Login/Sign Up




There isn't a single "valid" logic/evidence to believe in a god. It's just faith.
Religion

xtremeillusia
Sep 15, 2009
18 votes
16 debaters
6
4
3


+ Add Argument

7
No there isnt.


ryvius
Sep 18, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: bookworm Show

"it involves faith in an unproved theory (which ties in to number 2)"

Too bad there's no connection. Evolution is a sustained theory. For a claim that is so obviously false, it gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth.

"macroevolution, or one species evolving into another; no. Im not saying its not possible, but I am saying its not a fact."

We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism.

- Shapiro M. D., M. E. Marks, C. L. Peichel, B. K. Blackman, K. S. Nereng, B. Jónsson, D. Schluter and D. M. Kingsley, 2004. Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 428: 717-723. See also: Shubin, N. H. and R. D. Dahn, 2004. Evolutionary biology: Lost and found. Nature 428: 703.

"True. How can you prove without doubt to someone else that something exists, when it�s something you need to experience yourself to truly know it for certain?"

Except, that personal experience is not reliable to validate something true or untrue. You're basically saying there is no good evidence for God, too.

"I suppose you mean by that that religion denounces morality. Im not quite sure exactly what you mean by that - clarify yourself and Ill go further"

The Bible and Qu'ran. :-)

"Just because you cant prove experimentally that something is there doesnt mean that its not there. Give me some more reasons why its discredited."

OK. Just like my invisible dragon in my garage. This makes it unfalsifiable.

 
dkturner
Sep 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

All theistic debate starts with God as an axiom. If one accepts the axiom, then sure, theology has a lot to say. And religious beliefs make a tremendous amount of sense, again presuming that axiom.

The trouble is that there is no evidence to justify accepting the axiom. Thus there is no apparent reason to prefer the opinion of a theologian to that of a plumber. The former's logic is undoubtedly more sophisticated, but as it is based on an unjustified premise, it leads you nowhere. If the plumber were to start, "Well, since Mars is in Sagittarius..." I would also ignore his argument, however sensible.

 
dkturner
Sep 18, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thevenerablerob Show

Oh boy. Here we go again. Same age-old misconceptions.

1. Atheism doesn't involve faith.

2. Evolution is a fact.

3. Nobody's ever come close to proving God exists.

4. Morality exists in spite of religion. If you don't believe me, read Deuteronomy. Or Leviticus. Or any book, in fact.

5. Science constantly improves its ideas. Changing your mind is healthy. Sticking to a discredited dogma is not.

6. Waiting around for the rapture is such an utter waste of a life.

 
ryvius
Sep 18, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thevenerablerob Show

"I'd say that the belief of God requires as much faith as the faith that there isn't any god. For example, from the beginning of time, every man, even in the most remote tribe, has a semblance of a god, albeit, however different the gods and spirits are."

This is the very misconception based on ignorance of the definition of atheism.

""In Grimms' Fairy Tales someone kisses a frog and in two seconds it becomes a prince. That is a fairytale. In evolution, someone kisses a frog and in two million years, it becomes a peince. That is not science, it is simply faith." ~ Dr. D. James Kennedy

I have to hand it to you, the quotes you use are ironically preposterous and misleading.

"The accuracy of the Bible doesn't concern you except when it is thought that a contradiction may be found."

LOL

"If God exists, a universal belief in his existance is natural enough; the irresistible impulse to ask for a first cause is accounted for; our religious nature has an object; the universe of natural law finds an adeaquate explanation,"

Too bad there's no evidence. So it's not associated with sanity to believe he exists and claim there's evidence.

"What more can be said?"

Uhm, let's say the first cause for God.

"Atheism leaves all these matters without an explanation, and makes, not history alone, but out moral and intellectual nature itself, an imposture and a lie."

That's just like picking out a word from the dictionary and tell you that it doesn't explain something that is wholly not related. It's a ridiculous quote.

"The sceince and theory of abiogenesis is very sporadic and incredible, the accounts and theories of evolution vary tremendously, ever changing."

We like to use the scientific method.

"But the theory of God and of Creation has never changed."

