(okay, let's see here.....copious amounts of caffeine - check, racing thoughts put into order -check, logic and reason -check, ideological armor - check, ideological sword - check, a strong resolve -check)
(Hey Dex! How are ya?)
First of all,
I should have addressed this earlier. Perhaps I should have set out a few standards for this debate. You know just as well as me, that I cannot prove God exists. No way. No how.
Remember this?
I'm dealing in the realm of probability rather than absolute certainty.
Which brings me to what I wanted to reply in regards to this statement:
Quoting you on October the 12th:
Whatever we’ve concluded about the existence of God, it’s always possible that the opposite conclusion is true.
I am more than willing to concede this point. I hope you are too. Otherwise your holding yourself to be the highest authority of truth. And that's exactly what religious fanatics do.
Second, While some faith is required for my conclusions, it’s often forgotten that faith is also required to believe any worldview, including atheism and pantheism. Why? Because faith covers our gap in knowledge. Atheism, requires some degree of faith. Even skeptics have faith. They have faith that skepticism is true. Likewise, agnostics have faith that agnosticism is true. There are no neutral positions when it comes to beliefs. One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs. In other words, atheists, who are naturally skeptical of let's say, christianity, turn out to be true believers in atheism. The real question is who has more faith?? Who has a bigger gap to cover???
Having the right box top is important because it provides the right context for interpreting the evidence. The context is the larger environment in which the evidence appears. If you have the wrong context, you may come to the wrong conclusion about evidence you are observing. For example, if I tell you that I just witnessed a man slashing open the stomach of a woman with a knife, you’d probably assume that man did something wrong. But look what happens when I reveal to you the context—the environment—in which this incident took place: we were in a hospital delivery room, the man was a doctor, and the baby’s heart had just stopped. What do you think about the man now? Once you understand the environment, your entire view of the evidence has changed: you now consider the man a hero rather than a villain, because he was really trying to save the baby’s life.
But what happens if you keep discovering pieces that don’t fit the box top you have? Common sense would tell you that you’ve got the wrong box top, so you need to look for the right one. Unfortunately, atheists won’t do this. The evidence strongly indicates that they have the wrong box top, but they refuse to consider that’s even possible (much less look for the right one). Their preconceived box top shows a picture without intelligent causes. Yet, as they themselves acknowledge, they’ve discovered many pieces to the puzzle that have the clear appearance of being intelligently designed. In effect, atheists are trying to fit theistic pieces into their atheistic puzzle. How do you guys do this? Instead of discarding the wrong box top and finding the right one, atheists simply insist that the pieces aren’t really what they appear to be. They try to fit every piece—from the precisely designed universe to the information rich single cell—into a puzzle that doesn’t have those pieces in it. In doing so, they disregard observation, which is the very essence of the empirical science they claim to champion. As they themselves admit, atheists are philosophically committed to their box top regardless of what the puzzle pieces look like.
When we see biological systems that even atheists like Dawkins recognize “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose,” maybe we ought to conclude that they really were designed for a purpose. Quoting Dembski: "If a creature looks like a dog, smells like a dog, barks like a dog, feels like a dog, and pants like a dog, the burden of evidence lies with the person insisting the creature isn’t a dog." If the universe is created and designed, then we should expect life to be created and designed as well.
(At least it’s possible that life was created by intelligence. Ruling out that possibility beforehand is clearly illegitimate.)
I'm trying to demonstrate, the larger known environment is that of a theistic universe. It's plausible that an immaterial, powerful, and intelligent being beyond the natural world, created the universe and designed it precisely to allow life on earth. In other words, IMO, one can believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the designer is part of the box top, because the evidence shows that he has already designed this awesome universe with amazing complexity and precision.
"The universe is so freaking awesome! There must be a God who created it all!"
or
"The universe is so freaking awesome! There is no need for a God."
He shoots ......
Here's the problem with that theory: First of all there is no evidence to support it. The evidence shows that all of finite reality came into existence at the big bang. If other finite realities exist, they’re beyond our ability to detect. But here's the main problem with that theory. It's way too broad!!! The multiple universe theory is so broad that any event can be explained away by it. For example, if we ask, “Why did the planes hit the world trade center and the pentagon?” we need not blame muslim terrorists: the theory lets us say that we just happen to be in the universe where those planes—though they appeared to be flown deliberately into the buildings—actually hit the buildings by accident. With the multiple universe theory we can even let Hitler off the hook. Perhaps we just happen to be in the universe where the holocaust appeared to be murder, but actually the Jews secretly conspired with the Germans and sent themselves to the ovens.
