Being angry points to God's existence
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
This is a pro argument for objective values and morals, implied by every human's reactions to perceived unjust actions, which will point to a personal God, having broken God's moral law subjects us to the consequences we now experience, including eternal ones to come, necessitating the need for a Savior. The purpose of the debate is to point people to God's Word, and the gospel of Jesus Christ, so they could become saved from the consequence of breaking God's objective moral laws.
//It's what you believe, fine. Not what you know// Self-refuting, since your statement itself would be what you believe rather than what you know, making the statement meaningless. However, things can be known by effects, thus we can reason to the best explanation. To date, God has not been replaced by any adequate secular explanations, thus is still the best explanation to objective morality, justice, truth that even unbelievers embark when they get angry, calling for justice.
//Much of everything else you had to say was circular providing biblical scriptures// Difference being the biblical worldview there is an adequate standard, timeless, universal, unchanging, non-contingent standard of truth, which is necessary for objective truth and knowledge, which doesn’t exist on secular and pseudo-religious worldviews,, hence as such, revelation through scripture is proper,, as the true God and revelation would be non-contingent (not dependent on anyone or anything outside itself for its existence and qualities), avoiding an infinite regress contradiction as you need to eventually root back to a terminate point that is non-contingent, which would be the adequate standard. At that point the adequate standard as non-contingent wouldn’t need anything or one to verify it or its truths; they exist non-contingently, by themselves, there is a circle at that point, but a necessary not viscous one, so it wouldn’t be begging the question. It only begs the question if a contingent reality points to itself without other reasons because it is dependent.
//I need to counter is your foundation. It's in your basis that you build your position. With a non-corroborated starting point, the bricks just come a tumbling down.// Agreed, which is precisely why secular ideologies fall apart as they don’t have an adequate standard or foundation for laws of logic, math, nature, objective morality, ultimate meaning/purpose. However, the biblical worldview has a proper adequate standard as God that has the 10 essential qualities both doctrinally and practically to be an adequate standard (eternal, immutable, non-contingent, personal, self-revealing, all moral, etc.), while secularism (atheism, materialism, naturalism, etc.), have none of those qualities, neither does poly, pantheism, deism. Thus, is the proper foundation for truth and knowledge, so the building is built upon a proper foundation. Christ, the Rock foundation. “...for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ” //How do you know morality is not something invented socially based on emotional, sympathetic, empathetic triggers wired from instincts, biological hormonal/chemical substances in our organic matter of our organisms?// Then it wouldn’t be objective, but relative to preferences and conditions, but everytime atheists argue against Christians for imposing their morality and religion on them they suggest that it isn’t relative at all, but transcendent to those who are embarking in such actions deemed immoral, which is the core of my argument. So relative morality is simply a decoy to avoid God’s existence, but nobody truly believes it as evidenced by their reactions to perceived moral relevance. People are relativists until objective wrongness is done to them. Nobody says when they are offended, it's only instincts, hormones, organic substances as you suggest; for if they did, they couldn’t’ rationally hold anyone accountable, but we all do insist on objective justice as if there was objective morality transcendent of matter and chemicals, showing that your response just proves my point, such propositions are all secularism can deliver but fails miserably. If it is a byproduct of evolution of chemicals, then that’s all we are, accidental materialistic moist robots, chemicals, then there is no basis for ultimate meaning/purpose, thus none for true moral right and wrong. Chemicals don’t give us right and wrong, and that’s the core of morality; otherwise morality is meaningless.
//Let's say if there are multiverses, infinite earths, matter never created nor destroyed or even big bang alone by itself in singularity, are you saying it is impossible for the concept of personal relationships to exist?// There can’t be infinite universes philosophically or scientifically, like saying there is a square circle, an irrelevant thesis. Infinite universes would create an infinite regress contradiction, you need a terminate point for everything, whether reasons, contingent materials. Additionally, on secularism, energy/matter are the sum of existence, but energy in any potential physical universe is always in a state of flux, but change implies time, implying a beginning, disqualifying eternal universe(s). Entropy displays as energy/matter change, the amount of useful energy decreases, so entropy will run it down to a cold dead universe, proving any (multi)universe couldn’t be eternal, meaning you don’t have an infinite amount of time for randomness to do its thing, producing persons, objective morality. Further, by suggesting such an absurdity that random energy has produced persons, subscribing to naturalism, you would have to demonstrate that can/has happened empirically, which nobody can. But even with infinite time, causality principle disallows what your imaginative conjecture calls for since random energy has no plausible possibility of ever being the cause for the effect of persons, conscious existence, immaterial realities, objective morality, laws/uniformity. The cause is not sufficient to the effect, and the effect is too unlike the cause to rationally suggest such ideas, but are only suggested to avoid God, which becomes inadvertent admission that God is the best explanation as he is personal, conscious, immaterial, etc. so you can get persons, consciousness, morality from a personal, conscious, moral being.
/can't...anything personal just based on the fact that we're persons relating/ Self refuting perception reality theme here since the claim itself is reality perception from a person, claiming something about persons.
Hence, not a God of gaps at all, but a proper and only explanation for an adequate standard regarding objective morality, which no other worldview, including secularism can provide.
