If God Exists

Before I begin, I'd like to re-emphasize that this debate is about the POSSIBILITY of God's existence, not the ACTUALITY of it (see Round 1). == Response == Con's answer for how objective morality and purpose can exist in a godless world is simply: "God is mean. " (a paraphrase, of course). With all due respect to my opponent, this is an irrelevant and slightly humorous answer. Saying "the Bible teaches bad morals! " does not remotely answer the question of how objective morality exists. It's very interesting that Con chooses to quote Richard Dawkins in listing out God's "evils. " This is the very same Dawkins who also wrote "There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. "[1] and "We are machines for propagating DNA. . . It is every living object"s sole reason for living. " [2] So, I'm curious as to how the man who says there is "no evil and no good," nor any purpose beyond propagating DNA can turn around and express moral outrage at all of god's supposed "evils. " This is exactly my point, and Con failed to address it - before I can respond to the moral character of god, I need to know on what basis my opponent accounts for the existence of concepts such as "good" and "evil," because if there is no basis for making such categorizations (which there isn't), then Con's protest of this point is meaningless and impossible to answer. My claim was not that the Bible teaches true morality, it was that true morality does not exist if god is impossible. Con did not defeat this claim. .. they simply neglected to answer it. Next, it's interesting that Con accuses "religious people" of basing their whole life on chance. .. because that's exactly what atheism is! If god is impossible, then EVERYTHING exists by chance - the universe exploded into existence by chance, earth formed by chance, non-living proteins evolved into living organisms by chance, etc. .. Furthermore, it is by pure chance that I don't get into a fatal car accident tomorrow, or that my heart stops beating next week. If there's ever a philosophy that embraces existence through pure chance, it is atheism! Religion, in fact, is not claiming certainty in the face of zero evidence. I have provided 3 major pieces of evidence for why god could possibly exist, and Con has largely ignored them. I readily admit there is no 100% proof that god exists, but neither is there 100% proof that he does not. "No proof" is not the same thing as "no evidence. " Science has most certainly NOT proved that god doesn't exist. Quite the contrary, the most atheism can ever claim is that "there's no evidence that god exists. " Which, of course, violates the very logical fallacy we seem to both agree with. My opponent says that it's unfair if I get to pick my own definitions for the debate. I would kindly remind Con that they were the one who initiated the argument of "magic" based on a definition of their own choosing, not me. I merely pointed out that there are many possible definitions for magic, and that Con gave no reason to accept their chosen definition over all others. Finally, I most certainly did not lie, and I encourage my opponent to re-read Round 3. I referenced "the top 3" Merriam-Webster definitions, which after you examine the blue box in the following link: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... you will see that my statement was perfectly accurate. There's not a single passage in the Bible that says the earth is 6,000 years old. In fact, "young earth creationism" is a very new idea and it is not the historical position of the Christian Church. Many Christians, including myself, do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old. My simple response is: the universe does not have to be 6,000 years old for god to exist. Although I think the UV light discussion is outside the scope of this debate, I will give a short response. The root of Con's protest is: UV light may be helpful sometimes, but then why would god also make it harmful? A fair question. Using Con's logic, this protest can also apply to just about anything: Chemicals can be helpful, but also harmful. Metal can be helpful, but also harmful. Medicine can be helpful, but also harmful. Assuming god exists, does it mean he is therefore imperfect because he allowed for chemicals, metal, and medicine? No. It means he intended for things to be used in a certain way, and when humans abuse them things go wrong. So, I think it's perfectly reasonable for God to say "there's this thing called UV light, which is good but can also be dangerous. But don't worry, I created this thing called ozone to protect you from it. If you preserve the ozone and cover your skin with clothes, you'll be fine. " So is god to blame when we destroy the ozone and go shirtless at the beach? No. Next, Con admits the Bible is not a credible source, so therefore it cannot be used as proof that god is impossible. This is not a debate about the truth of the Bible, it's a debate about the possibility of god. I believe that's all that needs to be said. == Summary of Arguments == My evidence for why it is possible for god to exist remain as follows: 1. There is no solid explanation for how nothing exploded into everything during "The Big Bang" or what caused the Big Bang and why. Since we do not know what caused the universe, the possibility of god cannot be eliminated. 2. The probability that the perfect conditions on earth arose by random chance is nearly zero. The chances are so small, that scientists have had to invent experimental and (quite frankly) strange theories like the "multiverse theory" to account for them. Since we really have no idea how to account for our existence under such slim odds, god cannot be dismissed as an impossibility. 3. Con agrees that morality and purpose exist objectively, yet they cannot account for the source of these concepts in a godless world. As such, god remains as a possible source. I don't believe Con has refuted these three arguments, but that will be fore the voters to decide. **Personal note: Thanks to Con for this interesting and fun debate, great job. If you'd like to continue this discussion in a less formal setting, feel free to private message me. [1] . http://books.google.com... [2] . http://www.eoht.info...