God's Not Dead

-On eternal gods I believe you hinted at the impossibility of an infinite in reality. If god is something, which is to say god is in reality, then he can't be infinite. If thought precedes actions. god must have thought to create the universe. However all thoughts are the result of prior thoughts and experiences so god would logically have to have a first thought/ experience. If we agree the impossibility of the infinite is a logical absolute, then god is subject to it, otherwise the notion becomes incoherent. This is why theologians say god can only do that which is logically possible. However, once again you have completely missed the point. We don't need a first cause, it only complicates things, while adding no real explanation to anything. Once again a supernatural cause is impossible to know, because it can't be investigated by any known methodology. Not only can science not know, nothing can know EVER. A supernatural cause acting the natural world becomes synonymous with a natural cause. You would never be able to differentiate. Also you have also completely missed my point about models. I am NOT saying the proposed models are right; I am saying there are self contained models in which no god is needed. -Quantum mechanic NO physicist is skeptical of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has had profound implications on a lot of fields. Every experiment done in quantum mechanics has confirmed quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is reliable. Historical atheists: I would first like to say, the reason there are more atheists now is because we know more and atheism no longer gets you killed or thrown in jail. Marx Russell Freud Hume Ayer Nietzsche Jung Stirner Schopenhauer Grayling Satre There is many many more Also if Newton was born today I bet he would be an atheist. Just like if Hawking was born in the 18th century I bet he'd be christian. "So, can you name one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution that proves a change of kinds (not species)?" I have never heard in a biology lecture or read in a textbook anything about a "kind". What is that? I will have to provide the evidence next round because I have no idea what you are talking about. That is the problem when you use religion to argue biology, we end up using vocabulary that has no real meaning or place. Also I would like to say even if by some miracle evolution turn out to be false, that is no way proof or evidence of god. -Morality My opponent has offered no real objection to consequentialism. Acts that are good have good consequences. What's a good consequence? One that increases well being. The objective right action is the one that increases the most well being. However there may be many ways to achieve this. Even through seemingly immoral acts. Killing someone is immoral, however killing one evil person to save a million is moral. On moral absolutism, you can NOT kill someone to save a million lives. Drugs and terrorism is another debate. However if someone is acting to combat those thing, he or she is most likely doing so because he/she thinks well being will be improved. Even Kant's categorical imperative is based on consequences. -Bible Pro's commentary on the verses only further demonstrates my point. He seems to agree we are not doing these things, like stoning homosexuals killing children because they are harmful and no good comes from them. However if we read the bible literally as a life guide that's what we would be doing. Once again things that we recognize as nonsense we cease to take seriously. -Genesis My opponent seems to agree science is against creationism. Which more so demonstrates my point that the bible is unreliable. Once again we read non fiction as non fiction. The bible is obviously fiction because the evidence is against it and we reinterpret as allegorical or metaphorical. "Apparently I am failing to see how your explanation of infinite universes is taking care of the issue of the orderly processes of the Earth's rotation, orbit, and moon's orbit, as well as its perfect distance from the sun and the moon's distance from Earth." -Multiverse The orderly processes are the life permitting parameters I am referring to. In an infinite multiverse you would expect some universes to have these parameters. "If I asked you to make me a rose from scratch, you would probably say that you could not do it, but you say that it is not intelligently designed. You would have to start with the seed. If a human being can not create a rose, even though you claim it is not intelligently designed, then how could the universe form a rose through natural processes?" I am not quite sure what you are asking me here. How does the universe form a rose? Gas collapsed and compressed into clumps the size of a million suns (that's starting small for something the size of the universe). These clumps then merged to build galaxies. one hundred billion years ago the Earth, the Sun, and all the planets of the Solar System were nothing but a cloud of cold dust particles swirling through empty space. Gradually, these particles were attracted to each other and came together to form a huge spinning disk. As it spun, the disk separated into rings and the furious motion made the particles white-hot. The center of the disk became the sun, and the particles in the outer rings turned into large fiery balls of gas and molten-liquid that cooled and condensed to take on solid form. Four or five billion years ago, they turned into the planets that we know today as Earth, Mars, Venus, and the outer planets. The earth was incredibly hot in its early years and eventually in cooled into a primordial soup.which involved in the first organisms. Yes life can sprout from non life.In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of DNA, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth. During flowering four different types of floral organs need to be formed: sepals, which protect the inner organs; the frequently ornamental petals; stamens, which produce pollen and the carpels. This process is orchestrated by a large number of genes. Scientists have now found that a small molecule, a so-called micro RNA, is crucial for the control of floral organs identity. I think it follows we can get to flowers from micro RNA. I'm sure my explanation will be insufficient to you. I don't think you want to know how; I think you want to know why. Why is not a particularly meaningful question. Why presupposes purpose and their seems to be no observable universal purpose. "I guess the word "consciousness" was not what I was trying to refer to. Humans and other animals have living souls. What part of the Big Bang and evolution would give us life? You are a special and unique living and breathing human being made in the image of God. You explained neurological processes in the last round, but I want to know how it was first initiated. Also, you gave me the process of emotions, but we will just leave that at satisfactory for now." Once again I am not sure what you want. I gave you science's current explanation of consciousness and emotion. Once again I think you are asking why. What first initiates emotion? Experience. How is it that primordial soup goes to consciousness? Once again I don't know the exact mechanism by which matter creates consciousness. Pro's arguments are one big argument from ignorance. He is basically saying: hey you scientists don't know therefor god. I am sorry; I don't have sufficient time to talk about Jesus. We can have a separate Jesus debate. Conclusions: 1.Pro has not addressed the logical contradictions and incoherence that result from god's attributes. 2.Has offered no real refutation to the problem of evil. 3. Has not offered any reconciliation between eternal hell and a loving god. 4. Has not addressed some of the poor "designs". 5. Has not addressed my arguments from social science. 6. Has not offered any refutation to the multiverse or any of the self contained godless models I offered. 7. Has not demonstrated how to avoid the unavoidable infinite regression one encounters when using the design argument. 8. Has not reconciled quantum physics with the KCA 9 .Has not reconciled Occam's razor with the KCA. 10.Has not demonstrated the existence of souls/spirits. 11.Has offered no real objections or refutation s to consequentialism. 12. Has not provided any evidence for dualism 13.Has not demonstrated how any being exists outside of space time.