Lightning Debate Alpha Test. (Topic will be No Gods exist)
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Alright 5000 words and format will be as quick as possible. My goal is to produce nice mini debates that are easy to vote on.
Round 1A: Opening
Round 1B: Rebuttal of R1A
Round 2A: Rebuttal of R1B
Round 2B: Interrogation (5 Questions only for sake of testing until I know better)
Round 3A: Answering R2B Questions and then interrogation.
Round 3B: Answering R3A Closing.
Premise 1 == God is extremely unlikely to begin with.In order to accept the God Proposition, one must take many things on faith. We must assume The bible is true at least to some degree. Some more then others. We must also accept that magic exist. We must accept that heaven exist. We must accept that God is all powerful to the point being able to defy human logic. At some point, this becomes a steep bet.
Premise 2 == God is not coherent with our model of the universe.By coherent I mean that the properties of God do not match what we would expect to see in physics. This further pushes The God Proposition into obscurity and makes it difficult to even imagine what God could even consist of or how we could know anything about God at all.God is suppose to be the necessary pieces of creation, but we have no good model for this in physics. The best thing we have is the fine tuning argument which is probably the best attempt to date, but still does not get us close enough to posit a God with any type of justification for doing so.
Premise 3 == God has too many definitions.God is Love, God is Wrath, God is sin, God is all, God is nothing, God is something, God is mysterious, God is direct, God is candid, etc etc.There's simply too many properties to god for it to be a real thing. God seems about as likely as a square circle that is White Black.
"Logically speaking, Any God that even has a heaven for you is probably going to let you in even if you don't believe in it because God would probably be that nice of a guy. So I think Atheism is a fine bet. "
Premise 5 == God wouldn't make lightning debates.He just wouldn't. Any true god would make these logically impossible because he simply doesn't like them for some reason ;)
NegationIn order to accept any proposition when dealing with questions of origins and cosmology in particular, a vast majority of conclusions must be taken on faith. In fact, the entire scientific method rests upon the concept of uniformity of nature, which is a faith based phenomenon. I have no concrete evidence the sun will come up tomorrow or water will boil at the same temperature as yesterday aside from that fact that these things happened in the past, which is circular reasoning, but its what scientists take on faith daily. Also, my opponent has used the word magic, however, God's miracles are not magic, it is His ability to control the laws of nature and manipulate the time space matter continuum.
NegationOur model of the universe unequivocally supports theism. It is scientifically sound to state the universe had a beginning. The big bang supports the existence of God strongly, things that have beginnings have causes.
Only if you use the definitions of "god" from just about every world religion at once. That's an unreasonable thing to do. When talking about God, since my opponent is an atheist, I will be using a more scientific definition. The Intelligent Mind that originated the sum totality of time space and a matter. As a Christian Theist that definition works perfectly for me as well.
I believe the whole point behind Pascal's wager was that hell was a very real threat, so this view of Pascal's wager favoring atheism only works if you undermine the entire point of the wager in the first place.
1. Without presupposing that we were designed by a benevolent and truthful Creator, we could have no certain knowledge on literally anything. For all we know, in an atheistic universe, our senses and reasoning do not actually give us the truth about anything, and the world around us is vastly different than our senses tell us. The physical world we perceive may not be anything more than the delusions brought about by haphazardly organized cells and sensory organs that do not reflect what's true in reality. If our senses were not created with the purpose of yielding us the truth, so I will ask my opponent, on what basis do you trust your sense perceptions enough that you believe we are having this debate?
1. It is logically sound to conclude that everything that has a beginning has a cause, since the science bears out the fact that the universe is not eternal, why do you not agree we need a Cause?
2. Are the laws of logic (non contradiction, identity, etc) human conventions? If so, are they subject to change?
3. What, in your opinion, made Christianity a unique and successful movement? What differentiated it from the other Messiah movements like Bar Kochba or Sevi?
4. How do you know your senses are not deceiving you?
5. The universe bears evidence of fine tuning suitable for human life. What do you make of this?