Religious Debate Room Part Duex

[Wired]

When you explain to me how god was created I may start considering your asinine claims,

Asinine claims? What was flawed with my argument.

The whole point is that if we believe in God, we believe that he always existed. He created the universe -- that's where the initial input for our physics and mathematics comes from.

However, to prove that there is no God, one has to explain how all of the energy and mass was created.

So, once you can explain how matter appears or energy is created without any input, you can claim your riches (perpetual motion machine, infinite free energy) and laugh in my face. Until then, don't even try to call my arguments asinine.

[eddie92099]

The whole point is that if we believe in God, we believe that he always existed.

If that isn't asinine then nothing is,
Ed

[Wired]

If that isn't asinine then nothing is

And to some, your response is asinine. In fact, almost every statement in this forum made by you is equally as asinine. But what's the point of a debate? To point out flaws, not to just call an argument that you can't refute asinine. Point out a flaw, don't just go around scoffing everything I say. Point out flaws! Otherwise this isn't a debate at all.

So again, I say, our theory is that all the matter and energy that makes e=mc^2 true was created by God. Where in your theory does it come from, and how does it not violate the laws of physics?

The laws of physics are quite correct in this regard. The initial energy and mass was given to us by God. If you can go about proving matter can generate itself and energy can generate itself with no initial input, then set about rewriting all of physics so that it still is true, I will pat you on the back and stop worshiping God. Until then, stop scoffing and try point out flaws in what I'm saying.

[TwinkleFingers]

right on wired ed, you keep asking questions that we cant answer in detail.  We dont know how God existed for eternity. Its beyond our thought processes.  God didnt create us to understand Him completely, but to glorify Him forever in eternity.

[eddie92099]

If you can go about proving matter can generate itself and energy can generate itself with no initial input, then set about rewriting all of physics so that it still is true, I will pat you on the back and stop worshiping God. Until then, stop scoffing and try point out flaws in what I'm saying.

How can you not see the flaw in your argument?! Who the hell created god in the first place?! And don't say he existed for eternity, it's getting rather tedious,
Ed

[Wired]

How can you not see the flaw in your argument?! Who the hell created god in the first place?! And don't say he existed for eternity, it's getting rather tedious,

Our argument is that the Bible is 100% correct, and the Bible says that God existed forever.

Who created all this matter and energy in the first place? Don't ignore that question again, it's getting rather tedious.

[TwinkleFingers]

Who the hell created god in the first place?

we answered that already ed. what else can we say about it. nothing. for it is beyond human intellect.  show a fault in the bible and then this debate will actually turn into a legitiment debate.  The reason you have not answered this question(other than the very minor faults in the different translations) is because the original bible is totally flawless.

[ilovemusic]

One either believes or not. The whole basis of religion.
It is not a question of  things being plausable or not.
Could be. Could not be. Life is a weird situation anyway.

[Wired]

One either believes or not. The whole basis of religion.
It is not a question of  things being plausable or not.
Could be. Could not be. Life is a weird situation anyway.

Well, I disagree. Yes, it is a matter of whether someone believes in one thing or another, but it does matter whether it could have actually happened. If everything around us that we knew was true -- that had been fully proven to be true -- contradicted everything about a particular religion, that religion would be forgotten. Sure, some diehards would exist at first, but over a very short course of time, it would be forgotten.

However, I'm not arguing for the sake of trying to get people to believe. Right now it's more of getting Ed (and others) to realize that we aren't less competent for believing differently than them.

[thracozaag]

One either believes or not. The whole basis of religion.
It is not a question of  things being plausable or not.
Could be. Could not be. Life is a weird situation anyway.

I think Wittgenstein rather elegantly proves that one cannot be swayed either way on this point.

[cziffra]

do you realise you're now talking about the same stuff we were back on the first page?

if you tell us that the bible is 100% accurate, which version are you referring to?  do you remember our whole discussion on the translations?

and if you really want a flaw, i can point out the flaw that started my atheism back when i was a kid.  we started reading genesis in school and my interest waned sharply when it tried to convince me that god made  a "dome, which he called the sky."  i don't know if you guys ever did maths or played with lego but...think for a second...what happens when you place a dome on a sphere?

perhaps it was written at a time when people didn't know the earth was a sphere...but surely god, who they were supposedly dictating from, would have known that, and told them?

