Deism is more Reasonable than any Revealed Religion

Laws of the Universe "My opponent clearly lives under the premise that everything that has been stated in the past is either false or incomplete, with the remarkable justification of "one day it could be proved false when we know more". Living under this believe one could say "Pi actually does have a last decimal point, we just don't know enough yet to prove otherwise", or "What humans see every day is actually an illusion and not reality, we just can't prove it yet."" I'm not sure why you base the majority of this second round on this statement. I clearly said "I'll go along with this premise." "He also doesn't understand the simple facts of science. I'll provide the background for this argument by giving two scientific definitions.... it simply describes how things work in our universe.)" I never contested the meanings of laws and theories. None of what I said goes against "the simple facts of science." "At one point my opponent even doubts the accuracy of Antoine Lavoisier's Law of Conservation of Mass. He says "we may learn in a few decades how something could come out of nothing"." Again, I accepted this premise that the Law of Conservation is true, so I don't really need to get into details. But, just to be clear, I'll explain what I meant. A number of scientists, including Steven Hawking, have stated that the laws that govern the universe could break down at the point of the big bang. Hawking states, "At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. "(1) Although I'm not sure about whether they break down or not, I wouldn't let that get in the way of me accepting the premise. Also, you made a strong claim that god is simply unknowable to science. I said "I don't know whether the creator of the universe is beyond scientific understanding, simply because he/it created time and space." This was the only reason I brought up the idea that we may find, in the future, evidence to discover what exactly created the universe. I didn't claim that we definitely or even probably will though. "I will grant my opponent that indeed this is a possibility, however, if he uses an argument with such baseless doubt then he in turn is saying he doubts all scientific laws that we live by today. If my opponent wishes to believe that he is somehow in possession of knowledge greater than the likes of Newton, Lavoisier, and Einstein, then he is free to that belief, but we all know better than that. " I never claimed to have possession of knowledge greater than those scientists. I never claimed that the laws the govern the universe break down at the start of the big bang either. I accepted the premise. Characteristics of God Outside of a quasi-defense of the inference that God is supernatural, you have not backed any of your other inferences of the characteristics of God. Therefore, I must assume you conceded to my points. Personal God Claims "In the end, his baseless "argument" against the Cosmological argument doesn't even matter when it comes to this debate. This is because there is only one being that has ever walked the face of planet Earth who was successful in defeating death, Jesus Christ. When Jesus was crucified, his body was left in a tomb under guard every hour of every day. Three days after his crucifixion, the body of Jesus Christ was no longer in the tomb where he was originally laid, and he soon made contact with the beloved disciple John and many others to follow, proving that he was the flesh of God sent to earth. This miracle proves that our creator didn't "cease to exist" after he created the Universe, and his teachings prove without a doubt that he is not an "impersonal" creator." Without even backing your prior claim that God is active in our daily lives, you state more claims not backed by any given evidence. These claims that Jesus did supernatural things are unfounded, and I assume that your only source of information on this is the bible. The Christian God As I said last round, I believe the Christian God is not a reasonable one to believe in. This version of God is dependent on the Bible, which is an unreliable sources of information. There are many examples of errors in the Bible, including those of Genesis. For one thing, as science has shown, the Universe came into being as a result of the Big Bang, which resulted in the creation of Earth after billions of years. This is very different than the Bible's idea of a 7 day creation period. (2) Other scientific fallacies include: -The Earth was made before the sun (Genesis 1:1, 1:16) -Plants existed before the sun (Genesis 1:11) -A bat is a bird (Leviticus 11:13-19, KJV) -The firmament is claimed to be a solid roof over the world. (Genesis 1:6-8 KJV) -The mustard seed is the smallest seed (Matthew 13:32) -All streams flow into the sea (Ecclesiastes 1:7) -Man is made from dust (Genesis 2:7) -There was an ark that carried every animal (Genesis 7:8) -A flood covered over all the mountain tops (Genesis 7:19-20) As you can see, this book is clearly not the divine word of God, as it includes many fallacies about the world. If God meant for this to be a book that explained reality to all people, then it would have been scientifically accurate. So far, there has been no evidence that a personal God is the most reasonable idea of God. My opponent has stated that we can infer various characteristics of God, but I have shown that these are not necessarily true. He points to Jesus as evidence that a personal God exists, but gives no evidence that shows that the supernatural stories of Jesus are accurate. He has given no evidence that miracles exist, or that God is active in our daily lives. Because of this, Deism is the most reasonable belief, as it is the default position to those who believe the Universe came from a creator. It claims nothing that isn't backed by evidence or reasonable inferences. 1. http://www.hawking.org.uk... 2. http://www.biblegateway.com... (for all bible verses)