There is no "Creation theory." Actually, I'll bring this up:

http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/Tracing_ID_Ancestry.pdf

"Roman and Biblical accounts describing the death of jesus Christ have varified much of the story. I guess it is just each to his own until death, which is when those of us who believed will benefit if all we believed was true."

Just like how we edit a story that hasn't been published, without facts to use, but fudge data.

"which is when those of us who believed will benefit if all we believed was true."

Pascal's Wager alert fail.



 
dkturner
Sep 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rugjamim Show

"Religion is considered by the common people to be true, by the wise to be false, and by the rulers to be useful" - Seneca.

The Christian church is notorious for doctoring history, and claiming the works of far greater philosophers as its own. The books they didn't like, they burned.

Christianity has set mankind back by almost a thousand years. That is a heavy debt they owe. Never mind the millions of people who were tortured and burned in the name of faith.

And for the last time SCIENCE IS THE OPPOSITE OF FAITH. If you don't know why that is, then you know nothing about science. Get an eduction.

 
dkturner
Sep 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
To borrow from Ambrose Bierce [edit] - Scientists: guilty of education and suspected of bank accounts.

It's shocking how the majority of the population is turning its back on education, intelligence and rationality. Like it's "elitist" to be clever. Anybody who thinks the creationist movement is harmless, think again.

 
ryvius
Sep 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rugjamim Show

"Even science requires Faith for there is no absolute truth in science and even the most fundamental scientific principles can be brought into question."

Yes, scientific theories can either be challenged or accepted, however your claim that science REQUIRES faith is beyond absurd. Evidence fills that gap, thus making any definition of faith rather unnecessary.

"Logic does not require physical proof."

Logic alone can refute impossible beings,
1) An omniscient being capable of choice.
2) A perfect being that needs to be worshipped.
3) A non-spatial omnipresent being.
4) A loving omnipotent being that allows eternal agony.

Logic can't show possible beings actually exist, without evidence.

"Read the works of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates on their proofs for the existence of god... All of them came up with valid Logical theories for the existence of God."

Proofs? Logical theories? If they have done so, please present them.


 
ryvius
Sep 19, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rugjamim Show

"Not all scientific theories have solid evidence and there are some that do require some faith. The theoretical works of physics. There are many theories that have mathematical proofs but no physical evidence."

All scientific theories are based on evidence otherwise they're really hypotheses.

"The Proof of Causality: Cause and Effect, Everything has a cause something that made it come into being. Everything must have a cause for they cannot cause themselves. "All things can attribute their existence to a first cause that began all causes and all things. We call this first cause God."

That's like saying "I hear noises from the house across the street. Therefore, I have a neighbor, namely Elvis."

Or not. You're assuming what you know about the macroscopic world applies to quantum physics.

A common fallacious argument. By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.

This does not solve the problem: If the universe was made by a God, because nothing can exist without cause, then something must have made that God. If something were to make that God, he would not be the God of creation anymore. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

It is also non-specific: Even if the universe was devised by some creative force, there is no evidence that this creative force was a religious god, specifically yours. There are an infinite number of causes other than a human God that could have caused the creation of the universe. For a much more detailed and unequivocal understanding of the fallacious argument being debunked, see the fifth provided evidence.

The problem is that the premises of his argument are not true. The premise: Everything that begins to exist has a cause collapses in light of our understanding of quantum mechanics. For example, scientists have found that particles of energy may come into existence, completely uncaused, in empty space.

- http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm
Also see Creation Ex Nihilo - Without God by
Mark Vuletic Both accessed 1/02/09

Another exception to the Law of Cause and Effect is found in the decay of Carbon-14 atoms: After every interval of 5730 years, half of the Carbon-14 present in a given measurement will have decayed into Nitrogen-14. All of these carbon atoms are identical, yet they decay at different times. Why is this? If all the atoms are exactly the same, shouldn't they decay at precisely the same time? Since they do not, most scientists have come to believe that atomic decay is spontaneous (and therefore uncaused).

