God in nature (intelligent design) [Version 2]

I thank Con for his response. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT So first Con asks for a source: I will be more than willing to provide one - Barrow, J. and Tipler, F.J. (1986), The Cosmological Anthropic Principle. Oxford: Clarendon press. Page 440 (that is where I got the info from - but I'm sure there are many more available.) My opponent's second objection is that these 'spontaneous' fluctuations now have to have a cause. And I agree! And they do! (Although I have to confess, my level of Physics is not great enough to say just HOW they do this - merely that they do.) But remember my first premise - 'Everything that begins to exist has a cause'. Now the fact that they 'Fluctuate' mean that their energy levels rise or fall. They never go in and out of existence as they fluctuate - the energy is always constantly there (as abiding with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). And so that means that they began to exist at the beginning of the universe, when matter and energy came into being. And so we can conclude that the cause of these fluctuations will therefore be the cause of the universe (ie what brought space and time into existence). My opponent then proceeds to say that Radioactive decay is an exception to this rule. So what causes radioactive decay? Well in radioactive decay, the atoms/isotopes become unstable. The atom then emmitts a proton, neutron or electron. The nuclear and electromagnetic strong and weak forces have a huge influence on the decay - how much, and to what decays. This is why radioactive decay is extremely constant over a period of time, which is how we calculate carbon dating. So in one sense, the nuclear strong and weak forces - as well as the electromagnetic strong and weak forces are responsible for the decay. However, in another sense, radioactive decay doesn't exactly bring anything new into existence. Carbon-12 doesn't actually 'begin to exist' when Carbon-14 radioactively decays - it merely has 2 less neutrons. To give an analogy - if somebody cut my arm off, nothing new will have come into being. So I really don't think that radioactive decay can really be an exception to Premise 1, because the nuclear and electromagnetic strong and weak forces are essentially the cause of it; and nothing new has begun to exist. Nevertheless, even if we grant this point, We can apply my previous argument - the suggestion that 'there are some uncaused events within space-time' does nothing to deny 'the beginning of space-time itself has a cause' (which is what I am asserting). The conditions of the event itself began to exist - therefore it has a cause. I know Con like sources so one in particular would be the book: 'Radioactivity and Radioactive Decay' by D.K Jha. Con then says that my argument 'begs the question'. I am at a loss at is just how 'everything that begins to exist has a cause' is question begging. My opponent's point is merely an application of the Law of Excluded Middle. Nevertheless, Everything either has a beginning or it does not. How could this necessary truth be question-begging? As for the assertion that if God is the only member of NBE, then 'everything that doesn't begin to exist' becomes synonymous with 'God', this is muddling reference and meaning. If God is the only member of NBE, then the 2 statements have the same reference - they pick out the same object. But in no way does it suggest that they have the same meaning. For if it were the case, if you knew one to be true, then the other would be as well - but this is clearly not the case. Anyway, regardless of this weird assertion, my opponent says that I 'have a way out', if I find something else that fits into NBE. And one comes to mind, and that is numbers - mathematicians consider numbers to be necessary truths, and don't begin to exist. Mathematicians and Philosophers alike assert that numbers would exist without the universe, space and time itself. MORAL ARGUMENT Well my opponent seems to get from 'Moral actions are good because they comply with God's nature' and arrive at 'God's actions determine the moral values of goodness'. And I am stuck as to how he arrived there! I think that my opponent has misunderstood my point, so let me reiterate. God is essentially good. This is moral ontology. God is essentially good because he is a maximally great being, and goodness is a property of being maximally great; It is greater to be the paradigm of goodness rather than to conform to it. And so God neither conforms to moral goodness [1] or sets morals as he wishes [2]. I can't help but think that Con is confusing moral ontology with moral semantics and moral epistemology: And sets out somewhat of a strawman. ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES Throughout my opponent's arguments, he asserts that the accounts in the Bible are not sufficient as evidence. But this is simply absurd! These accounts are primary sources for the life of Jesus, and are treated as such by historians. I think it is very important to realize that the books of Matthew, John, Luke - Mark and Paul's letters especially, are extremely accurate and reliable sources. To simply dismiss using them by stating it that is circular reasoning is simply unscholarly. This is where knowledge of the history and authorship of the New Testament is extremely important - e.g Paul knew Jesus and his family: so as a source, his letters are extremely valuable. Just because they are included in the collection of books in the Bible has no relevance to their reliability I will give some reasons why it is so hard to find documents separate from those in the Bible: 1. There are very few manuscripts of ANY text written during Jesus ' time 2. Historians of this period wrote amazingly little about religious figures anyway 3. Jesus was active for only three years. 4. Jesus ministered in a very remote corner of the Roman Empire Regardless of this, I will try my best to find sources outside of the Bible, but it is an arduous task at best. Firstly Con asks for a source for the archeological evidence of Jesus' tomb. I got the info from two sources: Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien--Geschichten um Geschichte; Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? Again, I'm Sure there are many more sources on this matter. I will now respond to Con's responses 1) The followers stole the body - If Jesus' followers really stole the body, do you think that they would then start a movement based on the resurrection of Jesus? Do you really think that Peter, for example, would hold sincere to his beliefs, even when he was being tortured and eventually crucified upside-down for holding true to his beliefs in the resurrection of Jesus if he had stolen the body? It simply doesn't follow - if they really had stolen the body then I sincerely doubt that they would die for the belief in the resurrection (as many of them actually did) 2) I thank my opponent for elaborating - so Con says that the Romans stole the body as a precaution. But surely, when the disciples made claims about Jesus rising from the dead - they could simply and effectively extinguish any claim of resurrection by revealing the body. It just doesn't add up as an explanation. 3) Con concedes this point. Sightings of the resurrected Jesus 1) Again, it is extremily hard to find any source outside of the accounts included in the Bible, but I persevered and found a suitable one! "Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails." -Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59 This was written by Phlegon of Tralles, who was a Greek writer and historian.(http://en.wikipedia.org...) 2) Mass Hysteria Note: Unfortunately I have very few characters left so won't respond to every point Con made. Just to add another point to my refutations, the appearances were to different individuals in different places - for example, there were appearances to 'Ananias' in Damascus (Acts 9:10-19), and to Peter in Jerusalem (Acts 11:1-18). This excludes the possibility of 'Mass Hysteria' as the visions were separated from one another. As for sources, I once again emphasise my point about non-Biblical sources; it is very hard to get a detailed account of the events without turning to the Bible. So I think that the best non-Biblical source I can provide to you is a secondary source from a non-biased historian (that I have already provided); Gert Ludemann, a German critic of the resurrection, admits that "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus" death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" (in his book 'what Really Happened to Jesus?'). Now this can be seen as an argument from authority, but what we can say is that Mr. Demann, as a leading critic of the resurrection and a non-believer himself, has no reason to believe that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus is false. This is actually because of the reliability of Peter's letters, which my opponent seems to reject. So in terms of sources, my opponent has left me in a sticky situation. Moreover, Con's rebuttles are not sufficient - namely because the symptoms of 'Mass Hysteria' do not include visions - only physical defects. (this is proved if you look at Con's provided source) CONCLUSION As this is my final round, I would like to that my opponent for a very interesting debate. However, Con's refutations have not been sufficient. His objections to the Kalam simply do not refute the argument - and are entirely fallacious. As for the Moral argument, I feel that I have sufficiently explained how I solved the Euthyphro dilemma, and although I have given evidence for my stances on the resurrection, Con sets unrealistic and unhistorical standards for evidence which cannot be met - even though Biblical accounts are sufficient. Overall, I hope I have shed some light on Theistic belief! God Bless