The Abrahamic God is supported by Scientific Proof

Since the opponent has failed to define some important terms in this debate, I would like to take this opportunity to define them. SCIENTIFIC PROOF: Scientific proof is defined as something that was obtained via an empirical experiment following the scientific method. Abrahamic God: The Abrahamic God takes several names, but would be concluded as "Allah" in Islam and "Yahweh" in Christianity and possibly Judaism. Supported: Supported is defined as the quality of being helped by something. In this debate, the BoP lies on pro to prove. For pro to win this debate, he has to prove that "Yahweh" is directly supported by valid scientific proof. C1. Dualism and the Brain: Alleged Scientific Proof of God Before I disprove this argument, we must firstly look into what Dualism is. Dualism is not a disease, but it is a belief that the human mind and the human body are two separate entities. This belief was elaborated by great philosopher and mathematician, Rene Descartes, in his “Sixth Meditations” when he stated that: I remark, besides, that this power of imagination which I possess, in as far as it differs from the power of conceiving, is in no way necessary to my [nature or] essence, that is, to the essence of my mind; for although I did not possess it, I should still remain the same that I now am, from which it seems we may conclude that it depends on something different from the mind. And I easily understand that, if somebody exists, with which my mind is so conjoined and united as to be able, as it were, to consider it when it chooses, it may thus imagine corporeal objects; so that this mode of thinking differs from pure intellection only in this respect, that the mind in conceiving turns in some way upon itself, and considers some one of the ideas it possesses within itself; but in imagining it turns toward the body, and contemplates in it some object conformed to the idea which it either of itself conceived or apprehended by sense. He presents a bold claim; the mind does not need the body to exist is a claim that is distinctive and original. One of the deepest thinkers of his generation, and possibly of any generation, Descartes theorized that his body and his mind were in a state of perfect union, but when the body sways away or malfunctions, the mind could move on. He created this thought to refute irreligious people, and to formalize the neo-Aristotelian philosophical existentialist view. It is a bold thought, and is perhaps becoming discredited by the many advances in psychology that we are facing. However, some people believe in it. And belief in this dualistic separation often means belief in the Abrahamic God. Why so? This is best concluded with this premise-conclusive inductive logical argument: 1. If the mind could exist without the body, then a realm of the mindless bodies exist 2. If the body could exist without the mind, then a realm of the body-absent minds exist 3. If a realm of body-absent minds exists, then this realm is called the supernatural 4. If the supernatural exists, then there must be a supreme being controlling it 5. This Supreme Being is the Abrahamic God 6. Therefore, the Abrahamic God exists if the Dualist Argument is correct However, we may find many flaws in this whole argument, and in Dualism itself. Dualism is supported, as Rene Descartes stated (in Sixth Meditations) by the following philosophical proof: (Both of them are non-scientific empirical arguments. Philosophy also shares the same relationship with science that masturbation shares to sex. We, however, are looking for scientific proof, not philosophical ones. Scientific evidence is obtained through the scientific method) Argument One: [O]n the one hand I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in so far as I am simply a thinking, non-extended thing [that is, a mind], and on the other hand I have a distinct idea of body, in so far as this is simply an extended, non-thinking thing. And accordingly, it is certain that I am really distinct from my body, and can exist without it Argument Two: [T]here is a great difference between the mind and the body, inasmuch as the body is by its very nature always divisible, while the mind is utterly indivisible. For when I consider the mind, or myself in so far as I am merely a thinking thing, I am unable to distinguish any parts within myself; I understand myself to be something quite single and complete….By contrast, there is no corporeal or extended thing that I can think of which in my thought I cannot easily divide into parts; and this very fact makes me understand that it is divisible. This one argument would be enough to show me that the mind is completely different from the body (Note that these two arguments are from the Sixth Meditations, therefore I in this case do not represent me, but represents what Descartes thought about his mind-body dualism) A newcomer to this argument, however, could easily slam this argument. The