- Pages 123-125, Victor Stenger, God: The Failed
Hypothesis, Prometheus Books 2007.



 
charmingyrl
Sep 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If there were factual proof would this even be a question? No. There are religions that oppose the belief in God for the simple fact that there is NO proof. Some think that science began everything and will back that up to the grave. Others believe that god began everything, both parties have FAITH in what they believe. By saying that the fact that there is an Earth at all supports that fact that God exists is extremely foolish. Anyone from any religion or belief system can say that exact same thing.

 
xtremeillusia
Sep 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

Well...forget about the evidence....There is no logic to it...

 
xtremeillusia
Sep 16, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

No. Im saying there is no logic when it comes to faith. there is no logic which is good enough to believe in a god.

 
dkturner
Sep 18, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: bookworm Show

1. Atheism does not require one to agree with the theory of evolution. Nor is that theory a matter of belief.

I'd like to point out that you too, are an atheist - you don't believe in Zeus, Apollo, Krishna, Isis, or any of the thousands of other gods mankind has invented. Atheism is extremely easy. It requires no belief at all.

2. It is a fact that life on earth evolved from rather simple forms to rather complicated forms. Show me a pre-Cambrian fossil bunny and I'll agree that macroevolution doesn't happen.

3. If God exists, and actually has an effect on the world, then that effect could be measured. It can't so either he doesn't or he doesn't.

4. You are obliged to stone your daughter to death if she de-converts. If there is an apostate in a neighboring town, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. The husband is to rule over his wife. Wives are to be subject to their husbands even when the husband is disobedient to God. We are not to make likenesses of anything. A father can sell a daughter into slavery to pay a debt. A daughter sold into slavery is not released at the end of six years as is an ordinary male slave. Whoever strikes his father or mother is to be put to death.

Is this the Bible you believe in? Because you must obey every jot and tittle.

5. Large parts of the Bible have been discredited, including the flood, the whole of Genesis, the firmament, and all sorts of other rubbish. That's pretty poor going if it's God's word. But beside the point - by self-declaration, the "wisdom" of the bible never evolves. At the very least, that's a recipe for stagnation.

6. I'll be just as arrogant and say that I'm much better-off right now, and your hereafter will never happen.

 
charmingyrl
Sep 18, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

Dictionary definition of faith:
confidence or trust in a person or thing

Whether you choose to trust in science, or trust in religion, both things require FAITH.

 
dkturner
Sep 19, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rugjamim Show

All right, then. Let's examine Thomas Aquinas's five proofs (quinque viae):

1. The unmoved mover
2. The first cause
3. The argument from contingency
4. The argument from degree
5. The teleological argument

Now (1), (2) and (3) are identical; they all say that every effect has a cause, and God is the first cause. In other words, God is the end-point of the infinite regress.

That's fine and good. Our science isn't quite good enough to see all the way back to the beginning of the universe, but we know more-or-less what happened after the Planck epoch (which lasted for a tiny fraction of a second). So we can say a few things about the first cause: in particular, it couldn't have been very complicated. Entropy, in the standard model, becomes singular at the big bang; roughly speaking, that means that whatever was around back then was thoroughly mixed-up, homogeneous, and unstructured.

Now before you say, "those rules don't apply to God", consider this. If God is a part of the universe, then there is no reason to suggest, and no evidence to support, the idea that he is not subject to the physical laws. If, on the other hand, God is *not* part of the universe, then he manifestly does not manifest in any un-physical way. Hence there is no reason to propose that an "external" God exists at all.

So (1), (2) and (3) are compatible with the idea of a first cause that was "squeezed through" a patch of extreme entropy in the early stages of the universe. So even if God was very complicated before that epoch (and there is no way to decide that proposition), he's pretty much just gas now. You might equate that sort of God with the COBE background-radiation map. A creator in a sense, but not fitting any of the anthropomorphic criteria of a thinking, conscious being.

Now let's look at (4) - God is the "most perfect" thing that exists. This argument is related to the ontological argument, which can get quite technical (philosophers are still kicking it back and forth), but the basic problem with the argument is that it depends on what you mean by "perfect". Things exist in the real world that may or may not be measurable according to a given set of criteria for perfection. Choosing the criteria to fit the description of what you think is God does not (cannot) automatically guarantee that God exists.

(For the technically minded, Exists{X, Perfect{X} and Exists{X}} === Exists{X, Perfect{X}} over the Universal set, so we have to restrict the argument to the "Real World" set V and prove that existence in U implies membership in V. Happy to discuss in detail if you're interested.)

