth is worth fighting for or discussing there is no point in debating, IMO, other than to stoke your ego if you win. So what is the motive of the debate?
The question of God's existence is of paramount importance as it pertains to the truth.
If God is, you are answerable to Him.
If God is not, who cares about truth or ultimately anything? Ultimately it is all meaningless. Do your pleasure or whatever you like in as much as you can get away with it. It doesn't matter. Why live as though it does and be inconsistent? If God does not exist why should I act as you want me to, as long as I have the power to resist your preferences?
We are all just a bunch of neck beards on the internet. Our opinions don't mean anything. My stance on God should be irrelevant to your belief.
As a believer in God to another believer, it is disappointing to me once again that you commit to a debate and then you do not follow through with it, giving someone a cheap win and discrediting Christianity/Judaism as a logical and reasonable viewpoint.
The bible contradicts it's self a lot.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Ramshutu // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded.
[*Reason for non-removal*] Conceded debates are not moderated unless the voter awards points to the side that concedes. Since this voter awards points to the side that did not concede, awarding arguments points is acceptable.
==================================================================
I asked for my vote to get deleted when vote moderation was announced, as it was a counter-vote...
Would appreciate if you could delete it.
Not just acceptable, perfectly acceptable. :)
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Tejretics // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Counter JCEurovision96's argument point; not bothering to counter conduct and spelling/grammar, since Pro concedes anyway.
>Reason for Mod Action: Counter votebombs are typically not permitted. However, in the case of a conceded debate, per the site voting policy, "conceded debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the side that concedes." Therefore, this vote is acceptable, because it does not vote for the conceding side (Pro).
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro gives up willingly.
>Reason for Mod Action: Awarding argument points on the basis of a concession is perfectly acceptable.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: blamonkey // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Virtuoso conceded the debate
>Reason for Mod Action: Awarding argument points on the basis of a concession is perfectly acceptable.
************************************************************************
No it hasn’t. I can leave your vote up because I forfeited and you voted against me. No reason to remove it.
Has a system of vote reports been set up yet?
Also, please remove my vote, as it was a counter.
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: JCEuroVision96 // Mod action: Removed<
3 points awarded. Reasons for voting decision: Pro made very clear views on the existence of God, while Con dodges his attack.
[*Reason for removal*] JCEuroVision96 voted for the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
Did you even read the debate? I conceded as I didn’t have time. @Admin please remove JC’s vote.
What about the Muslim one?
God is real but it's not the J-C one.