The God Of The Bible Exists

The Moral Argument: "Objectively, when human skin reaches 162"F and above, it causes severe suffering in ALL HUMANS; we objectively suffer without our skin. Actions that lead away from letting human skin reach this temperature are objectively moral, because the suffering is actually objective." My opponent has listed something that is considered suffering but I would hardly call it objectively unethical/immoral. It is something that is bad for the body and something that helps us get away from that suffering may be good. But nothing about this is moral/immoral. "Objectively, 25 psi from a blunt force will break human bone, and objectively this will cause suffering. Actions that lead us away from 25 or more psi by way of blunt force on a human's bone would be objectively moral." Again, my opponent makes the mistake of assuming something is immoral merely because something is bad for the human body. "Objectively, broken bones from rocks being thrown at a human's face causes a human to suffer. With "as little as 25 pounds of pressure applied to one of your small bones will cause a fracture." And again...this may be bad for the human body but it doesn't establish that the act is objectively immoral. My opponent seems to think that just because something is bad for his body, that makes the action objectively immoral. Bad news for my opponent, but his opinion does not make something objective. "The actions that lead toward these objective stimuli-->suffering are immoral." Thanks for asserting that but you have offered no evidence that something is objectively immoral. You have only provided examples of objective suffering. "The actions that lead away from these objective stimuli-->suffering are moral." Another assertion...you have not explained why you believe that the action that causes the suffering is objectively immoral. You have only asserted your subjective opinion. Earlier I said this "William Lane Craig states that "to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so." Con's response: Right, like objective stimuli that cause objective suffering...this is the case whether anybody believes it to be so...human skin is destroyed at 162"F whether you believe it or not. My Response: Wrong. You have established an objective suffering but have not established why things that cause suffering are objectively immoral. You merely say they are objective immoral without offering any explanation. "Did Hitler's actions lead toward objective human suffering or away from objective human suffering? I can objectively state that Hitler was morally wrong, without there being a god, because Hitler's actions lead toward human skin becoming 162"F, for the purpose of destroying human skin; this is immoral." No...you can only subjectively state that Hitler was wrong because in your subjective opinion, actions that lead to suffering are immoral. But your opinion does not make something objective. Then I get accused of contradicting myself... 1. "Benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral." 2. "Being moral and benefiting society are the same thing." Yes! Benefiting society is what it means to be moral. I have not contradicted myself. Benefiting society is not a reason for being moral (like my opponent mistakenly believes) because it is a part of what it means to be moral. It isn't the only thing you have to do to be moral but it sure isn't a reason for being moral like my opponent originally claimed. I don't understand why my opponent is still confused. "In fact, by someone telling you that they chose to play football to score points, they are giving you a reason that they play football. For example, this person could have refused to play baseball, because you don't score points in baseball, you score runs. It could be that given the choice between playing baseball and playing football, this person chose to play football, because they want to score points, not runs." Wrong. If a parent went up to a football player and asked them the reason for why they played football and the player responded "to score points" they would only be telling the parent what football is. My opponent makes this ridiculous response to the question by saying that someone would rather play football because they want to score points. No person would ever respond like that because it isn't an actual reason why people play football. I can give another analogy if this one doesn't sink in. "Pro is in direct contradiction with the very "source of all moral authority" he claims exists. Pro, how do you reconcile that your god commands the mistreatment of humans on the grounds that they are other humans' property while you claim "no that's not moral?" To be honest, I am disappointed that my opponent has ignored our entire discussion on slavery on a forum. But nevertheless, lets again address these issues. Yes, I said that owing a human being as property is immoral. But God never condones slavery in the Bible and my opponent has not provided a single verse where God condones it. The verse he provided from Exodus was one I told him in the forums because he made the false claim that God does not restrict the beating of a slave. Now he is trying to use the same verse to falsely demonstrate that God supports slavery. But that verse only says that since people have slaves (known as their property), they must know that their mistreatment of slaves will be punished. And for the record, the slaves we are discussing were ones that sold themselves into slavery to pay off debts. They had to be freed after six years (Deut 15:12), they were considered members of the family (Lev 22:11), and etc...Slavery was not always the way that people think it was. And again, why does my opponent ignore the facts about God freeing thousands of slaves (the kind he is thinking about) in Exodus (the same book he claims where God condones slavery)? "The arranging of the six-fold radially symmetrical snowflake naturally occurs through the water cycle and temperature fluctuation, so we don't need to assume an arranger when observing the complexity of the frozen crystallized water, regardless of the water's origin." Yes...but the complexity of the water cycle and the complexity of the universe indicates that there is a God. Although, I have just done a little more research on snow flakes (http://www.its.caltech.edu...) and the process of a snow flake forming is just amazing. The process is complex and it varies from snow flake to snow flake. I find it hard to believe that there wasn't a designer. "Pro, you have no idea how these odds were calculated, you just saw low odds and ran with it...shame on you Pro for not being able to understand your own teleological argument's statistics." I have never once heard of the odds of our existence being high. I would challenge my opponent to try and find any such statistic that would support that idea. Since I am not a physicist, and since I have never met Penrose, I do not know every detail about how he came up with those odds. Penrose even stated that a "number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job" (http://godevidence.com...). The point is the odds are incredible. By the way, I brought up the fact that he was an atheist since you asked if the odds were somehow rigged. I thought that the fact that the man is highly esteemed and the fact that he doesn't believe in God might give you a hint that the odds were not rigged. "Pro, you haven't shown us any explanation of the naturally originating universe's odds...you've just asserted, with a source that links to Queensborough Community College, that the odds are way low...your analogy therefore kinda blows." I have given you the odds by citing something that Penrose said (included that in my opening argument). Nothing I have said is just asserted. But here is a video of Roger Penrose defending fine tuning if you are still skeptical for some reason: http://www.evolutionnews.org... The Cosmological Argument: "You have provided no reason to believe that "he exists necessarily" or is eternal." Yes I have. You just ignore what I say. The cause of the universe (including time) would have to be eternal. "Saying that there was a cause of time is not logical, because CAUSATION REQUIRES TIME." This is the second time you have redefined a word. The word cause is defined as "something or someone that produces an effect, result, or condition : something or someone that makes something happen or exist" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) and the word causation is defined as "the act or process of causing something to happen or exist" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Nothing about those definitions requires time. "PROCESSES HAPPEN OVER TIME! Pro said creation = process." Now we have a third word that has been redefined. The word process is defined as the "a series of actions that produce something or that lead to a particular result" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). The cause of the Universe would have to be eternal so my argument still stands. As for the Big bang theory, it only helps me out. The Big bang supports that the universe has a beginning which means that time itself also had a beginning. Which again means that the cause of the universe would be required to be timeless (God). What is the debate is about? The title says it is about the God of the bible's existence and your own resolution says the same thing. But for some reason my opponent has changed the resolution into "Does God exist."