Christianity is false

I'll begin by addressing your points. Concerning The Cosmological Argument Con stated 2 scientific theories concerning the "beginning" of the universe. No Beginning Con’s assessment of the idea that the universe had no beginning is quite true -- a majority of cosmologists agree with the Big Bang theory. Why do they agree? Aside from the logic that Entropy would have destroyed all energy relatively instantly given an infinite time period, there is more easily observable evidence that we have seen through Astronomy. In short, everything we can see outside of our solar system is rapidly moving away from us and everything else. This is mainly seen in the redshift (1) of objects moving away from the relative observation point (Earth). Logically, we can say that if the things in the universe are moving away from each other, then they must once have been closer together. There is also evidence of background radiation (2) in the universe, which has been cooling off since the beginnings of the universe (everything was extremely dense and hot as the Big Bang occurred). This also suggests the Big Bang theory is true. With these pieces of evidence to support our communal conclusion, I will move on to the Big Bang. The Big Bang Con said: ". .. the universe at a time, about 13.8 billion years ago began from an infinitesimally small point and from that one point all of space, time, matter and energy came into being. " Con said: "They [atheists] are forced, by definition, to say that the cosmos, all the space, time, matter and energy came by and from nothing. " One of the most common misconceptions about the Big Bang theory is that it describes the absence of the universe before the "beginning. " The truth is, science has not yet proven if, where, and how the universe began or what/if there was "before the beginning. " As a result, most people, like Con, turn to the most popular explanation: a creator. The problem here is that the "creator" is just that -- an explanation. It is not a theory, an idea, a hypothesis, or a fact. It is neither proven nor in the process of being proven. People only accept it because it is the most available alternative. Con said: ". .. the big bang that held all of space, matter and time, necessarily needed a 'big banger' that was the cause of it. " It becomes clear even in this debate that one of Con’s main justifications of a creator's existence is that there is no other explanation. Creationists begin with the view that a creator exists, instead of using evidence to prove a creator's existence. Blind faith, put simply, is not enough to argue that the claims of Christianity are true. Concerning the Moral Argument For the purposes of this debate, I’ll accept Con’s premise that morality is objective. Con said: “Objective morality can come from 2 places, either it was an evolutionary adaption that the human race has found most beneficial to the survival of our species, or it is a law that has ‘been written on our hearts’ by God. ” I would like to point out to the audience that Con’s use of the assumption that a creator exists is not a valid argument that one does. Con said: “Let's say that it's right, that we, over millions of years found that this set of behaviors were beneficial to us a race. ” The fallacy here is simply incorrect information regarding the theory of evolution. Species evolve because of the survival of those with mutations, not because their mutation was beneficial to them. In many cases the mutation is beneficial, but that is not necessary for them to evolve (3). To illustrate this, I’ll write an example: There is a species of frogs in a creek. They have no predator, and they eat small flying insects. Their population is kept in check by a limited supply of the insects. Now, focus in on a female frog, whose reproductive system is producing an egg to be fertilized later by a male. The RNA in her body -- the part of a cell that makes the proteins -- is manufacturing them at an alarming rate. RNA, like any other system of the biological being, is bound to make mistakes. These mistakes are called mutations in the context of evolution. When the egg is born into a tadpole and eventually a frog, this small mutation lives on in its DNA. If the frog survives and reproduces, that trait will be in the DNA of the new frog. Then that frog reproduces and carries the trait to the next generation. This process continues. I hope it is now easy to see that adaptations can exist because of the survival of the mutation, and not because of the resulting benefit of the mutation. Why is this important to the Moral Argument? Con’s entire rejection of evolution determining objective morality relies on the idea that morality is beneficial to the species. Since I have disproven that the evolution of morality must be beneficial, Con’s argument crumbles. For instance, Con said: “Those arguing people I talked about believed that they SHOULD follow this [morality], not just that it is self-beneficial. ” We now know that if we did evolve morality, we might “believe that we should follow” it even if it is not “self-beneficial. ” As that was quite wordy, I’ll sum up my counterargument to the Moral Argument. Con’s reasoning was: if morality evolved, it is because it was beneficial to the species people follow morality because they should, not because it is beneficial therefore morality did not evolve if it did not evolve, god created it within us Here is a summary of my counterargument: adaptations can evolve because they survived, not because they are beneficial to the species if morality evolved because its genetic trait survived, then people would follow it because they should, not because it is beneficial therefore evolutionary morality is exactly as likely as god-given morality according to Con’s own logic Furthermore, evolutionary morality is even more likely than god-given morality as evolution is backed by definitive proof via the Scientific Method. Is god supported by evidence? So far, we have not seen a hint of it from Con. Con’s Morality Argument is debunked. Sources: (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) map. gsfc. nasa. gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb. html (3) . http://en.wikipedia.org...