simplest arguments against dualism might turn out to be the most effective. Adopting a viewpoint of a critic of the dualist thought, one may say that the research of the mind, psychology psychiatry etc., has proven that the research in the body could explain the mind, or the understanding of the mind could lead to the understanding of the human body. This, in Dualism, is impossible. Therefore, dualism is incorrect. This is the simplest and most effective anti-dualist criticism that one will ever find. There are also certain replies from many other scientists. Echoing the physic’s criticism, dualism violates “natural laws” This would be explained in my latter cases if the government sides raises up this argument. C2. Ontological/Logical Evidence is Invalidated in this Debate Self-explanatory contention; ontological evidence, albeit satisfying for many, will not help fulfill the opponent’s BoP. If the opponent decides to use such arguments, like Anslem’s Ontological Proof, then that invalidates the scientific part of this debate. Once again, my I remind all readers that science is not the same as logic and math. Science has a specific method; it counts both the errors and the “hits” that was recorded over time in a scientific experiment. Ontological evidence or modal evidence is based on rationalistic reasoning. For example, I may reason that I have one million dollars because I have a computer, which can cost more than a million dollar. However, I have no such wealth. C3. CREATIONISM WOO HOO Argument One: Noah’s Ark Creationism is often used as a scientific source for God. Because the Bible is God’s word, if anything is true in the Bible, the Bible is validated. If the Bible is validated, then God is validated. This is the type of circular arguments that many Christians have employed against Atheists. However, I have a book on the Spaghetti Monster. Its first sentence or a sentence in it is true. Therefore the spaghetti monster exists. This is equivalent to the Christian version of the argument. After analyzing this, we must now look at Creationistic theory. Firstly, let us look at Noah’s Ark first, and then the notion of worldwide flood later. The flood is described via the following verse (Genesis 7:17): Then the flood was forty days upon the earth, and the waters were increased, and bare up the Ark, which was lifted up above the earth. And the processions of the animals are described in Genesis 7:15: For they came to Noah into the Ark, two and two, of all flesh wherein is the breath of life. There are many flaws in this story. My first arguments to invalidate Noah’s Ark are anthropological, and then I move on to the other fallacies in the story. Anthropologically, shepherd herders could not have possibly known the arts of boatmanship. If we are to make the assumption that Noah and his animals all existed in one area, then that area would have been in the desert, somewhere in Palestine or Jerusalem, as the highest concentration of Jews (or pre-Christians, in this case) are in Alexandria and the northern provinces (during the Roman Empire). The belief that Noah created an ark that could hold millions of animals is almost fantasy; even with modern technology, humans are still unable to create such a thing. In fact, according to Bill Nye, the best boat makers in the world in Birmingham set upon the task of creating a Noah’s ark. These people were the best builders in the world; yet, with such a skill set at hand, they are unable to create Noah’s Ark! Other fallacies: F1. The Grand Canyon; according to Genesis, this flood was a worldwide flood. Yet we have one Grand Canyon, in America, that is almost capable of draining massive amounts of floodwater that the flood would have produced. F2. Trees were under water for one year, and yet they survived? What is this? If we were to take a tree, put it under water for a year, we would clearly see that the tree would have died out, as trees need oxygen to survive. F3. The earth was filled with misery, therefore God order the execution and deaths of millions of animals via a flood. I was told that God was infinitely good. Why would he let this happen? This fallacy is just an extension of the logical problem of evil. F4. If this flood truly did happen, then we expect animals to try to swim up to survive this flood. This would have caused the fossilization of these animals on the surface in which we stand on; however there are no such phenomenal happenings; we have to dig down, deep, in order to find fossils. If the Creationistic theory does not hold up, then the Bible is clearly invalid. If the Bible is invalid, then the existence of the Abrahamic God is negated.What Conclusions can we draw from this first round?C1. Dualism has been cited as scientific proof. It was created on philosophy.C2. Modal Logic cannot be used.C3. Proving the Creationistic Theory is allowed, but again, it has to be science that proves it. APPARENTLY MY TIME HAS EXPIRED. I LEAVE YOU WITH THE FOLLOWING PICTURE: