Reality is the only true answer to everything not divine belief

Hi Weirdman, First, thank you for accepting and responding so quickly. Understanding reality will be the key otherwise the point will be lost. What we are debating is reality vs myth. Everything stated thus far and everything that will be stated should all derive from reality vs myth. Nothing more, nothing less. My opponent has provided simple definitions for the terms discussed. Consider these two as the definition of reality and myth - Reality - the state or quality of being real. http://dictionary.reference.com... Myth - a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or heroï¿½or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. http://dictionary.reference.com... The above definitions derive from the same source as posted in the counter argument. In this debate I am asserting that responses to questions using myth as the base is indeed a logical fallacy and should be avoided. Responding to what are miracles using myth as the foundation is a logical fallacy. Example - I believe miracles are divine and sent to Earth from god. There is no way for science to prove what has happened, therefore, it's a miracle and miracles only come from god. Miracles are sent from god, therefore, god is real. This is myth and we are debating myth vs reality. In reality, miracles go against natural law. Miracles are stories passed down and stretched far from reality. Many stories have been reported and told as miracles. A 1 million dollar challenge has existed for anyone that can prove or display a miracle. Thus far, since 1964 no one has earned the money after many attempts. To answer the questions presented with the reality response we must never include myth as the foundation. Who was the first person? If we use myth we could say Adam for example. If we use reality we would discuss everything that our five senses can detect along with instruments to enhance the senses, and scientific modeling. Was the first person a homo sapien? If you stack 185 million years of photos on one another that displays your ancestors all the way back would it be the same species as today? In reality, no you would find a species of fish. Now we are getting into natural selection and evolution which isn't necessarily the debates goal. We can argue for and against evolution but the reality is the evolution response only focuses on fact not myth. We have fossils and scientific models that convert an idea or theory into reality. If my opponent focuses too much energy on evolution vs creationism he is not understanding the debate. We are debating that reality is always the answer over mythical answers. Mythical answers make no attempt to use senses and logic to find the answer, but rather assert old stories passed down from generations. In the question of the first person evolution is the reality answer. This does not mean evolution will not progressively continue defining new and additional supporting evidence. In context - evolution vs Adam and Eve is equivalent to reality vs myth. My opponent would need to assert and prove that Adam and Eve is not a myth but reality in order to progress this idea any further. Why do bad things happen? My opponent, again goes to myth to answer this question. In reality, it makes no sense to even consider bad things over good things. We are really examining why things happen at all. If there were a natural law concerning good and bad we would expect that bad things happen to bad people and good things to good people. We all know, however, that this natural simply doesn't exist. Staying in proper context then we must consider reality vs myth. In reality, things happen because of chance and reason. In myth, things happen because of lack of understanding and divine intervention. We know that Earthquakes are caused by shifts in the Earths plates. This is reality. A myth assertion that Earthquakes occur because of the imperfect world created by a fallen angel is the opposite of reality and should be disregarded as truth. How was the world created? What is the origin of life? One important understanding is that we cannot yet explain everything in reality. It is important, however, not to say "because you can't define the origin of life that means there's a 50/50 chance a god did it". It is not okay to fill gaps in reality with myth in divinity. Reality continues to grow progress based on new evidence and understanding. A myth stays a myth asserting a god said "let there be..." and then there was. Reality explains truth based on what we know to be so and doesn't rely on blind faith or historical myth. There are indeed things in this world that are subject to interpretation and there is reality. Things we detect using our senses and understanding them always trumps myth and divinity. In conclusion my opponent must address how answering questions with myth trumps reality. We have defined these terms and understand we are debating myth vs reality.