Finally, to number (5), the teleological argument. These days, it's generally aimed at evolution, but Aquinas put it slightly differently, so I'll address his version first:

A: All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
B: These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
C: Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence.
D: Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
E: This being is whom we call God.

This version falls apart at the first premise. On what basis may one assume that all "natural bodies" act "towards ends"? Aquinas is in fact begging the question; he is *assuming* that there is a purpose to action and then, on the basis of that purpose requiring something purposeful, he conjures God.

The modern version goes something like this: we live in a world full of remarkably complex objects. They "look" designed, so therefore there must have been a designer. This argument may seem plausible at first, but it's actually a terrible argument - an argument from ignorance. To "prove" that the objects are designed, one would have to show that *there is no other way the object could have arisen*. Simply saying "I can't think of a way..." doesn't cut it. Just because *you* can't think of a way it could have happened apart from design doesn't mean that it was necessarily design. You still have all your work ahead of you to show that design is the *only* alternative. Second, even you could demonstrate that there is a designer, what can the design of the objects tell you about the designer? Very little, in fact. Certainly not enough to consider the designer omnipotent, omniscient or any of the other qualities commonly associated with the idea of "God". At most, you could infer that the designer was capable of building the intricate biological machines we see.

A variation on this theme is the fine-tuning argument. Imagine if, say, the fine-structure constant were about 4% larger than it is. If this were the case, then the stars would fail to manufacture carbon, and we wouldn't exist.

There are two answers to this. The first is the anthropic principle: we exist, and then we turn around and look at the conditions that made it possible to exist, and say "Wow! What are the odds? We're lucky to be here, therefore someone musta dunnit." The improbability of our existence, of course, implies no such thing. In fact the answer "someone did it" simply creates *more* improbability. We would then have to cope with the idea that conditions were just right to create a creator who then created a universe in which conditions were just right to create us. Not much of an answer, is it?

Secondly, what reason do you have to suppose that these constants don't have values that are a necessary consequence of the structure of the universe? Or even that the values they have are unique in the sense of being the only combination suitable for intelligent life of some sort? What, in fact, makes you imagine that there must have been a fine-tuner?

(The quick-witted will note that this is the same refutation as is applied to the teleological argument. The fine-tuning argument is also an argument from ignorance. I generally throw them in the same intellectual bag, so pardon me if I ever get the terms mixed up.)

This was far too long. Quick summary:

(1), (2) and (3) - okay if God is just a pattern of background radiation.
(4) - okay if you want to take a specific object and call it God.
(5) - don't bother. You won't learn anything about God, or his existence, from this argument.

 
charmingyrl
Sep 19, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

haha, okay.
Let's just agree to disagree I mean I AM only 13 at least I tried :]
haha

 
dkturner
Sep 23, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: darvo Show

It is most assuredly NOT a two-way street. Existence is a claim contingent upon evidence; non-existence is a claim contingent upon an absence of evidence. Since an absence of evidence is precisely what we have, the non-existence of God is a true proposition until shown otherwise.

There is absolutely NO proof of intelligent design. For there to be proof, you would have to show that the only possible explanation for the structure of the things we see is a designer. Since there are alternative theories that explain the evidence, you most certainly have NOT shown this. Nor does your "intelligent design" hypothesis make any claims that could be tested. It is therefore worthless as an intellectual pursuit.

And imagining a supernatural aspect to the universe does NOT rescue you from the laws of logic. If you are to make any sensible claims about this supernatural aspect, then you have to use logical reasoning and evidence to describe it. Otherwise you could just say whatever you want ("there are fairies in my garden but you can't see them!") and there would be no common basis for discussion. If you did believe what you wanted without recourse to reason and logic, I would ignore you as a lunatic, for that is what you would be. And your claims would have no basis in reality.

 
obviouschild
Oct 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Do you consider logic that is based on God of the Gaps to be valid?

 
ryvius
Oct 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: darvo Show

"The proof that the universe was created by intelligent design is not just all around us, it is us."

Fail.

"It's a two way street."

Fail!

 
dkturner
Oct 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: bookworm Show

1. Why should you believe in "your" god, as opposed to one of the thousands of others? There's just as much evidence to support the others as there is to support yours.

