The Abrahamic God is supported by Scientific Proof

He says that he is no way saying that a mistake was made, thus accepting the Geneva Bible in which it solely meant 24-hour days. He then contradicts himself by saying that he is arguing that the word “yom” in this case is being argued as a certain period of years. Firstly, this view shall be quite simply by saying that a Hebrew day usually runs from evening to evening, accordingly to the sun. Apart from this, the Genesis creation account mentions “evening” [1] as apart from “evenings” as described in Genesis 1:8: And God called the firmament Heaven. So the Evening and the morning were the second day. Again, I would like to remind the readers and the audience that the entire Genesis creation account was written in prose form, as stated in my last arguments. In a normal Hebrew prose, there would be no room for any metaphorical interpretations of words, as stated in my last argument, in which the opponent has completely dropped. 4R2RC: The Notion of Scientific Proof Scientific proof has been defined in this case as any evidence obtains through/via an empirical experiment which serves to either prove or disprove a hypothesis. The opponent has yet to produce any valid scientific evidence; he can only point to “historical accuracies” of the Bible. However, we are not looking for any evidence of God; we are looking for specific evidence of God from a field of study. The opponent has yet to done that, and his BoP is yet to be filled. 4R2RCSCA: Existence and Science The opponent states that I cannot proclaim that he exists, or trees exist, or that this website exists via science. Albeit I cannot proclaim that my opponent exists, I could use physics to prove that trees exist; I could use computer science to prove that this website exists. And this is all I ask of the opponent to do with God. 4R2RCSCB: Correlation is Causation? Replying to his correlation/scientific accuracy part, let us observe the following graph: We can see a correlation between the number of pirates and the temperature of the world. Therefore pirates are a divine being that can solve our problem. We should all become pirates! Or is there a better explanation for this? A better explanation for this is that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation. Because there are less pirates in the world, doesn’t necessarily mean that the temperature should increase. Unless the opponent can turn his circular premises into a logical argument, then we can say that there is a missing link between his evidence that he has presented and his conclusions. His argument is a syllogism missing the minor premise. At this point, I would argue that it would be more than right to say that science is limitless in the arguments that it could prove/disprove. In ads, you see people saying that this product scientifically removes stain or removes bacteria. You never see ads claiming to metaphysically remove stains, because science is reality. Whatever is unscientific can almost be regarded as a fictional tale. The opponent cannot simply claim that science could not prove everything, because science is what he lives on. We can then premise that science is the ultimate proof of all happenings; from myths to historical facts, from existence to the meaning of life. And that is why philosophy is declining; because philosophy has been replaced by a creed of scientific geniuses who ought to disprove the world and impose reality upon it. So yes, in order for something’s existence to be confirmed, it must be scientifically, whether empirically or rationally, valid. 4R3RC: FALLACIES EVERYWHERE! (and DMT) Throughout his argument, the opponent commits a fallacy called anecdotal evidence. He claims that he feels God, and gives us a little cozy story about how he experienced God. Let me share a story of my own: when I was a child, I was haunted by the Ghost of My Dog. I was sleeping, and then my grandmother went out of the room. A dog suddenly appeared, flying in the air, howling, and experiencing pain. His dark shade surrounding his head got me up and running out of the room; I was more than definite that this was reality. This story is currently presented to you as a true story. Now, let us start to debunk this story; the human mind produces DMT, a substance which starts producing in four instances, including near death experiences, deep sleep, before death, and during birth. DMT is the substance that causes dreams/hallucinations to happen. DMT is usually produced in periods of 6-7 minutes; perhaps when I woke up, DMT production has not ceased yet. Or another plausible explanation is that the dog wanted to haunt me for crimes that I did not do! AHHHH I’m going to run away! [2] Just because one has experienced something, doesn’t mean it is plausible. I experienced the spirit of my dead dog. You may experience God talking to you, but in reality, your brain is playing a mind trick. Never trust your mind Apart from this, let us go back to the fallacy part; by giving a personal account of your experiences, but not supporting that account with facts or figures, that account can be easily dismissed as a fallacious claim. Another fallacy that the opponent has committed is ad-hominem. He commits this by saying that the opponent is going by first-hand experiences and intuitive thoughts rather than science, yet he has left that claim unsupported. Firstly, I have used almost no first hand experiences until this argument. Secondly, that claim is somewhat hypocritical in a way. 4R4RC: Noah’s Ark This one will be brief, but this one will be easy and understandable. IN order for the water present in the flood to be drained, it would require some natural phenomena like the Grand Canyon to drain it. Yet the Grand Canyon was present in only one continent where human history has exceeded the age of the Bible, therefore proving the flood theory false. Objections in this theory will be raised in the following round, if the opponent picks up upon this topic. 4R5RC: Evolutionary Psychology and God The opponent claims that the theory of Agent Detection does not explain God. However, Agent Detection requires human to find design in the chaotic orders that the world was created in. For example, Agent Detection (much like Fundamental Attribute Error) will lead men to believe in irrational claims, like “God” saved me in this instance. Agent Detection is universally described as a “survival tool” for humans, as it is a solution to the problem of mortality. The horrible reality for the opponent is this; humans need a story. Humans need a myth to impose on reality. Agent Detection theorizes, correctly, that the human needs some sort of story to justify the existence of humans. Agent detection states that the cognitive modules of the brain causes humans to use intuitive logic rather than pure logic, which of course led to the spread of the theistic theory. For example, if a human hears a twig snap in the middle of the wood, he would automatically assume that this is caused by a spirit behind him. That human calls this spirit God. This trait is called a sprandel, and is a side-effect of Agent Detection. In his book “Religion Explained” Pascal Boyer proves this concept through psychology, neurology and linguistics. He concludes with the following claim [3]: As I have pointed out repeatedly the building of religious concepts requires mental systems and capacities that are there anyway. Religious morality uses moral intuitions; religious notions of supernatural agents recruit our intuitions about agency in general, and so on. This is why I said that religious concepts are parasitic upon other mental capacities. I would like to also remind the audience two things: 1. The BoP lies upon the opponent to prove. 2. We are not talking about the existence of God in any other terms (historical/logical etc. ) but scientific. 3. This debate is about the Abrahamic God, not about religion in general. The opponent has yet to fulfill his BoP. Until then, the resolution is negated. [1] Geneve Bible [2] . http://wondergressive.com...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...