God in nature (intelligent design) [Version 2]

Thanks to Pro! I'll respond. The Kalaam Cosmological Argument Introduction As I see Pro is at least a little bemused at my objection to the Kalaam argument; I will elaborate for Pro's (and the audience's) benefit. I will also concede all other objections on this, to give me as much character space as possible and to stop us both making straw men. (Which is inductively inevitable since we are both rather basic on physics). My objection explained If you state: "Everything that begins to exist[...]", you instantly make an assumption. What is the assumption? Well, it is: Reality can be divided into two sets; that is, things that begin to exist (BE) and things that don't (NBE). What fits into these sets? We can easily see the answer by asking: What fits into NBE? It seems as though the only thing is God! (I will counter Pro's rebuttals further down). If God is the only thing in the NBE set, then, logically, we can re-structure the Kalaam argument as follows: P1) Everything that begins to exist, except God, has a cause. P2) The Universe is not God. C) Therefore, the Universe has a cause. [From 1, 2] Is this logical? Yes, it's fine. However, when you do this: P3) The cause has to be God (timeless, spaceless, etc...). C2) God necessarily caused the Universe. [From 3] P4) Only actual things affect things. P5) By creating the Universe, you affect it. C3) God is actual. (This is what you mean when you state: God exists) [From all above] ((This is a very elaborated version)) Now we have the fallacy! When you affirm premise one, you make a further implication: God exists. You must state this, otherwise you deny the sets existing, and thus falsify the first premise. But, since you have made the conclusion: God is actual [exists], when you have already stated this as an implied premise, you commit the fallacy of begging the question[1]. Therefore, the Kalaam argument is illogical. Pro's rebuttals to this Pro gives two rebuttals: NBE =/= God. And: Numbers fit into the NBE category, so the question isn't necessarily begged. I will counter both now. The first objection, if correct, doesn't really prove anything to counter my objection. Simply put, if God is the only thing that fits into NBE, then the Kalaam argument can be logically structured as above. Maybe it was my mistake to say God is synonymous with NBE, and for that I apologise, however, this objection is not relevant to my own. The other objection is far more interesting. Do numbers begin to exist? Well, it depends on the view you take. Mathematical fictionalism states that numbers don't exist, for example.[2] So, what are we talking about? It seems, for my opponent's objection to even have a chance of working, we must use mathematical Platonism, which states that numbers do exist, but only as abstract objects.[3] So, assuming Platonism, do numbers fit into the NBE set? Yes, they do. So, has my opponent just defeated my objection? No. I'll explain why. Numbers in Platonism are abstract objects[3]. However, by definition, the do not cause anything! In fact, if they could, then the original Kalaam argument runs into problems, too. My opponent conceded this in round one: "Since Abstract Objects cannot cause anything[...]". Therefore, for my objection, we can safely omit numbers from the NBE set. My objection stands. The Moral Argument I apologise for straw manning Pro's position - I will back up. So, my opponent gives a response to the Euthyphro Dilemma, and while I might be able to rebut it; I shan't try to save further straw manning. Now here is the problem: "Premise 2: Objective morals and values exist." What support does Pro give to this claim? The following: "[...]through personal experience. When we see an animal, we know that petting it would be morally better than attacking it. Equally, when we see a child, we know that talking in a friendly manner to it is morally better than assaulting it. I don't think that anybody who isn't a sociopath can deny that morals are objective." ((I don't appreciate being called a sociopath!)) My opponent gives the claim of "through personal experience", and yet gives little support to it, save for his personal experience. This is an example of inductive reasoning and David Hume demonstrated the problems with it[4]. Say there is a possible world where anything Pro experiences and deduces are flipped. So, the opinions are literally opposite. What gives "our" Pro more authority over the possible world's Pro, and vice versa? Nothing. Hence, we can show how that, if personal experience stands, they negate each other, and thus make it useless. Rationally, we can only conclude that the argument for objective morality from personal experience doesn't hold. Therefore, Pro hasn't sufficiently supported his second premise, allowing me to logically dismiss it by Hitchens' Razor[5]. The Argument From the Resurrection (1) The Bible as evidence. Pro claims that I cannot claim the Bible is unreliable as it counts as a primary source. Answer: If Pro uses the Bible to prove the Bible, then it is circular reasoning. Can the Koran do the same? Does Harry Potter count as a primary source for the life if Harry Potter? No, of course not. I am not saying that the Bible isn't always reliable, it can back up sources, but only from outside of the Bible! (a) Pro also gives four reasons why it is very hard to find sources from outside of the Bible. Answer: While this may be difficult, it doesn't validate the source. (2)Archaeological evidence. Pro gives sources. Answer: Thank you, I concede this. (3) The arguments given in counter of the risen Christ. Pro claims that it is very unlikely that the followers would have stayed true when they could just reveal the body. For the Romans, Pro states that, since they wanted to get at the Jews (a.k.a. early Christians - at least some of them), then why not have just revealed the body? Answer: We move too far into the world of "could of done this..." for me to answer rationally. I concede the point. For the Romans, Pro makes the assumption that they actually kept the body. It seems to us that the Romans hated them, and stealing the body would have been to stop the sort of claims from happening. If you feel like you've just completed the task (i.e. stopping the claims of resurrection from starting), then why keep the body? It seem irrational to keep a corpse in case of the event that the claim was roused, when you've just (apparently) stopped that from ever happening! No, this point hasn't been sufficiently answered. (4) Jesus' sightings. Interesting source, Pro! Indeed, people claimed to see Jesus. I concede that. (a) Mass hysteria. Pro claims that the visions were separated, so they couldn't have been cases of mass hysteria. Answer: The source given is the Bible. I have already explained how this is not a source to be taken seriously. (b) Mass hysteria two. Pro gives Gerd ((not Gert, in German, "d" is pronounced as a "t" if it is the last letter - linguistic note - personal hobby)) Luedemann as a source for the reliability. While Pro seems to concede that this is an argument from authority, he gives the reliability of Peter's letters as a back-up. Answer: I only reject the sources from the Bible when - and only when - they try to prove the Bible. However, since my opponent hasn't given any source at all for this assertion; I can logically dismiss it with Hitchens' Razor[5]. (c) Mass hysteria three. Pro states that mass hysteria only gives physical effects, not visions. Answer: Either I have missed something, or Pro has made a straw man. The quote I think Pro is referring to is: "In medicine the term [mass hysteria] is used to describe the spontaneous manifestation of the same or similar hysterical physical symptoms by more than one person."[6] As you can see, this is purely in medicine and therefore doesn't affect other outbreaks. This claim is a straw man. Conclusions I have shown how my opponent's responses to the begging the question objection were not logical and (on the numbers); irrelevant. I also showed how the numbers-counter assumed mathematical Platonism, which was a bare assertion in itself. I have dropped the Euthyphro Dilemma, but have instead demonstrated the illogical claim made by Pro; allowing me to dismiss it with Hitchens' Razor. I have dropped the followers stealing the body, but successfully rebutted the Romans doing so. I have shown the appeal to authority by Gerd Luedemann, the straw man of mass hysteria, and explained how the Bible doesn't prove the Bible. (Harry Potter doesn't prove Harry Potter). A very good debate with a good debater! I thank Pro, most kindly! I'll also thank the audience and the voters. I shall see you all around! J Source(s): [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://plato.stanford.edu... [3]http://plato.stanford.edu... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org...'_razor [6]http://en.wikipedia.org...