God Exists Only in the Minds of His Followers

I'd just like to point out that I find it strange Sotiras is stalking my religious affiliations. I would, however, like to thank him for opening his case. Since this numbering system is working so well, I'll keep at it. 1. God exists 1.1 Descartes Argument Con's counter: nothing CAN exist which is perfect My opponent provides no evidence to substantiate this case. Prima face, if something must exist it follows that it can exist. Unless my opponent proves the contrary, this argument stands. His blind assertions won't suffice. 1.2 Lewis Argument Con's counter: natural laws are not accidents Well then, natural laws explaining the creation of the universe are there on purpose (the antonym of accident). If they have a purpose, something must have given it that purpose. It needs to be really powerful, timeless and spaceless. I suggest God. It is interesting to note that my opponent's claimed alternative theories have nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Multiverse theory states there are other universes, and has nothing to do with our one. String theory explains some sub-atomic behavior, not universe creation. Big bang theory explains the rapid expansion of the universe moments after it was created, not the creation event itself. In fact, there is no scientific theory that explains the creation of the universe and is backed by evidence. The best theories are just guesswork, thus no more likely than the God hypothesis. 1.3 Pascal Argument Con's counter 1: God doesn't like people believing "just-in-case" Actually, God couldn't care less why you believe. In the Bible it is written that ALL who truly believe are saved. No special exceptions are made for those converted by Pascal's argument. Furthermore, this is not a logical flaw, as my opponent asserts, but an example of my opponent putting himself in God's head. We'll see more of this shortly... Con's counter 2: A perfect being need not rule by fear This is unrelated to the Pascal argument. However, as it is potentially contrary to the Descartes argument, I'll deal with it anyway. My opponent claims that his limited mind knows something about the qualities possessed by a perfect entity. I argue that it is impossible to hypothesize a perfect being. Therefore, my opponent is simply stabbing in the dark when he talks of the personality traits of a perfect being, again effectively dictating to God how he thinks a perfect being should behave. 400 years ago, political scientist and statesman Niccolo Machiavelli's essay "Il Principe" examined hundreds of leaders and found the most successful (and, therefore perhaps, more "perfect") were those who were feared and loved. God demands our love and our fear, time and time again, in the Bible. This proves that my opponent's subjective judgment is perhaps not the best measure of perfection. 1.4 Kant Argument Con's counter: No evidence that God is source of logic Actually, there is very strong evidence. That would be the lack of any other source of logic. Don't believe me? Ok, then: where else would logic come from? Without telling voters this, the argument is clearly not disqualified. 2. Bible is accurate 2.1 Purported inaccuracies 2.1.1 Great flood Plenty of geological evidence. Rocks layers far too diverse to account for uniformitarian model. Fossil layers more consistent with flood geology than any other model. Strong evidence of sudden shrinkage in gene pool at some point due to adversity. Further reading: http://www.thebibleistheotherside.org... and http://www.answersincreation.org... 2.1.2 Adam and Eve Your whole case here presupposes evolution. There is no evidence for human evolution. The fossil record is ape, ape, man. Besides, you ignore well-known problems with the evolution theory, such as the problem of chirality. It is a lie to say evolution is "proven." 2.1.3 Age of Earth The Bible does not state the age of the Earth. Your figure of 6500 is therefore non-Biblical. Therefore the Bible is still right. 2.1.4 Bible claims it is the word of God Utterly rebutted by the previous three rebuttals (: 2.1.5 No scientific inaccuracies given by my opponent. 2.2 Historically 2.2.1 Jesus Zero secular records is wrong. Josephus gives two mentions, at least one of which is probably authentic. Three Roman authors give brief mentions. The Gospels are based, at least in part, on earlier sources, whose individual style can be discerned. Several known non-canonical gospels predate the canonical ones. Many other works are likely lost. 20 years after the event was a pretty common time for people to write histories of it. Even today, historical accounts of World War 2 did not become largely available until the 1960s, but that is no reason to deny World War 2. 2.2.2 Israel Narrative Point conceded by my opponent, even if he denies the importance of over half the books of the Bible, which specifically concern the Israel narrative. 2.3 Scientifically 2.3.1 Big Bang Genesis 1 speaks of a creation event. This was denied by mainstream science and athiests until Edwin Hubble. 2.3.2 Universe not like a tent It's a place we live, erected by God. That's how it's like a tent. 2.3.3 North is atmosphere, Vacuum is not nothing North is atmosphere STRETCHED OUT OVER empty space (with Earth on the other side). A vacuum is the absence of matter (http://en.wikipedia.org...). 2.3.4 Reference to proportioning of air, not weight Wind has weight. That sentence has nothing to do with proportioning. 2.3.5 Different intensities of light amongst stars = common sense But to say that no two stars have the same intensity is not, and wasn't proven until the 1950s. 2.3.6 The moon has no splendor, Sun just a star Splendor is subjective. Structure of verse hardly scientific criticism. 2.3.7 No ocean springs asserted "Sources" is usually rendered "springs." 2.3.8 Where does it mention dinosaurs? Where your bible says "sea monsters" (KJB says whales). You'll find the same word rendered "dragon" another 21 times if you look it up. 2.3.9 People living in caves not the definition of cave men? Really? Oh. Well, what is the definition of cave men? 3. Morality 3.1 Isaiah 13:16 Not a moral law; speaking of Babylon. Read Isiah 13:1. 3.2 Leviticus 20:9 Is this not the same as "The wages of sin is death?" God is just, and will reward you according to whether you kept his commandments. This rule does not permit human killing. 3.3 Deut 21:10-12 The woman is a symbol for all beautiful material, won after battle (http://www.barmitzva.org...). The passage tells you to take care of it. Where's the moral problem with this?