RE: God's Existance

We have reached the end of the debate. I began because a previous version of the debate was two people agreeing with each other on Pro's stand that God Exists. I stand on this principle: That an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Pro has not met this burden of proof, or even addressed the correct subject. I urge viewers of this debate to vote Con, as the subject, "Gods Existence" is not shown. Pro, I am also disappointed in this debate- firstly that it is over so soon. I honestly thought five rounds would be a long time for this subject. And second I was hoping to talk to an adult, not a child whose only argument is a tossed salad of irrelevant put downs of sciences far beyond his grasp, followed by gratuitous insults and mockery as a substitute for discussion in a search for truth. In part 1, I stated that your discussion of Cosmology and Evolution is in fact not relevant to the question of the existence of a divine being (and now that you mention it, I do note and apologize for my typo in the title). That was my point about monotheists who regard modern science as true. That paragraph is irrelevant for the existence of a divine being- or against it either. Note to the readers of this debate: In the interest of completeness, I have made responses to Pros arguments, correcting his numerous errors as I could. It was a "Gish Gallop" , and can be safely skipped. The subject of Gods Existence is dealt with in Part 2. Part 1: Science, God, and WTF. 1.) Yep, you are wrong, and I might add, SO wrong that I hesitate to imagine what your '4 year' study on these subjects consisted of. There is just no way you have a grasp of biology that can produce such quotes as you did after more than four MONTHS of actual class and laboratory work. What you called 'evidence' is actually a group of web resources to look up what the actual science is about. 2.) I actually requested that you *reset your debate* so that we could have a do over of your previous version, but I was expecting better than the paragraph you delivered, which was two badly mangled versions of cosmology and evolution, chopped and blended together in a manner that I described already as both incoherent and irrelevant to the existence of the Christian God. 3.) Your argument doesn't meet the burden of proof because you provided no proof, evidence, or even a relevant argument. In this case you would need to provide some sort of source material of this god. The best proof would be for you to convince God Himself to SHOW UP- to manifest on this Earth. That would be an undeniable proof that he is real. 4.) I don't believe in Theistic Evolution. I pointed out that many people do, as a demonstration that Theism and Evolution do NOT contradict. That means that your attack on evolution, even in the hypothetical case of it succeeding, would not in any way 'prove' that a god exists. 5.) I said I was NOT stunned. Disappointed, not stunned. When I first eyeballed your work, I noted that it is an obvious Gish Gallop. ( I would hope that you would at least organize your arguments. 'Dumbing them down' is not the problem, sadly.) 6.) a.)The Catholics are not 'fools', and it is a miserable, needlessly insulting piece of bigotry to say that they are. From my (Cons) point of view, they are not even any more wrong than you. Also Catholics do believe in the Bible. So do the Lutherans, the Greek Orthodox and even the Westboro Baptist Church. Now these sects have many different versions of the Bible, but they all are Christian- all believe in Original Sin via the fall of Adam, and a 'get out of hell free card' via belief in the divine hookup of Jesus of Nazareth. b.) Again my point was and is that MANY churches and MOST Christians have no conflict with their faith and science, thereby invalidating any argument you were attempting to make. c.) Any Catholics reading this- Pro called you all fools! He said you don't believe in the Bible! Vote for Con. At least Con respects your opinions! 7.) Are you kidding me?! Hydrogen is a single proton, orbited by one electron. It not a 'complex molecule' it is -literally- the SIMPLEST of ATOMS. You seriously claimed to have four years of study in evolution and "bio molecular process" and the first part of basic science you manage to get backwards! I in fact just pulled out an old biology book and guess what? The chapter starts with the correct description of atom and molecules, next to pictures of hydrogen and helium atoms. 8.) You explicitly state that Evolution claims cells are "composed of Hydrogen and Helium" which no Evolutionist would or could say helium ever made up a part of cells. I challenge you to find a genuine science quote on that. You did not ever take any real biology course, it is clear that you are inflating your credentials. 9.) This sentence seems to have no point. You say you showed my comments to your 'professor' (actually FAILING to present the fallacy of Argument from Authority), and that you all had a big laugh (which FAILS the fallacy Argument from Incredulity). If you are not going to actually present an objection to my comments, why bother mentioning them? Also I'd like to talk to this professor of yours, to discuss your debate skills in a candid way. I cannot credit the fact that you actually failed to finish presenting fallacious arguments by not closing your point! Can you arrange for your professor to contact me? I appreciate that, thanks. 10.) All elements higher than hydrogen are forged in stellar furnaces, yes. 11.) Yes, that one 'got me too' but not in a good way. Again, you are using a 'gallop' style of argument that will need paragraphs or even entire chapters to address. I do NOT have space in this forum for that, in fact I've chopped large sections out to make this much fit. 12.) Again, not enough space for eyeballs. And 'to google' has been a verb in English for several years now. 13.) Don't guess, find out, Pro. I used the term 'google' as a verb correctly. 14.) Stellar fusion is verified. Common knowledge even- its E=MC^2. 15.) You missed the point of those names, which is the "are not alternatives to the existence of any god" part. 16.) I don't have space in this debate for a dissertation on biogenesis, I've had to cut my work twice already. I'm down to 136 characters! Part 2: My argument against the Accuracy of Sacred Texts. 17.) My premises (all -benevolent, -knowing and -powerful) are your gods directly ascribed characteristics. You need to show any objections, or are you saying your God is not true? 18.) The word doesn't mean 'call' in the context of my quote from your book- unless you are saying god 'called' an eland from the 'dust of the ground', or summoned a sparrow from its burrow. 'Formed' is the only definition that makes sense here. 19.) I am misunderstood, but I do not misunderstand. These are clearly separate stories of creation with a different chronology, and a competent god wouldn't 'clarify' anyway- he'd get it right to start with. 20.) The Jew, Christian and Islamist all follow the same god of Adam, Moses and David, not disagreeing until events during the reign of Julius Caesar. I showed all of these books are simply wrong, disproving all versions the same fictional god. Also the absence of a critique on the Christian section of my argument is telling. 22.) I advanced a hypothesis of a god, to demonstrate again that it cannot be *your god. Your god is not still shown to exist. 23.) Heh, you should indeed take a good look at those sites- the third one is Skeptic Annotated Bible for example, not Skeptic Anonymous. They all offer valuable education opportunities if you get past the names. So what classes are you taking, anyway? I ask purely for information... Thank You for your time in this debate. It was fun, and a real learning experience for me. Farewell, Liquidus!