[Wired]

if you tell us that the bible is 100% accurate, which version are you referring to?  do you remember our whole discussion on the translations?

The *original*. The very first and original. No translations done on it. No errors.

and if you really want a flaw, i can point out the flaw that started my atheism back when i was a kid.  we started reading genesis in school and my interest waned sharply when it tried to convince me that god made  a "dome, which he called the sky."  i don't know if you guys ever did maths or played with lego but...think for a second...what happens when you place a dome on a sphere?

Dome isn't the appropriate word, and in most translations it is actually "firmament". However, this page explains it: https://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q1.htm

perhaps it was written at a time when people didn't know the earth was a sphere...but surely god, who they were supposedly dictating from, would have known that, and told them?

We've already covered this. The bible nowhere implies that the earth is flat. It either is using common analogies from that day and time or even mentions that it is spherical.

[TwinkleFingers]

there you go cziffra, any other "flaws"?

[eddie92099]

The *original*. The very first and original. No translations done on it. No errors.

...which you have not read, incidentally,
Ed

[Wired]

...which you have not read, incidentally

Have you read every original report for every underlying theory on evolution? I think your reading list is quite larger than mine...

[Wired]

...which you have not read, incidentally

And while I'm still up and not sleeping (dang flu, 5 days now), whenever I see a contradiction or some other small problem that someone points out in the Bible and am able to do a small Google search and see someone explain exactly what's up (generally a faulty translation somewhere down the line), it reassures me that my claim is still true. Until someone points out a contradiction that I can't counter in less than 5 minutes of Googling or 5 minutes of reading it myself, I don't see why I need to read the original Bible.

And if you don't want a creationist view on why evolution isn't correct, read this: https://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.9.30.172813.212.html. It's quite long, but a very interesting read. It assumes some slight prior knowledge of logic (like the terms tautology, sound, valid, etc.). It also does invoke certain logical principles and mathematical proofs as well, but to understand the page, it isn't necessary to understand the exact logical proof (BTW, I do have 9 hours of coursework in Logic under my belt. I've heard (and used) most principles he talks about, so it's not like I'm blindly reading this.)

Since your site you pointed out on several occasions (evolutionhappens.net) doesn't have any information on macroevolution's supporting facts, I'll quote another respected website:

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

And, then here's what the above site says;
I'm sorry, but this is clearly among the worst arguments ever made in support of anything. Instead of answering the challenge with an actual model of how gradual microevolutinary change can result in macroevolutionary change, not only do the evolutionists decline responsibility for doing so, but to top it off place the responsibility of showing that their unsupported process can't happen on the people who point out that it's unsupported!

This is simply ridiculous. If you want people to believe you that X happens, you actually have to offer evidence that it does happen. You can't claim that unless the skeptics can prove that it doesn't happen, then it happens. It is intellectually dishonest, and logically inconsistent.

Sure, the talk.origins crowd has put forward more detailed arguments about why you should believe in macroevolution. But don't bother reading that document just yet. Not until you read my next section, which outlines the fallacy underlying all evolutionary reasoning, and will enable you to refute it point-by-point yourself.

I suggest you read the page. I am, it's quite entertaining to see all the flaws

[eddie92099]

If you want people to believe you that X happens, you actually have to offer evidence that it does happen. You can't claim that unless the skeptics can prove that it doesn't happen, then it happens. It is intellectually dishonest, and logically inconsistent.

Well that discredits your entire argument for god's existence then,
Ed

[Wired]

Well that discredits your entire argument for god's existence then

No, what it does is discredits your entire evolution argument. We've gone further than Evolution and laid out an exact way that everything in the world is explainable (the Bible), and a timeline on which everything came to be. That is evidence -- a book that accounts everything and hasn't been proven to be incorrect.

Evolution on the other hand, says that species and stuff evolve into new species. What evolution doesn't do is prove that the current set of species is actually possible to have achieved via evolution. What about the totally unrelated species that are on the Earth?

[eddie92099]

No, what it does is discredits your entire evolution argument. We've gone further than Evolution and laid out an exact way that everything in the world is explainable (the Bible), and a timeline on which everything came to be. That is evidence -- a book that accounts everything and hasn't been proven to be incorrect.

