Convert me

Now my response: 1)Cosmological argument "Similarly, the Universe needed something to cause it to come into existence. This is accepted to be by the explosion of the Big Bang. For the Big Bang to occur, something must have made it to explode. " This is where my problem with the cosmological argument lies. Taking examples from our everyday life and applying it to the beginnings of the Universe seems unreasonable. Time did not exist prior to the Big Bang[1]. Cause and effect makes no sense without time. Therefore, the question of what/who caused the universe to exist is nonsensical. 2)Argument from objective beauty "one would agree that we also have objective beauty and order. I seriously doubt there is somebody who believes that an albino looks the same as a normal animal. " That is not the definition of beauty[2]. That is a question of natural vs. unnatural for a given species, and that does not imply objectivity either as the idea of what is natural for species is also a human construct based on inductive reasoning. "If there wasn't, then human beings would find it impossible to agree on anything" Frankly, we don't agree on many things. I believe, there is nothing morally wrong with people drawing Mohammad, yet many Muslims are willing to kill people who do so. In the end, it would seem our agreements on anything is bound to culture. 3) Argument from transcendental objects "Love and morality are not physical properties of a person/animal, correct? " No, they are abstract concepts. Morality is a concern for what is good and evil[3], which again is rooted in our thinking, which in turn is rooted in our brain. Love is a strong positive emotion of regard and affection[4], which the materialist position can also account for. "I shall not discuss objective morality as I have already discussed it above. " But you did not show why it is rational to believe it exists. 4) The transcendental argument about science and logic "For there to be logic, there must be something that controls that logic. " Seems like a question-begging statement. Please show why this is so. "For me to know that jumping from an eight story building shall result in my death without studying physics or observing it happening must mean that there is something telling me it will kill me. " The reason you know this is not instinctive. Rather it is an inductive reasoning based on the fact, that objects tend to "fall" if they are left suspended in the air without opposing force. It seems fair to assume that because inanimate objects tend to "fall", then a human being would also. "This collective spirit is present in every living creature. It tells us what is right and what is wrong. " Then how may you explain the existence of contradicting concepts of morality and the existence of sociopaths? 5)Argument from Substance Dualism "I am sure my opponent agrees that a thought, that imagination, is not caused by the brain's physical components. The electrical impulses it produces, yes. But not thoughts and imagination. Not dreams. " For the purposes of this debate I assume a materialist position on the Mind-Matter issue and I contend that thoughts and imagination are just our experience of the processes of the brain. This seems reasonable based on Occam's Razor, as we should not add more than needed to a theory. "These people can still imagine and make thoughts. They are also able to rationalise. " This seems fallacious as there is more than one type of brain damage. You can lose your short-term memory capacity, but retain your capacity for rational thinking[5] for example. Therefore, it seems reasonable to believe thoughts and imagination (like short-term memory) are contingent on our brains. If you damage the areas of the brain which conducts "thinking and imagining" then you are rendered incapable of such qualities. "This is also evident by how many people feel "happy" when they do a good deed. They have earned nothing materialistically, rather mentally/spiritually. The person's mind is satisfied, providing evidence of the existence of the mental world. " Not necessarily as the emotion could be an "injection" of Dopamine following a deed that would increase the chances of the society surviving. This would make sense based on our instinctive herd behavior, which seems to have originated by evolutionary process[6]. 6) Argument from persistent idea "To deny the existence of God, we would be denying a fact that has been around for over 50,000 years. We would need a great amount of evidence and render the idea of God utterly nonsensical for such a thing to be accepted. " Not really. If the existence of God does not stand on any a priori or a a posteriori foundation, why should we believe it? Seems like an argument from popularity. 7)Argument from witnesses "Judaism, Christianity and Islam all assert that God intervened in key moments of history. The sheer number of witnesses demonstrate God's existence" Consider the critical thinking-skills of these people. They would attribute good fortune to God's blessing and the lack of same as God's punishment. Natural causes were not even thought of. That fact in itself should make these people bad witnesses. Combined with the problems of personal testimony(Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions (U. S) nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing[7]) we should remain skeptical about such testimony until we have reasons independent of personal claims to believe so. 8) Argument from the Resurrection "The Resurrection of Jesus is also something that demonstrates God's existence. If a being is dead, how can he return to life? " That's an assertion. Please show why this is reasonable to believe. 9)Argument from Karmic law. "Karma has been proven to work time and time again" And history has also proved quite the opposite. The Islamic founder Muhammad engaged himself in war crimes, child marriage, raids, wife beating, deception and numerous acts which should generate "bad Karma"[8]. Yet what happened to Muhammad? He started one of the largest empires on Earth, become the religious leader of a movement of some 1 billion today and never got punished for any of his misdeeds. How does the Karmic laws account for this? 10)Argument from Adrsta "Super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrsta, an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result, by themselves should not able to mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain" I'm not quite the expert on Hindu concepts, but this argument seems contingent on the validity of Karma. See above answer. 11)Argument from human moral judgement "Judgement. How can humans judge an action without knowledge of right and wrong? " Well, you have yet to show that our knowledge of right and wrong is anything more than a sense of herd behavior and cultural ideas. My opponent has yet to demonstrate the objectivity of our morality and sense of beauty. His arguments have been answered and my objections from round 4 still stands. I look forward to our concluding round. Sources: 1. . http://www.hawking.org.uk... 2. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... 3. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... 4. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. . http://www.innocenceproject.org... 8. . http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...