In fact, the multiple universe theory is so broad that it can even be used to excuse the atheists who made it up. Perhaps we just happen to be in the universe where people are irrational enough to suggest that such nonsense is the truth!
In the end, the Multiple Universe Theory is simply a desperate attempt to avoid the implications of design. It doesn’t multiply chances, it multiplies absurdities.
He scores!
(C'mon Dex! Your smarter than that! This isn't my first debate. I beat childish theories like this my sleep. Seriously though, thanx for the free point!)
:sleepy2:
(Hey Dex! How are ya?)
First of all,
I should have addressed this earlier. Perhaps I should have set out a few standards for this debate. You know just as well as me, that I cannot prove God exists. No way. No how.
Remember this?
I'm dealing in the realm of probability rather than absolute certainty.
Which brings me to what I wanted to reply in regards to this statement:
Quoting you on October the 12th:
Now, I know you said evolution, but we all know that evolution = naturalism = atheism, so I like to point out the following: As limited human beings, we do not possess the type of knowledge that will provide us with absolute proof of God’s existence or nonexistence. Outside of the knowledge of our own existence (I know I exist because I have to exist in order to ponder the question), we deal in the realm of probability.
Whatever we’ve concluded about the existence of God, it’s always possible that the opposite conclusion is true.
I am more than willing to concede this point. I hope you are too. Otherwise your holding yourself to be the highest authority of truth. And that's exactly what religious fanatics do.
Second, While some faith is required for my conclusions, it’s often forgotten that faith is also required to believe any worldview, including atheism and pantheism. Why? Because faith covers our gap in knowledge. Atheism, requires some degree of faith. Even skeptics have faith. They have faith that skepticism is true. Likewise, agnostics have faith that agnosticism is true. There are no neutral positions when it comes to beliefs. One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs. In other words, atheists, who are naturally skeptical of let's say, christianity, turn out to be true believers in atheism. The real question is who has more faith?? Who has a bigger gap to cover???
Okay granted, I was the one that took on the challenge of this thread, but, I must point out that questions raised about the beginning, also need to be answered by the atheistic view. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms that the universe exploded into being out of nothing. Either someone created something out of nothing (my view), or no one created something out of nothing (the atheistic view). Which view is more reasonable? Which view requires more faith?
Like I said above, the same problem lies before atheism. What existed before the universe? If you say it's nothing, literally no thing, that's fine by me, it only will make my closing statement stronger.
Remember, I mentioned before that life is kinda like a puzzle. Ya gotta look at the box top of the puzzle, so you have some sense of the context. If you have the right box top, then the pieces make sense in light of the complete picture. Let show you exactly what I mean.
Having the right box top is important because it provides the right context for interpreting the evidence. The context is the larger environment in which the evidence appears. If you have the wrong context, you may come to the wrong conclusion about evidence you are observing. For example, if I tell you that I just witnessed a man slashing open the stomach of a woman with a knife, you’d probably assume that man did something wrong. But look what happens when I reveal to you the context—the environment—in which this incident took place: we were in a hospital delivery room, the man was a doctor, and the baby’s heart had just stopped. What do you think about the man now? Once you understand the environment, your entire view of the evidence has changed: you now consider the man a hero rather than a villain, because he was really trying to save the baby’s life.
But what happens if you keep discovering pieces that don’t fit the box top you have? Common sense would tell you that you’ve got the wrong box top, so you need to look for the right one. Unfortunately, atheists won’t do this. The evidence strongly indicates that they have the wrong box top, but they refuse to consider that’s even possible (much less look for the right one). Their preconceived box top shows a picture without intelligent causes. Yet, as they themselves acknowledge, they’ve discovered many pieces to the puzzle that have the clear appearance of being intelligently designed. In effect, atheists are trying to fit theistic pieces into their atheistic puzzle. How do you guys do this? Instead of discarding the wrong box top and finding the right one, atheists simply insist that the pieces aren’t really what they appear to be. They try to fit every piece—from the precisely designed universe to the information rich single cell—into a puzzle that doesn’t have those pieces in it. In doing so, they disregard observation, which is the very essence of the empirical science they claim to champion. As they themselves admit, atheists are philosophically committed to their box top regardless of what the puzzle pieces look like.