The book has the ultimate get out clause though! An atheist does not accept "god did it" as a valid explanation for anything,
Ed

[Wired]

The book has the ultimate get out clause though! An atheist does not accept "god did it" as a valid explanation for anything

Well, that's the atheist's problem. I'm not even talking about the "God did it" stuff. I'm saying that the Bible provides a historically accurate account of how we got from point A-> point B. The rest historians piece together by reading other accounts.

While the actual Creation requires you to believe in God, the rest of the facts and details in the Bible (not the actual stories, just everything about the times and people during those times) don't require you to believe in God.

And you're right, evolutionists don't have a "get out clause." Instead they just leave facts empty and expect everyone to believe it. At least the Bible has an explanation for things.

So here's what our argument boils down to: You don't accept our claims that there is a God, and the Bible is the book of God. That's really it. If you accepted that claim, there would be no arguments.

We don't accept your claims that simply because small scale evolution has happened, large scale evolution happened as well. We also don't accept atheistic views on how there is no way that everything in the universe was generated out of nothing. We also don't accept how the geological record is very loosely pieced together. We also don't accept how there are totally unrelated species, yet evolution claims that we all derive from the same specie in the beginning. We also don't accept many other claims, but these are the strongest claims that I am unsatisfied with.

Is this fairly accurate? And do you have any evidence for any of those claims so that the list might get knocked down (until I add more)?

[eddie92099]

I would like to clarify two things. Firstly, I do not claim that the bible is entirely incorrect (therefore the argument of slight historical accuracy at times goes no way to proving god's existence). Secondly, we are not debating whether evolutionary theory is correct or not. We are debating whether creationist theory is. Therefore the arguments provided by theists against the theory of evolution are in fact completely off topic. As far as I see it, the theists proof of god seems to rest in the fact that there was a book written many years ago which does not (in their opinion) contradict history/science etc. Now, what if I were to write a book which stated an entirely fictitious but plausible theory explaining how we arrived at the point of our existence which we find ourselves at right now? Nobody would respect it, and I wouldn't expect them to. However, in the case of the bible, through the greatest con in the history of mankind, some people actually believe the fiction within its pages. Extraordinary,
Ed

[Wired]

Firstly, I do not claim that the bible is entirely incorrect (therefore the argument of slight historical accuracy at times goes no way to proving god's existence).

Fair enough.

Secondly, we are not debating whether evolutionary theory is correct or not. We are debating whether creationist theory is. Therefore the arguments provided by theists against the theory of evolution are in fact completely off topic.

Quite incorrect. One way to prove something is to disprove every other possibility. Since this is the most widely accepted theory, why not start by disproving it?

As far as I see it, the theists proof of god seems to rest in the fact that there was a book written many years ago

In which prophecies in the earlier books were fulfilled later.

which does not (in their opinion) contradict history/science etc.

Not only does it not contradict it, it supports it. It mentions numerical values (pi), scientific theories, and other things that people didn't actually discover for years and years later.

Now, what if I were to write a book which stated an entirely fictitious but plausible theory explaining how we arrived at the point of our existence which we find ourselves at right now? Nobody would respect it, and I wouldn't expect them to.

Then what's Evolution? Some people respect it, although I find most of it to be extremely fictitious.

However, in the case of the bible, through the greatest con in the history of mankind, some people actually believe the fiction within its pages.

Some people actually believe that Evolution is true. I think that's a great con.

[TwinkleFingers]

wired, your a great debater.  Alot better than I would have been or am.  Im glad you have been a part of this thread.

[eddie92099]

Quite incorrect. One way to prove something is to disprove every other possibility. Since this is the most widely accepted theory, why not start by disproving it?

Because there are many many theories. It is not an either/or situation we are dealing with.

Not only does it not contradict it, it supports it. It mentions numerical values (pi), scientific theories, and other things that people didn't actually discover for years and years later.

It mentions scientifically impossible things as well - however your response is always "god did it".

Then what's Evolution? Some people respect it, although I find most of it to be extremely fictitious.

There is far more evidence for it than any other theory.

wired, your a great debater.  Alot better than I would have been or am.  Im glad you have been a part of this thread.

He's as good a debater as you are a grammatically correct muslim,
Ed

[Wired]

Because there are many many theories. It is not an either/or situation we are dealing with.

Quite incorrect. We're always in a situation where proof by negation will work. You don't set out at proving everything else wrong at once. Instead, you prove one is wrong, then move on.

It mentions scientifically impossible things as well - however your response is always "god did it".

This is quite irrelevant in the argument at hand. Our argument is that the Bible and God are both true. If both are true, then this is an acceptable response. When analyzing an argument that contains multiple premises, you must analyze all premises when making any claims against it. Since I say that the Bible is 100% true, and God is the God mentioned in the Bible, you can't disprove it by claiming there are things that God can't do.

I only bring up the things that make the Bible stand out -- the fact that they acknowledge these laws of nature and mathematics far before any scientist or mathematician was able to actually "figure it out."

There is far more evidence for it than any other theory.

Yet there is so little! The thing is that Evolution is taught to EVERYONE in grade school (over here at least). Yet, it isn't a proven theory. That, my friend, is wrong. Why teach unproven theories? Why do we insist that everyone must learn about a world that many people claim is so old when that hasn't been proven either? Why did I learn about the big bang in Grade School despite the fact we don't even think that may have really happened?

*That* is why most people think it's true. Not because of the evidence supporting it... because it is taught by the very people we are told to look up to.

He's as good a debater as you are a grammatically correct muslim

Ok.. what other possibility is there than creation?

Premises
We know that in a closed system, no energy is lost or gained through any set of circumstances. It may be converted to potential energy or back to kinetic energy of some sort. However, the total energy of a closed system does not change.

For this proof, we will be mentioning a closed system of a large scale. The closed system is our universe -- everything physical we know about. However, we will be examining it as if it were empty, as it must have been at some point in time.

Since no energy can be added to a closed system (our universe), the universe was doomed to be empty for eternity. However, there is an explanation. Since our closed system is the universe, something outside of that closed system can add energy to the system.

Conclusion
There is a power outside of our universe that exists in no physical area we know of. There has to be something that created all of the energy and mass in the universe, and since a closed system cannot gain energy by any other means than something outside the system adding energy to it.

So, there you have it. Something created us. I cannot link this proof directly to being the God of the Bible, but it is some supernatural being, which by definition is a God. So, while this does not prove that there may not be more than one supernatural being, it does prove that there must have been at least one supernatural being. To disprove that, you must disprove science.

[TwinkleFingers]

one word...WOW!

He's as good a debater as you are a grammatically correct muslim,
Ed

Mr. ED... will you ever get over my spelling and grammar inadequacies?  why even bring that up in this debate like you have on numerous occasions? Should I start a grammar and spelling thread as well? Its a waste of space Just stick to the task on hand with answering wired's questions.  He is far more educated than I.  

[liszmaninopin]

I am an agnostic.

[cziffra]

I am an agnostic

Well done.

[TwinkleFingers]

i am agnostic

then there is a chance for you after all...maybe.

[eddie92099]

then there is a chance for you after all...maybe.

The annoying thing is I want to say to you "You'll see god doesn't exist when you are dead". But you won't see, because, in fact, you will be dead,
Ed

[Wired]

The annoying thing is I want to say to you "You'll see god doesn't exist when you are dead". But you won't see, because, in fact, you will be dead,

Did I not prove God exists?

Don't make a claim that some "God" being doesn't exist until you disprove the claim that I made above.

[eddie92099]

Did I not prove God exists?

Quite,
Ed

[Wired]

Quite

Quite is an adverb. Adverbs can't be used without another word, particularly another verb, adjective, or another adverb. For example, your statement can mean:

quite correct
quite incorrect
quite amazingly
... (almost infinite more terms)

Perhaps you should form a sentence of some sort? Or at least a phrase that makes sense?

[eddie92099]

Quite is an adverb. Adverbs can't be used without another word, particularly another verb, adjective, or another adverb. For example, your statement can mean:

quite correct
quite incorrect
quite amazingly
... (almost infinite more terms)

Perhaps you should form a sentence of some sort? Or at least a phrase that makes sense?