And "God did it" explains nothing about the origin of the universe - it simply raises the bigger question of "who did God?" Your explanation is useless - at best it's an invitation to continued ignorance. At least the big bang theory tells us a whole lot of interesting information about the formation of the universe that can actually be verified against reality. The fact that we don't know how it started doesn't make speculation about God any more valid or useful.

2. Yes they are billions of years apart. We can verify that from the depth of the strata, the age of the surrounding rock, and the number of intermediate forms. You're trying to dodge the facts here.

3. The fact that the universe exists is no evidence at all that it was created by an intelligent being. I could say the flying spaghetti monster or the celestial teapot did it, with exactly the same amount of evidence as you have for your god.

Belief in God is a subservient lifestyle. You believe that you are a maggot, unworthy of life, originally sinful, damned to burn in hell. But wait! God loves you! He created the entire universe, in which our solar system is just a tiny, insignificant, unremarkable speck - he created all this just for you. He had himself tortured to death to bend the rules that he himself created so that he could rescind his original damning of the species.

I don't wish to believe in a celestial dictatorship. And since there's no evidence to support the idea that it exists, I can happily consign it to the dustbin of untestable, immoral, vicious and outright inhumane beliefs that humans have come up with.

4. 1 Peter 3:1.

5. If the Bible is subject to your interpretation, then you are placing your interpretation above the word of God. That means you're either disobedient, or you think God is wrong, or you don't seriously think the Bible is the word of God. Since you don't believe the Genesis story, I'm going to assume it's the last. If that be the case, then what basis do you have for believing that any of what the Bible says is true?

6. You are entitled to live your life as you please. You are not entitled to (a) scare children with unsubstantiated stories about their afterlife, (b) attempt to alter the educational system to propagate beliefs that have been demonstrated to be false, or (c) claim that your morality is somehow better than any other, being based on the alleged word of an imaginary deity.


 
dkturner
Oct 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: tpmf Show

tpmf: I don't intend to put across that my morality is superior. On the other hand, I do think that any morality should be based on objective standards that relate to the real world, rather than the say-so of some bronze-age priests. In this I hope in my own little way to be consistent, but I certainly don't claim access to universal truth. Morality should be subject to debate, improvement and agreement, just like any other facet of human behavior.

The big bang and ID address different concerns. Technically the big bang is not incompatible with the idea of a creator who got it started. The difference is, however, that the big bang makes definite predictions (e.g. cosmic background radiation should be ~3K), which we can test. If the theory is consistent with the evidence, and makes predictions that we can verify, then it's a strong case that the theory is in some sense correct. Compare that with the theory that a creator started the big bang. What would be the implications of that theory? Well, we should probably expect to see evidence of the creator, which we don't. Otherwise not much follows from the creator theory. We can't really infer anything about the creator on the basis of the evidence we see. So while it may be a nice hypothesis, it doesn't add anything of value to the scientific debate. It might be true and it might not; science wouldn't be affected either way.

So no, science is explicitly not about faith. Nor is it about what we'd like to believe. I'd love to believe that a lot of what quantum mechanics says is wrong, because I find it unpalatable. But I can't choose to believe so, because quantum mechanics predicts the outcomes of experiments to better than 20 decimal places. So even if I don't like it, I can't argue with the fact that it's making the right predictions.

That's the difference between faith-based hypotheses and scientific hypotheses. Have I persuaded you?

 
sexto
Jan 25, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

The keyword here is "imagine", and I assure you that's all it is - imaginary.

 
trippkings
Feb 01, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
You can't debate god just for the fact that there is no facts or logis behind it. And let's say there is a god, for arguments sake, and I don't believe in him, and when I do finally die, and I approach him, and I say,"my bad holmes, you showed me no proof over the years, but here you are, now let me into the gates of heaven @sshole." JK

 
+ Add Argument

11
yes there is.


jonjax71
Sep 15, 2009
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Although god as presented in just about every religion requires an enormous amount of faith, the simple fact that there are humans, the oblate we live on, the sky filled with heavenly bodies and the cosmos gives us reason to imagine a supreme being, a creator,a god, however since the principle and theory of god that dominates society was borne out of igorance and lack of science that god requires mucho faith

 
ryvius
Sep 15, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: charmingyrl Show

Equivocation fallacy.

