God is Both Religious and Scientific

Resolutional vagueness: I'm still not entirely sure after my opponent's second speech what she envisioned the topic to be. However, I only accepted this debate because I believed the topic was "Resolved: God is both religious and scientific. " If I thought the topic was "Resolved: God caused the Big Bang to happen," I would not have accepted since this is a completely different topic because, for example, God's existence can be real and yet unscientific. I also doubt that I would have accepted: "Resolved: God is spiritual and physical. " I accepted only because I had a strategy based around the word "scientific. " I apologize that my opponent may not get the debate that she wanted. I recommend to her that in future, she present her case in round 1 if she is worried that her opponent may not understand exactly what she wants to debate. Her case could help to clarify topic vagueness from the get-go. However, it is illegitimate of her to change the word religious to "spiritual" and the word "scientific" to "physical" after I have already accepted based on the old resolution and based most of my strategy around the word "scientific. " My opponent says that the usage of "God" as a proper noun caused confusion. I'm sorry, but I'm still really confused. Is she saying that I incorrectly used God as a proper noun or that "God" should be interpreted as a proper noun? Further confusing me is the fact that she doesn't explain how her definition of God is intended to differ from mine. Note, she leaves this part out of the Oxford definition of God, "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority. " This seems to be substantially similar to my definition, except for one glaring difference: source of all moral authority. On a note that may or may not be irrelevant to the debate, since I'm not sure what the debate is anymore, I take issue with the Oxford definition that God is the source of all moral authority. There are morality systems, such as utilitarianism, that do not require the existence of a Creator in order to decide what is moral and immoral. I don't think the dictionary is right that without God, there would be an absence of all moral authority. Jurgen Habermas, for example, believes that humans are guided by our "moral feelings," which create an innate sense of what is right and wrong. Moving back to my case: My opponent drops (does not respond to) my two proofs that the Judeo-Christian God cannot exist because his omniscience and his omnipotence are contradictory. In debate, when you drop an argument that means you agree with it for the rest of the debate. Therefore, my opponent agrees with my two proofs that the God of both our definitions cannot exist. If this God does not exist, He cannot be religious, which means "believing in a deity. " He cannot believe in either Himself or Zeus or Krishna if He does not exist. Extend my arguments that God is not scientific because He is not a testable hypothesis, since His existence cannot be disproven through scientific observation. My opponent drops this argument as well. Unfortunately, the round should be over at that point. I'm sorry there was so much confusion about the topic, but I won't agree to a topic change once I've already accepted and presented my case. Moving to my opponent's case: If my opponent wants to argue that God's existence (and a literal interpretation of the Bible) do not conflict with established science, I will gladly argue this with her, although I think that winning these arguments would still be insufficient to prove that "God is scientific. " The Big Bang Theory predicts the universe is approximately 14 billion years old. In addition, because the Universe is expanding (due to the Big Bang), objects that are far away from the Earth have their light shifted to the "red" end of the spectrum (called redshifting) due to the Doppler Effect (the reason the police siren sounds so weird as it moves away from you). This redshifting can be measured to predict how old these objects (usually stars or galaxies) are. Redshifting has been used to observe objects that first emitted their light 13.7 billion years ago, since it took that long for the light to travel all the way to Earth [1]. In contrast, the Bible says God created the Universe approximately 6000 years ago. [2] According to religious doctrine, the Bible is the true and infallible word of God. [3] Believers often try to reconcile the age of the Universe with the age of the Biblical universe by saying, "God could have created the redshifted light already in transit to Earth. " For this to be true, you would have to renounce the Big Bang Theory, since God would have created the Universe already expanded outward, instead of from a singularity. I eagerly await my opponent's response. I kindly implore her to debate the original resolution with me. If she does so, I'll ignore the fact that the arguments were dropped during this round. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.creationtips.com... [3] . http://www.believers.org...