God Debate

Between sickness and midterms, its been a rough few weeks. This has effected my arguments, which so far have been weak. Now that my better, I'll make sure My final arguments are solid. Thanks to Con for good debate, voters please vote (because no one votes on my debates). Rebuttals: "As I stated previously; God is all-knowing. If God is omniscient he knows past, present, and future. If God knows what the future will be, it is a fixed subject, therefore you have no free-will. Saying that God gave us free-will is completely contradictory, for if God is to exist, you lack free-will. What you said is impossible, contradictory, a fallacy." 1.) Just because knows what is going to happen, it does not mean he controls or influences our decisions. I may know it's going to rain, but does that mean I make it rain? If I place a cookie on the table, and I know my daughter will eat it, does that mean I made her eat the cookie? No. Also, we do not know what God knows, and thus his knowing of what we will do can't effect our decisions. 2.) There is also the argument that God knows things only through the present. Because he lives outside of the laws of our world, he is not bound by time. Thus, we can not associate past, present, future to him. If he sees everything through the now, then the future is not fixed. "Yet he does. In the bible God commands Abraham to murder his son to prove that Abraham loves God. I personally believe murdering your son is evil; therefore God does command people to do evil things." Yes, but he stopped Abraham before he could murder his son. The whole thing was a test of Abraham's Faith. Abraham's son was never actually murdered, so I don't see what the problem is. "Since God is all-knowing, God knew Adam and Eve would disobey him, and knew the humans in the flood would turn away from him. They did not choose this. Yet God still goes along with the plot for an unknown purpose. Yet effect was all of humanity sinned for eternity, and death to all living things. God knew this would happen, yet still went along with it." As I stated above, God decided to give us free will, even though he knew some would turn against him (or he knows things only in the present). Assuming the former, he created humans and gave them free will because their sin would bring about the need of Redemption. It's true all things die, but Christians believe in the afterlife. "Im not sure what you mean by sin. A sin is breaking a moral principle, not sure how a word can create a disease; please elaborate in your next response." In other words, disease, death, etc. was a consequence that ensued from the Fall. Before the Fall there was no disease, death, after the Fall there was. "Revelation 11:13 "And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven."" God does create earthquakes to murder numerous people, God therefore creates earthquakes, making in supernatural, not natural. The earthquake was not literal. "And the same hour - In immediate connection with their triumph. Was there a great earthquake - "An earthquake is a symbol of commotion, agitation, change; of great political revolutions, etc. See the notes on Revelation 6:12. The meaning here is, that the triumph of the witnesses, represented by their ascending to heaven, would be followed by such revolutions as would be properly symbolized by an earthquake." http://www.godvine.com... "If it wasn't literal, then it must have been figurative. I don't see how a family tree can be interpreted as a metaphor, please explain." Very well. Eve was created by Adam's rib-->rib is near heart, protects heart--->woman equal to man, man should protect woman. Eve to Mary as Adam is to Jesus (Eve was first to sin, Mary without sin, Mary is part of Redemption, etc.). There is more symbolize in the 'Adam and Eve' story, I just listed some. "You are incorrect again, according to your bible Adam was the first human." Actually, 'my' military edition Bible only contains the New Testament. Also, the Adam and Eve story, as I gave examples above, is probably metaphorical/figurative. "I already established that God cannot be perfect, and I think the idea of perfection is a fallacy. It also makes very little sense. Let me explain. You established that God stands outside the laws of our world. There is definitely equal amount of chance that neon pink space bunnies riding a chicken wing with Elvis stand outside the laws of our world. Anything that you can think of has a completely equal chance of creating the universe from your stand point. Pro, please explain why you believe that God created the universe rather than neon-pink space bunnies riding a chicken wing through the universe. For they both have exactly the same chance of existing and starting the Big Bang." For something to be outside the laws of our world, it would probably lack physical form. But neon-pink bunnies (awesome as it would be), are physical things. Physical beings, restricted by time, space, etc. would not be able to do what God (who is not physical) does. I also have a "riddle" for you. How do you know that you (and the rest of the world) are not in some sort science experiment, being watched and recorded by giants? You can't prove me wrong, because the giants do want us to know of their existence. What I'm trying to get at is a lot of ridiculous things could be true. But do you think they are? "A person who knows lust and envy has at least had the feeling of lust or envy. Since God has all of men's knowledge and more, he must know lust and envy. But to say God has known lust and envy is to say that God has had the feelings of lust and envy. But this is incompatible with God's moral goodness. Hence God does not exist." I have a very simple question for you. Who would he lust or envy? He is omnipotent, omniscient. Who would he envy? He is not a physical being. How could he lust? "I found your response to be quite confusing. I understood that it was mostly about a cloth/shroud that Jesus supposedly wore. I do not see the connection between this and what we are debating. This does not prove God"s existence at all, yet proves that a man was wrapped in this cloth when he died that could maybe be Jesus. This leaves me in an awkward position for there is nothing to rebut. Pro"s entire argument was scientific research and no argument. Pro has also not done a rebuttal so nothing to rebut there either. Since there were no arguments made , there are no arguments to defeat. Since this is my last response of the debate this leaves in me in a bad situation. But since there were no arguments, there are no arguments to rebut, thus making this a short rebuttal." I was trying to get at that the tilma and shroud were too 'perfect' to have been made by human design, thus alluding to the divine. A rebuttal to this would be to try and prove the tilma and shroud fake, which you did not do. 1.A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God. 2. There are numerous well-attested miracles. 3. Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God. 4. Therefore God exists. PASCAL'S WAGER: This argument states that the consequences of not believing in God and following his 'commands' are far worse than believing in God. Non-believers will have no reason to live a moral life, and thus will probably be sinful. The consequence of not believing is eternal damnation, whereas believers are rewarded for eternal life. Thus, it makes more sense to strive for eternal life, rather than risk going to hell. Believers---heaven Non-believers---hell God doesn't exist---no gain for either Anselm's Ontological Argument: http://www.princeton.edu... In the area marked A we have things that exist in the understanding alone; in the area marked B we have things that exist both in the understanding and in reality; and in the area marked C we have things that exist in reality but not in the understanding. (For obvious reasons, we cannot give any concrete examples of the last category.) At this stage the fool has conceded that God exists in the understanding: so God belongs either in A or in B. Anselm now argues that God cannot exist in the understanding alone. The argument seems to proceed as follows. (1) Suppose (with the fool) that God exists in the understanding alone. (2) Given our definition, this means that a being than which none greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone. (3) But this being can be conceived to exist in reality. That is, we can conceive of a circumstance in which theism is true, even if we do not believe that it actually obtains. (4) But it is greater for a thing to exist in reality than for it to exist in the understanding alone. (5) Hence we seem forced to conclude that a being than which none greater can be conceived can be conceived to be greater than it is. (6) But that is absurd. (7) So (1) must be false. God must exist in reality as well as in the understanding. Teleological Argument: States that the universe is so complex that there must have been an intelligent designer. "The human brain has approximately 10 billion gigabytes of capacity." "In fact, even single-celled bacteria are so complex that, without all of their parts working together at the same time, they would have no survival potential." http://www.gotquestions.org... If you really study biology, chemistry, etc., you will probable wonder how these complexities could be random. Take DNA for example. Out of space to write, voters please vote.