/I already asked about you taking the burden to disprove it's not just a system within human people/ Answered already. Humans are finite, fallible, contingent, temporary, often immoral and amoral, thus can’t be a foundation for ultimate objective morality. People who try to make it such are refuted by counterfactuals such as asking whose finetuned version of morality, Hitler’s or Mother Theresa’s, our’s or China’s, today’s or yester people? The varying answers would mean morality is relative, but if relative there is no true moral right and wrong, thus no reason for true oughts or ought nots without begging the question. However, morality transcends Hitler, and yesteryear’s people’s abuses, evidenced by people’s anger, desire for justice at such immoralities, making it objective, showing there needs to be a transcendent adequate standard which only the biblical wv gives us.
/// No evidence, just an opinion/// The same could be said of your response, opinion with no evidence. Also, your definition of evidence is skewed. On a secular wv, there isn’t even a foundation for objective truth, ultimate meaning or what evidence is or leads there in the first place since no adequate standard to define or make relevant such terms. However, on the biblical wv there is an adequate standard showing ultimate meaning and objective truth rooted in an ultimately eternal meaningful God whose existence is the sum/basis of reality giving us foundation for all that we call evidence. But as such, evidence can be ascertained by physical means since God created a physical world, hence science, but also given immaterial realities exist in this world, such as concepts, such as truth, logic, reasoning, thoughts, which can't be proven by physical means, as abstract, immaterial, serving as a basis for mental frameworks in which we examine physical evidence using science, history, etc, but the only wv that gives us the immaterial and material properly is one with an adequate standard and an initial immaterial source, which of course the biblical God is. “God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth” (John 4:24), thus God’s existence, an immaterial being is ascertained by reasoning, logic, philosophy, ontological, cosmological, epistemological, telelogical, experiential, moral, mathematical, means, which counts as evidence, it's just of a different sort than direct sensory experience.
///they do not have empirical scientific analysis to show of a non scientific, immaterial, non physical entity. That's what evidence is/// Answered above. However, based on your criteria of scientism, your statement itself is self-refuting, since you don’t have empirical scientific analysis to verify your own statement being true, making your point moot. However, granting immaterial evidence for immaterial realities, which must exist if there is to be objective truth in the first place, we would have evidence for an immaterial being and immaterial conceptions including the one for objective morality.
//All you've established is that God fits as a candidate. Not proving the existence of God// Great that you grant God fits the candidate, but you would have to show a wv that adequately can sufficiently do so if you wish to overrule the biblical God hypothesis as the basis for objective morality and truth, your suggested one of people doesn’t fit the bill since you only get relatives which then doesn’t provide any basis for true oughts and ought nots that people really should be subject to, as I explained earlier. However, as stated God’s existence is ascertained by immaterial, abstract philosophical measures since God is an immaterial spiritual being. The biblical God gives us a comprehensive view that provides the only proper mental framework of the sum of our reality explaining aesthetics, finetuning, biological information, immaterial realities, laws of logic, math, nature, morality, rationality, conscious existence, free will and the moral corruption and evils via it
// "the best explanation" and not evidence, you plug in the gap with God// Even Darwin believed inference to the best explanation was a way to come to truth. Science is the search for causes, and inferences are a part of logic. Hypothesizing God as an explanation is not out of sorts unless we have with undo measure assumed a false unproveable philosophy called naturalism, but doing so would beg the question.
//I don't fully get what you mean by this but for now I advise caution on speaking on what happened before anything existed. You weren't there .// Yet, you believe apes turned into men and life evolved from chemicals and you weren’t there either, hence excluding your own beliefs by your own criteria. However, not being there is not the primary basis of coming to truth, since nothing of history and experience could be known then. As far as a non contingent reality, that must be the start of everything, this is adduced by logic, via the infinite regress contradiction, since a true number of infinite events could never be traversed or you would never get to the present, thus there is a terminate point that itself had to be uncaused and is not dependent on anything outside of itself for its existence and qualities.
//Right, you don't have to observe to make an explanation.// The issue is not just any explanation will do, but one that is the most reasonable, that is provides the most comprehensive explanation for reality, including objective morals, and as already deliberated an adequate standard in the biblical God fits the bill as you admitted.
//This is just circular and presupposing based on what you believe//
All secular views have to circle viscously at some point at their terminate point since their suggested ending points/ultimate standards are contingent so to circle at that point would require an explanation outside of it, but the biblical God is non contingent so circling at him is not begging the question. As far as knowing God by empirical effects rather than direct observation, this is proper, even as we do this all the time via archeology demonstrating teleological inventions of intelligent agents, thus inference via teleology to a grand designer is not improper.
//You haven't disproven that morality… comes from social parameters// it wouldn’t be objective but relative, so no true foundation for a true right/wrong, misses the mark of what morality truly is.
//proof, empirical proof..spirit?// Answered. category mistake, God, spirit is immaterial, verified by immaterial means
//you don't know if morality..chemical substances// Answered. no true moral oughts that have to be obeyed for evolved chemical moist robots
/ how do you know?// Answered. Foundation of knowledge only in adequate standard. Can't know anything if just chemistry, since reality would be perception.
//How do you know? Are you a chemist?// Stupid response. Objective morality can’t be chemistry
//Your perception has poor understanding../ Reality is perception on secularism so there is no correct morality or truth, no poor understanding of anything, ironically only on biblical wv could that potentially be true