The existence of a supernatural God

Art and Beauty Asking how do you bridge the gap between abstract intelligence and concrete intelligence is like asking how do you bridge the gap between front teeth that is only used for survival and wisdom teeth that is not used at all for survival? "Absurd. I already explained that appendixes, wisdom teeth, etc. most likely were necessary for survival (wisdom teeth might have been needed for Neanderthals when chewing different kinds of food), even if there existence extended beyond their use. Qopel completely ignored this point. This counts as a concession. His analogy is therefore false. But I’ll take it step further. Let’s suppose, contrary to fact, that wisdom and appendixes never had any survival use. One can easily see how they can be a by-product of what is necessary. Wisdom teeth were teeth that incidentally never got used. The appendix was just some extra tissue at the end of the large intestine. Nothing too mysterious. But to say that my ability to understand, appreciate, and critique Citizen Kane, for example is somehow a byproduct of my ability to get food, water, and to stay out of danger is kidding himself. There is simply no comparison between abstract intelligence/concrete intelligence and front teeth/back teeth. They’re nowhere in the same ball-park. Both abstract and concrete intelligence evolved from the brain. You can not have one without the other. That obviously is not true. You cannot have abstract intelligence without concrete intelligence, but you certainly can have abstract intelligence without concrete intelligence. The appreciation of the beauty of a sunset, for example, is not necessary for survival. It can be argued that both basic math and algebra are needed for survival. Okay, so argue it! There is no evidence that they are, nor is there any evidence that any of the other aspects of abstract intelligence are. Abstract intelligence is not just useless, it is extravagantly, mind-blowing useless. Qopel has provided no reason for believing that abstract intelligence came from concrete intelligence. My argument for God still stands. Morality We are wired by evolution to do things that help the survival of the species, not just the individual. An example of that would be a compulsion to have sex. In sex, we ensure the survival of our own genes, not the survival of the species. His example fails. All the evidence from evolution and genes says that genes act for their own survival, not the survival of the species. [1] When a lion cares for its cubs and provides them food, is that selfish? Genetically speaking, yes! The cubs carry the same genes as the parent lion. By caring for them, the genes in the parent ensure that they will survive in the children. This example fails too. My opponent seems to be confusing individuals, or individual organisms, with genes. He thinks that because one animal does something nice for another animal, it is not selfish. He does not stop to think about whether the action serves one’s own genes. Genes don’t give a hoot about the survival of the species, never have, never will. They only do what is best for their own survival, though that may sometimes appear To summarize, evolution (nature) is driven by the selfish gene. Much of human behavior is blatantly non-selfish, directly acting against our selfish genes. If nature only allows for actions benefiting one’s own genes, we must look beyond nature for an explanation for actions that show genuine concern for others. Again, we must look towards God. My argument still stands. Free Will My opponent defined supernatural as "must include being beyond nature". Being able to know everything is beyond nature. So what? Having to defend a supernatural God only means that I have to defend at least one supernatural attribute. That does not necessarily have to be omniscience. It could be omnipotence or omni-benevolence. I did not agree to defend omniscience. Omniscience is sufficient for a supernatural God, but it is not necessary. (It’s easy to confuse the two. ) You cannot decide other terms that you want to apply in the debate after it has already started. And also, I explained that because knowing the future is a logical impossibility, and God is not believed to do logical impossibilities, therefore his omniscience does not cover knowing the future. So Qopel’s argument that God does not know the future does not mean that God is not all-knowing. Qopel never addressed this point. A dropped point counts as a concession. Just because my opponent doesn't believe that God knows the future, doesn't make it true. Belief is not the same as truth. I did not argue that what I believe of God is true. Stop attacking a straw man. I argued that since qopel failed to define God, I can use whatever definition I would like. So I did, and qopel did not address that conception. This was not a debate about what is true of God’s nature. It was a debate about whether God exists. We can define God any way we like, and then try to prove or refute that conception. That’s what I did. I did not change the terms of the debate. According to my opponent's own definition of supernatural, an "all-knowing God" fits with a God who is "beyond nature". So what? Who cares if it fits with it? I already explained that being required to defend supernatural does not entail having to define all-knowing, as long as I defend something supernatural, I have done my job. Qopel is overstating my burden. I can defend a supernatural God without defending an all-knowing God. Qopel doesn’t seem to understand this. HOnce again, qopel failed to address my argument for God based on free will. Dropped points count as concessions. He also violated his own opening rules. By saying that the burden falls on the one making the positive claim and by not presenting an argument, he implies that he will not make any positive arguments, but will only respond to mine. Then he presented his own positive argument. Once again, he tried to change the terms of the debate. CONCLUSION My first argument for God consisted in arguing that beauty and art require a divine explanation. My opponent countered by saying that there are some things that are not necessary for survival but that do not have a divine explanation. But his examples failed. Biologists have explained that these things used to have survival purposes. Hence, my argument for God still stands. But even if they did not fail, there is no comparison between his examples and mine. Art and beauty appreciation has no place in nature. It is therefore proof of the supernatural. My second argument for God consisted in arguing that humanity’s moral behavior requires a divine explanation. My opponent countered by saying that evolution drives us to help the species survive. But this conflicts with scientific evidence that evolution is driven by a selfish gene that couldn’t care less about the survival of the species. Morality is not found in evolution, hence it must be found in a supernatural God. My argument still stands. I based my factual claims off the claims of one of the most respected evolutionists of our time. I highly doubt that qopel knows more about evolution than a professional evolutionist. My third argument for God consisted in arguing that free will requires a divine explanation. My opponent ignored this and instead presented his own argument against God. But he attacked a conception of God that was never agreed to at the start of the debate. My argument still stands since it was never touched and my opponent’s arguments are off-topic. Qopels responses to my arguments either use false examples, false analogies, rest on a misunderstanding of evolution, make dropped points, or are off-topic and add terms to the debate that were not agreed to at the start. He has not shown why any of my arguments for God fail. I have fulfilled my burden. He has not.