Science doesn't require the same "faith" as do religious people, when it's sustained by evidence.

 
frankiej4189
Sep 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
To say there's no evidence is one thing, but to say there is no logic behind belief in God is to undeservedly cut down an entire branch of philososhpy that has withstood thousands of years of criticism.

To say the least, saying there's no logic behind belief in God is to not fully appreciate Theistic debate regardless of what side your beliefs are on.

 
dkturner
Sep 16, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xtremeillusia Show

Are you saying there's no logic to science?

 
thevenerablerob
Sep 18, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I'd say that the belief of God requires as much faith as the faith that there isn't any god. For example, from the beginning of time, every man, even in the most remote tribe, has a semblance of a god, albeit, however different the gods and spirits are.

"In Grimms' Fairy Tales someone kisses a frog and in two seconds it becomes a prince. That is a fairytale. In evolution, someone kisses a frog and in two million years, it becomes a peince. That is not science, it is simply faith." ~ Dr. D. James Kennedy

What can I say that hasn't been said before? You guys don't believe that the awesomeness of creation couldn't have come from a Creator, including the intricacies of the human body and mind, itself. You ignore arguments about the concept of God in even the most remote tribes, The accuracy of the Bible doesn't concern you except when it is thought that a contradiction may be found.

Even Cause and effect, science itself, which you chaps hold so dearly in your arguments of no God but don't believe when it is represented in theory for God, is ignored.

F. L. Patton declares, "Belief in a self existant, personal God is in harmony with all the facts of ourmental and moral nature, as well as with the phenomena of the natural world. If God exists, a universal belief in his existance is natural enough; the irresistible impulse to ask for a first cause is accounted for; our religious nature has an object; the universe of natural law finds an adeaquate explanation, and human history is vindicated from the charge of being a vast imposture. Atheism leaves all these matters without an explanation, and makes, not history alone, but out moral and intellectual nature itself, an imposture and a lie."

What more can be said?

The sceince and theory of abiogenesis is very sporadic and incredible, the accounts and theories of evolution vary tremendously, ever changing. But the theory of God and of Creation has never changed. Roman and Biblical accounts describing the death of jesus Christ have varified much of the story. I guess it is just each to his own until death, which is when those of us who believed will benefit if all we believed was true.





 
bookworm
Sep 18, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

1 Atheism doesn´t involve faith - it involves faith in an unproved theory (which ties in to number 2)
2 Evolution is a fact - depends on which kind of evolution you´re talking about. Microevolution or natural selection yes; macroevolution, or one species evolving into another; no. I´m not saying it´s not possible, but I am saying it´s not a fact.
3 Nobody´s ever come close to proving God exists - True. How can you prove without doubt to someone else that something exists, when it´s something you need to experience yourself to truly know it for certain?
4 Morality exists in spite of religion - in spite? I suppose you mean by that that religion denounces morality. I´m not quite sure exactly what you mean by that - clarify yourself and I´ll go further
5 Science constantly improves its ideas, etc - that´s true. But I don´t see that the Bible/Christian religion is discredited. Discredited because evolution is a fact? It´s not. Discredited because you can´t prove God´s there? Just because you can´t prove experimentally that something is there doesn´t mean that it´s not there. Give me some more reasons why it´s discredited.
6 Waiting around for the rapture is such an utter waste of a life - to my interpretation, rob didn´t say he was doing nothing while he waited for the rapture; all he said was that when it does come, which it will eventually, then we´ll be better off.


 
ryvius
Sep 18, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: charmingyrl Show

Again, equivocation fallacy of faith.

You're using a different definition of faith for religion, and another faith for science, but don't mention it.

 
rugjamim
Sep 19, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xtremeillusia Show

Even science requires Faith for there is no absolute truth in science and even the most fundamental scientific principles can be brought into question.

Our understanding of logic comes from the ancient the ancient Greek philosophers. Read the works of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates on their proofs for the existence of god. All of these philosophers also found it illogical to believe in more than one God. For a more Christian view read the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas. All of which are still valid theories. Aristotle is Famous for his works on logic.

