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

===================== Argument #1 - The existence of Jesus Christ ===================== >>>"The existence of Jesus Christ as a human does apply to this debate. Proof of his existence brings an amount of validity to Biblical Scripture<<< Uh, no it doesn't. Just because Jesus existed as person doesn't mean he existed as a DIVINE BEING (which is obviously the topic of this debate). There's a distinct difference between being a normal man and being a god. At most, the Bible shows evidence for some man named Jesus Christ who lived 2000 years ago. >>>"And as for the issue that Jesus Christ had a son does not have a negative impact on my case. Since The Bible can only be speculated about. .. The Christian religion is dynamic. The interpretation of the bible can change when new evidence is uncovered. "<<< The problem with this is that you hold no room in error for Christianity. You simply mold and shape the religion as evidence goes along. You come with a predisposed CONCLUSION and gather the evidence from there. This is an erroneous epistemological attitude. You can't simply change Christian theology to bend to the evidence; it either is backed up by the evidence or it isn't. So far, it hasn't. ==================== Argument #2 - The Creation of the World according to Genesis world doesn't contradict modern science. ==================== >>>"My opponent once again incorrectly assumes that I believe the Bible to be faultless. "<<< If you believe the Bible has faults, then what passages can you trust? ! What verses can you say is true, and others say is false? ! As stated in my previous argument, my opponent has a barrier against anything that disproves Christianity. If new evidence comes up, he changes the theology. If something is flat out incorrect, he simply states that it is wrong. This kind of thinking will never lead to any valid conclusions, but mere illusions. >>>"My response it was in a blank slate and the Abrahamic God gave it life. "<<< What exactly does it mean the earth is in a "blank slate"? The formation of the Earth had nothing to do with blank slates, or whatever it metaphorically refers to. >>>"I said that the creation according to Genesis directly aligns with the Bible. <<< Well duh, the creation story was writing in the Bible. Of course it aligns with the Bible. A = A. This isn't even an argument. >>>"Opinions vary from Church to Church. My opponents then says (i assume quite emphatically) "THEN ITS WRONG. " Oh really? So when a scientist comes up with a new idea that takes certain principles from another and applies them as they seem fit, does it make either of them wrong? NO. It means that they have varying opinions. <<< The main difference between you habit of molding theology and a scientist deriving principles from other theories is that the scientist STILL ABIDES BY THE THEORIES. When someone formulates a new theory (called X) based off older theories (called Y), X can't violate Y, because Y is the FOUNDATION of X. However, you're constant molding creates contradictions and clashes. Many Christian denominations state that Jesus never had a son, or said the Bible is flawless. How can you reconcile these differing opinions? By showing evidence, not by bending it. ==================== Argument #3 - Earthly miracles ==================== My opponent has no replies to this argument - it is a forfeit until a response is made. ==================== Argument #4 - The perfect placement of the earth ==================== Ah, my apologies for the spelling error. I meant to put quotation marks around "coincidence", to show that IT ISN'T one. However, for my opponent to ignore this minor mistake and my other arguments, and to simply dismiss the entire counterargument, is disingenuous. My opponent's argument concerning fine-tuning fails -- and I've stated this before -- because he puts humans as the final goal of the universe. This is a mistake. The universe DOES NOT NEED humans to exist, it could have very well existed with some other organism in our place. The reason why we exist is explained by the anthropic principle. Note that these arguments have been stated before, and my opponent has simply ignored them. >>>"My opponent does not employ any levels of "proof" that are more true than my own. Neither of us can concretely prove that a God did or did not exist, so the only job of the voters is to realize that this debate is not about proof but likelihood. "<<< Of course. BECAUSE I STATED THAT IN MY FIRST ROUND. ==================== Argument #5 - The creation theory is just as probable as the Evolutionary theory ==================== My opponent has no replies to this argument - it is a forfeit until a response is made. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent's awkward thinking has lead to a misguided account of Christian theology. He starts with a conclusion and ends with the evidence - his process of thinking is backwards.