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

To make it clear, any reference to "God" will refer to my opponent's conception of god. He has made it clear that the god he is seeking to prove is the familiar Judeo-Christian God, one that is described in the Bible. He has 5 arguments, so I will refute them accordingly in a linear fashion. ==================== Argument #1 - The existence of Jesus Christ ==================== The issue of whether or not Jesus Christ (as a human) existed is of no concern or importance to me. Because I DO believe he has existed, though only as a human who's influence has been blown wildly out of proportion. So while Discovery does give evidence for Jesus' existence, this does NOT give evidence for Jesus as a god - which this debate is about. It would also like to point out an interesting passage in the link he gave: "The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah. " A troubling fact when coupled with Christian theology, is it not? ==================== Argument #2 - The Creation of the World according to Genesis world doesn't contradict modern science. ==================== My opponent makes several small claims to justify this claim, so I'll go ahead and quote them and refute them accordingly. However, before I do this I want to point out something important the very argument. It's useless. Even if the Bible were to align with science, this doesn't mean it's necessarily true (and one has to ask whether or not changing staffs to snakes and talking bushes of fire aligns with science). If the Bible wanted to make it clear that it has a divine nature, then perhaps a scienfitic prediction centuries ahead can attest to it's truth. Obviously, there is none. Now onto his claims: >>>"The earth was empty and formless. .. The earth had always existed, but in a void state. "<<< If the world was empty and formless in a time before, what the heck was it? What kind of properties did "early Earth" have when it is formless or void? >>>"Now I've already said that what I say might contradict teachings of the Bible, but there is proof outside of the bible that the Judeo-Christian God exists. "<<< If it contradicts the teachings of the Bible, THEN IT'S WRONG. You can't go changing aspects of Christian theology as you see fit. >>>"My contention is indeed that God has been omnipresent within the existence of time. "<<< And you have yet to do anything to further this claim. Citing scripture is not evidence. If it was, then by virtue of your reasoning, the teachings of Dianetics, of the Koran, and any fictional work speaks the truth. Not only does this bring us to ridiculous conclusions, but it actually produces logical contradictions. To hit that lowpoint is not really a good goal in attempting to prove the existence of God ;). ==================== Argument #3 - Earthly miracles ==================== What a funny argument :). I've come across this argument before, but it fails not to amuse me, and here are the reasons why: 1. One simple protein that happens to be shaped in a cross (which isn't that much of a complicated design when you consider other shapes in nature) does not mean evidence for an "intellgient designer". How does my opponent jump from a simple coincedence to the existence of a god? There are many things in nature that seemed designed, but aren't - such as snowflakes. 2. Even if this was evidence for an intelligent designer, it wouldn't prove my opponent's burden. He still has to show that this particular creator is the SAME ONE as my opponent's conception - the Judeo-Abrahamic god. Why can't it be a Greek god, or a god we've never known about? 3. It's funny, for once I agree with AiG (Answer in Genesis), one of the most prominent creationist websites/organizations. In response to this supposed laminin evidence, they stated that "the Ebola virus, which causes a horrific form of hemorrhagic fever that usually results in death, happens to have the structure of what is commonly referred to as a shepherd's crook. The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Good Shepherd (John 10:14). So, if the shape of laminin supports the biblical truth that Christ holds all things together, then what would we conclude about the Good Shepherd from the shape of the Ebola virus? "[1]. ==================== Argument #4 - The perfect placement of the earth ==================== My opponent's argument, which basically falls under the category of "fine-tuning", fails for these two out of many reasons: 1. When you consider how so many planets out there are incredibly inhospitable, it doesn't seem to be so much of a coincedence. 2. Your argument pales in comparison when you realize that you are pitting humans as the end goal for the universe - we are NOT. The universe does not need humans to exist for itself to exist, and in place of humans an entirely different species of organisms could have taken our place; and nothing would've changed. It's called the anthropic principle[2]. ==================== Argument #5 - The creation theory is just as probable as the Evolutionary theory ==================== My opponent's understanding of a scientific theory is abhorrently incorrect. Not only is his understanding of the basic fundamental of science is wrong, but his definition of "theory" is even out of context (a scientific theory is not a policy laying the basis of action). The real definition of a scientific theory is an explantation that is backed with evidence to allow it to create predictions and explain phenomena. It is THE MOST VALUABLE thing in science, taking precedence over hypothesis, facts, and laws. Take a gander at several of my sources to understand what it means[2][3][4]. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Well, that's all of it. I await my opponent's response. ---References--- 1. . http://www.answersingenesis.org... 2. . http://www.wilstar.com... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://chemistry.about.com...