All of them came up with valid Logical theories for the existence of God. Philosophers are constantly building upon older theories much like science. To say that over 2000 years of Philosophy is invalid is illogical.

The general idea of the atom first appeared in the works of an ancient Greek Philosopher not a scientist. Most of philosophy is based on logic. Logic does not require physical proof.

Many things can be discover using just logic. Just because there is no physical proof does not mean something is illogical.


 
rugjamim
Sep 19, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

Not all scientific theories have solid evidence and there are some that do require some faith. The theoretical works of physics. There are many theories that have mathematical proofs but no physical evidence.

Again what I am talking about is a general God not a purely Christian God.

From Thomas Aquinas there is the

The proof of prime mover:
"A simple example of this is a rubber ball motionless on a flat surface. It has the potential for motion, but is not currently in the state of actual motion. In order for this to happen, something else in motion must set the ball in motion, be that gravity, another moving object or the wind. And yet something must have set that object in motion as well (even gravity, a force caused by matter warping the space-time fabric, attributes its existence to pre-existing matter and the exchange of pre-existing graviton particles). Thus pre-existing motions cause all motions. Yet, this chain can not extend into infinity because that would deny a first mover that set all else in motion. Without a first mover, nothing could be set in motion. Thus we acknowledge the first and primary mover as God. " http://www.saintaquinas.com/belief_in_God.html

The Proof of Causality: Cause and Effect, Everything has a cause something that made it come into being. Everything must have a cause for they cannot cause themselves. "All things can attribute their existence to a first cause that began all causes and all things. We call this first cause God."

And 3 others please check http://www.saintaquinas.com/belief_in_God.html

Why is God such an impossible thing? Science has not answered questions. Many scientists do believe in God. Just because there is no physical evidence does not mean that it does not exist.

 
rugjamim
Sep 19, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

Who is talking about the Church. The Church was made by man and therefore is imperfect and makes mistakes. I question the Church as much as anyone but I do believe in God. If it were not the church and its monasteries many books would have been destroyed and higher education would have ended during the dark ages throughout western Europe. I am not trying to defend the Church merely to show that it has not just had a negative effect.

Religion is not Philosophy. There are Philosophers that have tried to disprove the existence of God. We are talking about God not Christianity. I never said religion and science were the same.

 
darvo
Sep 23, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

I think it is more logical to accept the idea of the existance God than to accept the idea of the non-existance of a God. It's a two way street.
The proof that the universe was created by intelligent design is not just all around us, it is us.
If you imagined a 'state' or 'dimension' outside of our universe in which the laws of logic, creation and matter did not apply then there would be no argument about the illogical nature of a spiritual creator.

 
opinionowen
Oct 02, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
As I've said in other arguments, just to simplify to a ground fact;
We are homo sapiens, another rightful and equal species that is part of the ecological niche of this planet. What/who donates a sense of supreme being or a cause to believe that some higher figure overwatches the populous with supposive benevolent characteristics?
Today's religion quantity, and also quality, is blown entirely out of proportion due to past generations expanding on belief systems, WHICH ALL DERIVE FROM EGYPT. WHICH IN TURN, ALL DERIVE FROM astrological figures and celestial arrangements.
Life around the world is driven by religion, considering so much of the population runs their lives this way. And it is all a fable. An irrevocably false story.
We are just another species.

 
bookworm
Oct 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

1. I'd like to point out that you too, are an atheist - you don't believe in Zeus, Apollo, Krishna, Isis, or any of the thousands of other gods mankind has invented. Atheism is extremely easy. It requires no belief at all.

I'm not an athiest - I believe in a God. I just don't believe in all the other gods that people have invented.
And as for atheism not compelling one to agree with the theory of evolution - well then you just have to ignore the fact the universe is here and you don't know how it got here. There is no other explanation that does not include God somewhere.

2.It is a fact that life on earth evolved from rather simple forms to rather complicated forms.
It is a fact that there are simple forms of life as well as complicated forms fossilized in different layers. This does not prove that they lived millions of years apart. I believe that in the Flood, all these layers were laid at pretty well the same time, and the smaller, simpler organisms were buried first because they couldn't outrun the floodwaters like the other animals.

3. If God exists, and actually has an effect on the world, then that effect could be measured. It can't so either he doesn't or he doesn't.