When we see biological systems that even atheists like Dawkins recognize “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose,” maybe we ought to conclude that they really were designed for a purpose. Quoting Dembski: "If a creature looks like a dog, smells like a dog, barks like a dog, feels like a dog, and pants like a dog, the burden of evidence lies with the person insisting the creature isn’t a dog." If the universe is created and designed, then we should expect life to be created and designed as well.
(At least it’s possible that life was created by intelligence. Ruling out that possibility beforehand is clearly illegitimate.)
I'm trying to demonstrate, the larger known environment is that of a theistic universe. It's plausible that an immaterial, powerful, and intelligent being beyond the natural world, created the universe and designed it precisely to allow life on earth. In other words, IMO, one can believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the designer is part of the box top, because the evidence shows that he has already designed this awesome universe with amazing complexity and precision.
As mentioned before, before the universe, there was either something or nothing. Anything that atheism puts in place of something has the exact same problem. Where did it come from? Is it eternal?
And now I've dealt with it. You see design, and you must brush it off. "it's only the appearance of design"....Sounds to me like you've got the wrong box top.
One thing that I have noticed is that it's real hard for atheists to admit that I base my conclusions and interpretations on rational thought. Judging by recent posts, one would believe that a person like me is actually insane. Again, something that religious fanatics do. Claim they are the highest authority of truth, and all others that oppose are crazy. This is the sort of thing that leads to McCarthyism. I'm going to elaborate on this in the future because I really want to address this, and have a lot to say on this matter. I'm going to make it part of my case. :smile:
Thank you for the compliment Dex. It really means a lot to me. I love to debate, but hope to build friendships as well. I would also like to add that you are definitely sharp with your logic and reason as well. I was hoping for the best in this debate, and I sure got it! :thumbright::salute:
LOL, just wait till I get to the philosophical section of my case. That's where my passion lies!:thumbright:
Well.... there is a lot of convincing evidence. But there will never be any compelling evidence. As bad as anyone wants it, God is not going to show you his face. To do so, would negate your free will to choose him or not. Also, your contradicting yourself here. On one hand you say I'm doing a good job with logic and reason, and on the other, someone like me is not clearly thinking. Can I not be equal with you on some level?
No baby is born with a belief in naturalism or atheism. Every worldview is taught.
Exactly! The universe is freaking awesome! That's helps with my point that a theist can base his conclusion with ratianal thought, as does the atheist. i.e.
"The universe is so freaking awesome! There must be a God who created it all!"
or
"The universe is so freaking awesome! There is no need for a God."
What is this!!!!! What is this!!!! The defence coughs up the puck right in front of the crease! The goalie is down, and alleywayzalwayz has a wide open net!!!!!
He shoots ......
Here's the problem with that theory: First of all there is no evidence to support it. The evidence shows that all of finite reality came into existence at the big bang. If other finite realities exist, they’re beyond our ability to detect. But here's the main problem with that theory. It's way too broad!!! The multiple universe theory is so broad that any event can be explained away by it. For example, if we ask, “Why did the planes hit the world trade center and the pentagon?” we need not blame muslim terrorists: the theory lets us say that we just happen to be in the universe where those planes—though they appeared to be flown deliberately into the buildings—actually hit the buildings by accident. With the multiple universe theory we can even let Hitler off the hook. Perhaps we just happen to be in the universe where the holocaust appeared to be murder, but actually the Jews secretly conspired with the Germans and sent themselves to the ovens.
In fact, the multiple universe theory is so broad that it can even be used to excuse the atheists who made it up. Perhaps we just happen to be in the universe where people are irrational enough to suggest that such nonsense is the truth!
In the end, the Multiple Universe Theory is simply a desperate attempt to avoid the implications of design. It doesn’t multiply chances, it multiplies absurdities.
He scores!
(C'mon Dex! Your smarter than that! This isn't my first debate. I beat childish theories like this my sleep. Seriously though, thanx for the free point!)
:sleepy2:
Well. Tell me that after I conclude my case. I've got a lot more to touch upon. Right now though, I gotta take a huge leak! Later Dex!!!!:wave:
Last edited:
