The Abrahamic God is supported by Scientific Proof

Before I move on with presenting more arguments, I would like to refute the points raised by Pro. 2R1RC: “Scientific Proof” P1. All scientific proof is obtained via an empirical experiment that follows the scientific method P2. The historical accuracies of the Bible aren’t obtained via the scientific method C. the Historical Accuracies of the Bible is not “scientific proof” as defined by the definitions given In order to understand this argument, we have to understand the notion of what the “scientific method” is. In science, all empirical experiments serve as a basis to prove a hypothesis. This hypothesis is supported by both empirical evidence and rational reasoning; if the results of the experiment do not prove the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is invalid [1]. The scientific method also accounts for all evidence that goes both and against the hypothesis; in the scientific method, there are measures that are to be fixed, measured and changed in order to account for both the “misses” and the “hits” This is better explained by the head of Skeptic Society, Michael Shermer [2]: But in science, we have to keep track of the misses, not just the hits. And that's probably the key lesson to my short talk here, is that this is how psychics work, astrologers, and tarot card readers and so on. People remember the hits; they forget the misses. In science we have to keep the whole database, and look to see if the number of hits somehow stands out from the total number that you would expect by chance. The opponent may accuse me of playing semantics, but he has already accepted the definitions that I gave him; in order to look into what is unscientific about the opponent’s case, we must first observe it wholly, then we must go on to refute his arguments individually. By saying that several things in the Holy Bible are true, and therefore God exists, is like saying that we can observe that the world is flat, and some facts support this; because of this, the world is flat. This is a logical fallacy, formally called evidence suppression. Evidence Suppression is very unscientific as it does not account for the contrary evidence at all. [3] Why is this evidence suppression? I say this: many verses in the Bible are false or irrational. For example, we may take the 7 days account into notice. Days are now consented as 24 hours; however, the Hebrew word for days also meant periods of 12 hours and 1-2 years. Firstly, the literalist view will be attacked first. 148 hours is way too few for a huge rock, like earth, to cool down; in the Big Bang theory, a theory in which science has supported, Earth was created in the inner solar system where the planetesimals could have only developed into the common elements that are found in Earth’s ground; yet to do this required more time than 7 days. Perhaps millions of years to form; after all, it took 3 million years for the planetesimals to cool down. The metaphorical view is also refuted; 84 hours is still way too less, and so is 1-2 years. [4] More falsifiable statements in the Bible are: FS1. Noah’s Ark: Explained in R1. Briefly, it would be almost impossible for shepherd herders to carry millions of animals onto a boat built with wood. FS2. The Flood: If the Flood drained in one year, then there would have to be Grand Canyons, or Canyons large enough, for the water to be drained in every continent. No such thing exists. These are some of the “fiction-like” verses of the Holy Bible; for the Holy Bible to be true, it must be proven wholly (i. e. every statement has to be true). However, without any doubt, disproving some of it disproves the Holy Bible wholly. Historical Accuracy is therefore not scientific evidence that God exists. 2R1NC: PSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT GOD IS AN ILLUSION P1. All humans minds have developed special properties over time P2. These special properties give supernatural beliefs, like God and the Spaghetti Monster, a place C. God is developed by the human mind and only exists in the human mind Defending Major and Minor Premise: The human mind has changed a lot over times, and it has developed certain qualities that allow the illusion of God to exist in the mind. For example, young children tend to believe in fantasies; when I was a kid, I believed that I was destined to rule a country called Taneburg. When scientist Deborah Kleman asked children about the meaning of life for birds, such absurd replies such as “they exist because they make nice music” or “they exist because someone had to climb trees” were collected. What does this conclude? That we are trying to impose myth on reality; that humans have developed the mind to find design in nature. [6] This argument will be further developed in the next round, along with the Dualist-Monist argument. 2R2NC: SPONTANEOUS GENERATION IS DISPROVEN P1. Spontaneous Generation is impossible due to the natural laws that we have emplaced on our Earth P2. God has allegedly created humans via spontaneous generation. P3. If the creation of humans under God goes to an obsolete theory, then God never created humans C. If God never created humans, then it is quite possible for God to not exist C2. If God never created humans, then it is impossible for the Abrahamic God to exist DEFINING AND DEFENDING MAJOR PREMISE Spontaneous generation is the argument that life can be made almost instantaneously and at any given point in time. It revolves around the concept that matter can show up at any time and can be created at any given moment; for example­, under spontaneous generation, it is reputed that I could make rats, flies and bees appear. Spontaneous generation has its roots in Ancient Greece, but was immensely popular during the Black Death. Apparently, many priests came up with a recipe to make rats and fleas, as they believed that the rats and fleas were made up from nowhere, and that rotten meat held in it some sort of mythical powers to create fleas. This theory is how Christians attribute to the creation of men; men were suddenly created, in spontaneous manner, one ordinary day in history. Spontaneous Generation is a now obsolete theory; Louis Pasteur’s experiment proved that living matter cannot be simply created out of nowhere. However, this theory still lingers on in the creation of us humans. DEFENDING MINOR PREMISE ONE AND TWO Firstly, let me say that almost everything, including a God, (since the world began) has to follow natural laws. With this said, we must theorize that God created humans instantly. However, if this theory is not satisfying enough, then from Genesis 5:1 we see this verse: This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created Adam, in the likeness of God made he him, This states that God created Adam during the day; this is impossible. Even God, whose universe was apparently created by him in this theory, has to follow natural laws. God cannot create someone, even if he wanted to, in a day, as that violates natural laws. OUTDATING THE SPONTANEOUS GENERATION THEORY: REDI In spontaneous generation, it is generally said that flies come from nowhere. There are several matters that could make flies, and a general consensus within the scientific community then was that flies could spontaneously arise from rotten meat. Francesco Redi, an Italian Physicist, start doubting this. In a scientific experiment to observe the generation of flies and other pests, he starts by putting several chunks of meat into a jar. He then takes the maggots that develop from the jar out, and starts observing them. In another part of his experiment, he takes four pieces of meat into a jar. Two of them are of edible condition. The other two are rotten. In order for the spontaneous generation theory to be sound/valid, it is generally thought that flies could develop from anywhere, including rotten and unspoiled meat whose lids are close. He does exactly that; he puts two pieces of meat, one rotten and one unspoiled, into a jar and then closes the lid. He does exactly that same thing to the other; however, he leaves the lid open in these ones. Flies only developed in one of the two test subjects! After seeing them fully develop into flies, he comes to a conclusion that these pests were developed from microscopic eggs. In his famous book, Experiments on the Generation of Insects, he describes his experiment and then blatantly states out that “all life comes from life” [5] This diagram is a replication of Redi's experiment The Development of Flies according to Redi Francesco Redi has, by disproving spontaneous generation, disproved the concept of an Abrahamic god. Why? Because this theory proves that nothing could just pop out of nowhere, after the creation of the world. God could not have easily created man, who corrupted his perfect world, within a day or spontaneously without defying natural laws. DEFENDING THE TWO CONCLUSIONS Firstly, in this debate, we are looking at the Abrahamic God. The Abrahamic God created this world. He created humans spontaneously. Unlike the Hindu Multitheistic beliefs, the Abrahamic God is in entirety responsible for the creation of this world. However, if the theory of human creation in Biblical passages defies natural laws, then what are we to conclude? We are to conclude that the Bible, wholly, provides an inadequate unscientific account of the creation of the world. The theories presented by the Bible go against what we know about modern physics and this idea of “evolution” not “creation” CONCLUSION: The resolution is negated Citations: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . https://www.ted.com... [3] . http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] . http://biologos.org...