Yes, I've heard this before. His effect can be measured - the universe still exists, was made with such incredible odds that I find it hard to believe that anyone can claim such finetuning is the result of chance, people's lives are changed all the time. The only problem is, that you won't acknowlege that this comes from God.
I can see the effect of gravity on the earth, like everyone else. But I could deny that it's gravity and insist it's something else. If I could find an at least partly viable alternative, why would I change my mind? And then add in that in the God/no God debate, belief in God means a change in lifestyle that you won't like, then you really wouldn't believe it!

4. You're right, the Bible says that. I will add a few things: God does not and would not say anywhere that a wife must obey her husband when he tells her to break God's law. We must not make likenesses of anything in order to worship it. Slavery for the Jews was not slavery like we think of. It was more of an indentured servant system. But a lot of the OT laws seem to us immoral. I will be looking further into this, and will expand on it later.

5. I've heard some of the stories of the Flood being discredited, and frankly they don't really impress me. What you say about all of Genesis I imagine is mostly aimed at the Creation story, which I also don't believe (as I'm sure you know by now!). The firmament - the atmosphere? the edge of the universe that we're never going to find because it's too far? Just because we might not be exactly sure what it refers to doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
Go on with the other 'rubbish'?
The wisdom of the Bible never evolves. That is true, because the Bible states facts. However, that doesn't mean interpretation can't evolve. Sure, people in the old days used the Bible to prove the earth was flat, etc, but that's because that was the prevailing scientific theory of the day. We know now that that is not true, and we can now find verses in the Bible to support it. You're going to say, that then we're changing the Bible to support what we believe - and while twisting of the Bible does surely occur, we didn't change the Bible to support the roundness of the earth; we simply saw what a particular verse meant, whereas before it was hard to explain, or non-explainable.

6. That is your own personal opinion. For your sake, I surely hope you find out that you're wrong before the hereafter, because then it's too late. And I'll say right now, that my lifestyle doesn't make me miserable in the least.

 
tpmf
Oct 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

While you do make many persuasive arguments, I would like to point out one thing.

You said, "claim that your morality is somehow better than any other", by you are assuming that you view is right and the Christian view is wrong, you are are saying yours is better, please don't be a hypocrite. While the big bang theory is a good explanation, it is just a theory, and will remain so until we can replicate it, or find some absolute proof of its occurrence. As it stands intelligent design and the big bang are both possible explanations for creation, neither with absolute proof. You are placing the same amount of faith in a scientific theory as Christians place in the creation story

 
yisrael
Feb 07, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Those who declare that there isn't are denying their very own existence. Follow the following directions and you will have your answer:
Go outside and look around. Notice the grass you are stepping on, notice the cycle it is subject to in order to grow and you step on it. Now, notice the seasons in which the earth and all being on it is subject to for order of the cycle. Now, notice your body and the what it contains and how it was designed to function perfectly. But, let us now go beyond, look up at night and meditate as you contemplate the heavens, notice the moon? You can not get there with out a rocket, Notice the galaxies that appear as shining dots and now reflect in your doubt that for all of which I have pointed out can not and will never happen by accident. Just remember that there is a God if you are in pain, because if you don't and plead for his help being incredulous he will not answer and you will fall in greater confusion and what hope will you have on the day that God says , "your time has come to leave, you have had enough chances and many messengers that I sent you and you did not listen, you will be judged by your actions." Time flies, will you fly along? or will you stay on in the pit of ignorance? God put a way a truth and a way of life for a reason along with the laws you will be subject to all the days of your life like it or not. Who are we who are mortal and can not even live enough to see our full descendence and yet complain to God for the misfortunes we bring upon us by simply denying his existence and living in an ignorantly closed obstinate world were you have no hope?

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

atheism christianity debate god islam religion Abortion atheism atheist athiesm athiest BBC belief Beliefs bible buddhism catholic catholicism Christ christian christianity christians Christmas church Creation creationism death debate enlightenment ethics evil Evolution faith god heaven Hell hinduism Islam islamic jesus jewish judaism logic love morality mosque muslim opression peace philosophy politics Pope religion Religon Salvation satan Science scientology sex sin society supernatural terrorism Theology Truth VanCam violence war world