The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1E

Wow wow, so many fundamental errors that's hard to keep up. I'll continue using the format I used before, but the substance of my opponent's argument has significantly dwindled. ===================== Argument #1 - The existence of Jesus Christ ===================== >>>"One of my fundamental beliefs is that Christianity is dynamic. There are innumerable divisions within the umbrella term Christian and under my right as a beqliever I can interpret the Bible however I choose.<<< Are you kidding me? Yes, you don't HAVE to abide by one interpretation of Christianity, as long as you have justifications for believing otherwise. To be a Calvinist, you need to have sufficient theological reasoning to show why your position is correct when compared to Protestants. You, on the other hand, have shown NO grounds - either secular or theological - for your Christian interpretation. Again, as I stated before, you arrived with a conclusion and you're just seeking for the evidence; a backwards way of reasoning. This kind of mental processing ranks up high with being illogical. It avoids criticism and relies on blind faith, which you actually refer to in this debate. If you can tell your critics that I can "interpret the Bible however I choose", then you can escape any refutation. There is nothing to refute when we have such to deal with such a position. >>>"...so the only point I was trying to make is that Jesus Christ, the man, actually existed. Which gives some degree of validity to New Testament scripture."<<< Uh no. Just because some dusty old text talked about a man who lived before doesn't mean it's divinely inspired. Does this mean the Koran is divine? Does this mean the Dianetics of Scientology is divine?! However, even if we are to assume that it lends some credibility, to jump to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the resurrected Savior of the world is a very, very long leap in logic. ==================== Argument #2 - The Creation of the World according to Genesis world doesn't contradict modern science. ==================== Again I ask you to be more specific, but you keep giving me vague and UNscientific terms. The earth was in a void state of being? What does that even scientifically MEAN? Seriously, this point can be forfeited on my opponent's side. He has given me NOTHING to even back up that the the Creation story of Genesis is aligned with science. In fact, stating the the earth was in a void state of being is not scientific, since the Earth was formed much differently. Lastly, he has constantly ignored my point that it doesn't matter if the Creation story aligns with science, because ANY book can! The Koran can, Dianetics conceptually can (aliens can exist), so on and so forth. If you really wanted to see evidence for the Bible's divinity, perhaps a prediction that can be accurately shown by calculations and science later is something - like a cure for cancer in the Bible or something. Not fairy tales anyone can make up. >>>"If scientist A wants to prove scientist B wrong about a theory all scientist A has to do is show that scientist B cannot be concretely right in one situation. He does not have to abide by scientist B's findings."<<< Yes, but have you done that for any of your wild interpretations of the Bible? No. You see, the key difference between a scientist disproving a theory and you interpreting the Bible however you want is that YOU NEED SUFFICIENT REASON TO. A scientist can't disprove a theory if he can't show where it's wrong, in the same way you can't say your interpretation of the Bible is superior if you have no way of reasoning why. ==================== Argument #3 - Earthly miracles ==================== No argument here, my opponent has stated nothing so this is dropped again. Remember his argument about Laminine, the protein? He has yet to say anything to my refutations. ==================== Argument #4 - The perfect placement of the earth ==================== >>>"I did not ignore your claims about humans at the center. I believe God put life at the center and therefore placed earth in the center of the universe."<<< Oh wow, that's just pure assertions. Just because you "believe" that God made humans the end goal of the universe DOES NOT MEAN IT IS. Come on, this is a debate - do you really think you can get away with mere assertions? Secondly, it is scientifically false that the earth is the center of the universe, due to the Copernican principle[1]. >>>"You are right the universe does not need life to exist."<<< How funny, you just contradicted your sentence before that stated humans ARE the goal of the universe. >>>"Science however, relies on mathematical and scientific formulas based on chance neither one is less likely than the other."<<< Science is based on chance? Really? Here, try an experiment. Jump off a building and tell me if gravity is just "chance". >>>"My opponent has faith in the fallible minds of scientists and their equations, whereas I have faith in a supreme being who cares for its creation. My opponent can charge me of being scientifically incorrect all he wants, but if, in the end of the round, and this debate he can take away one thing it is that I will always believe."<<< No, I believe in the power of the scientific method, and of empirical evidence. While empirical evidence is fallible, it doesn't mean everything is up for grabs - certain claims are more probable to be true than others. And while there is some degree of fallibility, to put faith in a supreme being for whom you have no reason to believe in is worse. It's a suicide of reason. And don't you think it's funny how you try to discredit science when initially you attempted to use it to prove God existed? More contradictions again. ==================== Conclusion ==================== I am wholeheartedly unimpressed with my opponent. With his initial arguments, which were bad enough, he has dwindled to the point of saying "science sucks, I have faith, I win". This is a debate, not who can shout louder. >>>"I only ask the voters to vote for what they believe to be the case, because it will always be scientist says A creationist says B. Vote for what you believe."<<< No, voters should vote for who argued the best, irrespective of their own positions. And on that note, it should be clear who won this debate. I have several unanswered arguments, and the rest were easily backed up. VOTE CON. ---References--- 1. http://www.physorg.com...