God exists

Are X-rays a black hole? No? Then X-rays must then be an observable effect of a black hole. Which supports my original point. Once again, The observable impacts god has on the universe are: the universes mere existence, The existence of a life supporting universe, Irreducible complexity, And the language of DNA among other things. Once again, Nothing created god. He is the unmoved mover which must exist in order for the universe to have not achieved thermodynamic equilibrium and also to prevent infinite regression in the timeline. To state that there might be some other explanation we haven't discovered yet therefore god doesn't exist (which you have to argue for as the con of this resolution) is an argumentum ad ignorantium logical fallacy. First, If you're claiming that " There's no evidence that god doesn't exist, Therefore god exists. " was an argument I made then you're mistaken. That was an example of an argumentum ad ignorantium that I gave. I do not support that argument. Moreover, Thermodynamic equilibrium is not a false dichotomy. Because with an infinite past, Unless you assume there is some other thing out there (and thus make an appeal to ignorance) then thermodynamic equilibrium would be achieved, All chemical reactions would cease, And the universe would cease to function. This is not debatable using any hard evidence. This is known as the heat death of the universe. No, Stephen Hawking did not claim that god exists. He did however point out that the universe has a finite past, Necessitating the unmoved mover. "Not knowing every possible starter of the universe makes this an argument of ignorance. " No, This. This is a textbook example of an argumentum ad ignorantium. In accusing me of committing this fallacy, You exemplified your own use of it. You are assuming that until we know every possible starter (which we can never know for sure) that we cannot accept god as the most likely answer. You can claim that you don't know every possibility about anything in science forever. You can just claim that into perpetuity and never have to accept that you might just be wrong. After all, Without omniscience, How will we know when we have every single possibility? This is not a valid argument. One last time, I have not made an infalsifiable claim. I already defined what that means, You're misusing the term. We can measure these impacts just like we measure the impacts of a black hole. You have conceded time and time again that god is the most likely explanation for the universe existing which is statistically impossible. This concession was the basis for your "probability is bad" argument. Let's now dismantle your methods of worship argument. First off, Many Christians believe in a theological principle known as Sola fide which is latin for salvation by faith alone. Therefore, Merely having faith in god is sufficient. Thus encompassing jews as well as Christians. But, Even if I grant you this argument I still have a 1/3 chance rather than a statistically impossible chance. "Real concept of hell? What is that? A phrase you just made up. " I'll clarify this statement since it was worded poorly. I mean to describe a concept of hell wherein you either go there or don't based on your faith in god. Only the Abrahamic religions have this concept. Take other versions for example. The ancient Greek Hades which is where all souls go. The Egyptian Hell where you went if you did bad things in life, The same for the Buddhist hell, Etc. Other religions hells are based off of works where as the Abrahamic religions have it based off of faith. Therefore, Pascals wager would suggest that your best bet is to live a good life while having faith in one of the Abrahamic religions. Yes this is the teleological argument. (that's the theological term) But your argument falls flat for a number of reasons. For starters, The teleological argument has nothing to do with life on planets, But the mere existence of the universe. If you want to assume that other life in the universe if there is any (according to Erik Zackrisson, An astrophysicist from Upsala University the earth is a 1 in 700 Quintillion oddity because of all of the requirements for life to exist as we know it. ) You would be making a massive assumption based on zero evidence. So I had thought this point was dead. He has once again claimed that objective morality, If it exists, Is a sapient force that prevents people from choosing to do bad things. It is not. All objective morality means is that it is immoral to rape, Murder, And steal. Not that people are physically incapable of doing them. "How is he/she wrong? " If you don't understand why serial killing is wrong then we've got bigger problems on our hands. But once again, These shared principles cannot be derived from nothing. You've never refuted my point on objective morality being necessary as a reference point for morality. So, My opponent makes a few claim on his point about morality and mathematics. First he claims that. . . Well I don't actually know what he's claiming. Most of this is entirely incomprehensible. But he does make a reference to biblical support of slavery. This argument is derived from the book of Philemon wherein Paul the Apostle writes a letter to a man named Philemon on behalf of an escaped slave. In the book, The bible appears to endorse slavery. However, You need some context. At the time of the letter, Christianity was not yet a powerful institution. It was a few guys who were constantly getting killed for what they believed. The Roman culture of the time was so obsessed with slavery, That some historians estimate that one third of the empire was in some manner enslaved. Put simply, The church didn't have the juice to change Roman culture, So they figured that if people are going to do it and they couldn't stop them, They might as well do it as justly as they could. The modern take on the book would be an employer-employee relationship. Other biblical principles make slavery clearly against the bible. One of the core tenets of Christianity is that all men are made in God's image not one man nor any group of men but all men. As such, It becomes a biblical impossibility to elevate one group of men to dominance and another to submission. To do so is to violate and defile the image of God. I don't need to account for information until it's known. I am not going to commit an appeal to ignorance fallacy by assuming forever that there is going to be some piece of the puzzle I don't have yet. I can do that forever. This logic leads not only to intellectual stagnation but to folly. I will consider any new information that comes to light. But i'm not going to assume that it exists and base my world view on what I don't know and what information may or may not exist. How can we be expected to face each new day with this worldview? I don't have all of the information about any given day before it happens. Yet I have to make decisions without knowing the full picture every day. That's life. You have to make decisions and come to conclusions based on the evidence you have. If more evidence comes to light then you can change your position. Beliefs aren't set in stone. But I refuse to live my life in an ideological limbo because I don't know everything. "Why would it break? " Because of Thermodynamic equilibrium. We've been over this. By definition, You cannot perceive a black hole. When you exclude possibilities based on preconceptions you potentially close yourself off to finding the right answer. Should new evidence come to light that makes something other than god the most likely explanation then I'll consider changing my position. But as it stands god stands high above the rest as the best possible explanation for the universe. His argument also didn't address the main point of my argument which was that no one can find the unmoved mover even though there are entire fields of science dedicated to finding it. Forget credible physicists. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell you that matter, Time, And space can't exist before they're created, Therefore the thing that brought them into existence must not be made of them because it predates those things. If the unmoved mover was made of matter, Existed within time, And occupied space then that would necessitate that those things existed before they were created. Which is, By definition, Impossible on a logical level. https://www. Physlink. Com/education/askexperts/ae181. Cfm this source states that heat death will occur in any infinite system. Which a system without the unmoved mover is. Not to mention that fact that an infinite past is impossible. Try to count from -infinity to 2019. I'll wait. You'll never get there. Because there are infinite years in the past meaning no specific year can ever come. This is why infinities don't exist. "Problem is that with what you do know it is tainted. " Even if I grant you this, I still have a 1/3 chance At high levels of physics, Chemistry and physics become very intertwined. Cosmology also deals with the existence of a life supporting universe which requires a knowledge of biology. So you've made a new argument in the nucleotide sequence and I don't really have the characters to address it. Essentially, The language of DNA, Nucleotide sequences, Possesses a level of information that has never been seen anywhere that intelligent design didn't play a causal role. IE: computer code. Look up the five levels of information as they relate to god. I don't have the characters to unpack that here.