The God Of The Bible Exists

Pro has done very little to show:1. that the god of the bible created the universe,2. that this god rules the universe,3. doubt that creation is a temporal process contingent on stative time that wasn't there at [+0,-0] in QF,4. doubt that the big bang, as I've explained in Round 2, is a valid explanation of our universe's origin,5. reason to accept god's stance on morality given the stoning of deceitful non-virgins and owning of humans as property that god openly endorses,6. reason to consider this god the source of all moral authority given that the universe wasn't created and the owning of humans as property is OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL, as my opponent, Pro, agrees!So, let's get to it.1. Objective MoralityPro asks:"My question for my opponent is as follows: Since you claim to have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard from since an objective standard is one that is not based on your opinion or your experience?"My response:Objective immoral sufferings. Actions that lead away from objectively immoral sufferings of humans/conscious animals are objectively moral; as Pro puts it these actions are "benefiting society."Pro reasonably asks:"What proof does my opponent have that there are objective immoral sufferings?"My response:According to the NIST, 111°F is the temperature at which human skin begins to feel pain.At 140°F, human skin becomes numb from being burned so badly.At 162°F, human skin is instantly destroyed.http://www.nist.gov...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.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."http://scienceline.ucsb.edu...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. So, there are objective stimuli that objectively cause suffering, irrespective of my opinion/experience, and there are actions that objectively lead to these objective stimuli on humans.The actions that lead toward these objective stimuli-->suffering are immoral.The actions that lead away from these objective stimuli-->suffering are moral.Actions that lead away from these objective stimuli benefit society; they are moral.The Pro says:"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." My 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.Then Pro leaps:Hitler believes that what he was doing was right. How can my opponent objectively state that he was wrong if God doesn't exist?"My response: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.Then Pro contradicts himself by saying:1. "Benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral."2. "Being moral and benefiting society are the same thing."My response:#1 implies that benefiting society is just one of the things you have to do to be moral, and there are other things you must also do.#2 implies that benefiting society is the ONLY thing you have to do to be moral. Which is it Pro, is benefiting society a part of being moral or is it the whole of being moral?Also, it seems like Pro's claim that morality = benefiting society shows morality's contingency on society, not god.I had asked Pro, "How is it that benefiting society is a part of being moral, but it's not a reason to be moral?" and Pro responded:"[That question is] like asking someone why they play football and then they say "to score points." They wouldn't actually be telling you why they play football but instead would be telling you what football is."My response:Wrong!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.So, one could say that they are moral to benefit society, because being moral leads you to the goal of benefiting society, much like playing football leads you to the goal of scoring points.But perhaps the biggest slip by Pro occurs last round.I had asked, "Pro, is owning another human as property moral or not?"Pro's response:"No, that is not moral."My response:According to the god of the bible in Exodus 21:20 - 21:21:"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, SINCE THE SLAVE IS THEIR PROPERTY."http://biblehub.com...http://biblehub.com...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?"How can you tell that owning another human as property is not moral from god saying, "the slave is their property?"Come on Pro...the god of the bible endorses much immorality, and even you can't agree with it.Pro's source of morality is clearly not the god of the bible if Pro thinks that owning humans as property is immoral; god says it's moral and endorses it.2. Complexity and ProbabilityI had mentioned that snowflake's six-fold radial symmetry appears designed because of how complex it looks, but snowflakes are a result of the water cycle.Pro responds:"But the water still came from somewhere and the complexity seems to indicate that there is a God."My response: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.Similarly, the universe looks complex and arranged, but natural concepts like QF, gravity, the big bang, and inflation can all account for complexity in the universe without an arranger.Pro provided numbers from Roger Penrose for how likely the universe originated by chance.So I asked:"How were these odds calculated by Roger Penrose?"Pro responded:"He did it by analyzing the universe's low entropy conditions...the man is an atheist...that recognizes that the universe is fine-tuned."My response:Wow, that didn't explain anything.Really, Pro?You think that by simply answering "analyzing the universe's low entropy" explains the how Penrose's numbers were calculated or how we can verify these calculations or what relative meaning these numbers have?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.Oh yeah, and the fact that he's an atheist who thinks that the universe is finely tuned is as irrelevant as a person who is not a horse breeder who thinks that snowflakes are finely tuned; the numbers are bogus without some reference point for these numbers or an explanation, regardless of his beliefs on god/the universe.I maintain that even if these numbers were true, they don't show a 0% chance of the universe "arising by chance," because it's after the fact; the universe has already originated, so claiming odds of probability above 0% doesn't indicate it couldn't have happened in any useful way.Pro says:"For example, billions and billions of white ping-pong balls were mixed together with just one black ball...and that if it's black you'll be allowed to live; if it's white, you'll be shot...so if the black ball is the first picked...and it happens five times in a row, something would feel rigged about it. That is why there must be a God."My response:Why is a life permitting universe equivalent to picking one black ball five times in a row out of billions and billions of white pong-pong balls?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.3. Cosmological ArgumentPro claims:"Since the God of the Bible is eternal (and also all powerful) he would not have a cause. He exists necessarily."My response:Why is it that Pro thinks he can just assert things and they're true?You have provided no reason to believe that "he exists necessarily" or is eternal.Pro adds:"It is perfectly logical to say that God did not have a cause since he would be the cause of time itself."My response:Saying that there was a cause of time is not logical, because CAUSATION REQUIRES TIME.4. JesusPro says:"As I recall, the debate is not just about proving that someone created the universe or that someone is the source of moral authority."My response:Nope, that's basically the whole debate's resolution. 5. CreationPro:"Nothing about the definition indicates that the process is contingent on time."My response:PROCESSES HAPPEN OVER TIME! Pro said creation = process.