Perhaps you should get a dictionary that isn't full of americanisations,
Ed

[TwinkleFingers]

perhaps we should stick to the topic here guys
ed, im sorry for you because simply being dead is not an option for anybody. Our physical bodies will be dead but not our souls. They will be judged and we will be reunited with our perfect bodies of eternity.  Im not sure about all the details as to what exactly happens after we die.  But I know that I want to spend eternity in a perfect place(better than we could ever imagine) then spend eternity in hell where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.(that is simply stated Im sure its worse than we could ever imagine)  

[eddie92099]

spend eternity in hell where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.(that is simply stated Im sure its worse than we could ever imagine)  

Although that does sound pretty terrifying!
Ed

[Wired]

Perhaps you should get a dictionary that isn't full of americanisations,

Perhaps you should clarify what you were trying to say? Don't say I didn't prove a God/supernatural being existed until you counter that proof.

[thracozaag]

perhaps we should stick to the topic here guys
ed, im sorry for you because simply being dead is not an option for anybody. Our physical bodies will be dead but not our souls. They will be judged and we will be reunited with our perfect bodies of eternity.  Im not sure about all the details as to what exactly happens after we die.  But I know that I want to spend eternity in a perfect place(better than we could ever imagine) then spend eternity in hell where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.(that is simply stated Im sure its worse than we could ever imagine)  

 "gnashing of teeth"?

[eddie92099]

Perhaps you should clarify what you were trying to say? Don't say I didn't prove a God/supernatural being existed until you counter that proof.

So unicorns exist do they? Go on, try and prove they don't,
Ed

[eddie92099]

Jesus is gone, nobody cares

The sound of his name just brings indifferent stares.

People grew tired of his vanishing act

and finally decided he ain't coming back.



Relieved of the burden of fancy and fable

Society since brought great minds to the table

Biological research brought extension to life

To those who had once lived in pain and in strife



Society still has its few who believe

They cling to the myth that there is no reprieve

They just sit and stare at the moon in great awe

While men in white coats feed them meals through a straw.

[Wired]

So unicorns exist do they? Go on, try and prove they don't

Good way to avoid the proof.

But also, what does this point prove? Are you claiming they don't exist or do? The first question seems to be asking if I claim that unicorns exist. The next statement seems to tell me to prove they don't. Which one do you want me to do?

[eddie92099]

The first question seems to be asking if I claim that unicorns exist. The next statement seems to tell me to prove they don't. Which one do you want me to do?

Prove they don't exist. It is impossible. This does not mean that they do exist though,
Ed

[Wired]

Prove they don't exist. It is impossible. This does not mean that they do exist though

You failed to answer my first question... why? What about this answer would make a difference? So what if a unicorn did or did not exist. If I were to prove either way, would that really accomplish anything?

[eddie92099]

You failed to answer my first question... why?

It's very simple. The fact that you cannot prove a unicorn doesn't exist does not lead to the conclusion that they do exist. Therefore, the fact that we cannot prove god doesn't exist does not lead to the conclusion that he does,
Ed

[chopiabin]

Read freud and Nietzsche, they will deepen your thinking.
First of all, I believe that religion is simply wish fulfillment. Human beings, like other animals, have the instinct to survive. No one wants to die -  everyone is afraid of death because it is unknown. Every world religion has some sort of afterlife or "becoming one with the universe" that allows its believers to escape death (I am counting Buddhism as philosophy here, although, ultimate enlightenment is still a little "death-defying"). Christianity is the one I will deal with because I think most people are familiar with it.

Christianity's spread is a result of the fact that it combined freedom from death with the morality that best seems to suit society. It is relatively simple to say that all one's societally unacceptable actions (ie murder) don't matter because one believes that someone died for them (which is really pagainstic if one thinks about it - sacrifice of a son for sins).

Where did morality originate from? Early society. As animals, we have the instinct of self - preservation. In early hunter - gather societies (created because it was in the best interest of the individual to benefit from the food and protection begotten by numbers) of relatively few people, stealing, lying or killing meant depriving the community of food, or someone of life. If that person was not punished, then they could simply repeat their actions. As society expanded and grew ever more complicated, so did this socially derived morality. Why do we distinguish between a purposeful crime and an accidental crime? Because the person who commits the purposeful crime has purposely deprived someone of the right to life or food (money, property, etc.), and the accidental crime was just that, an accident. In terms of the universe, no one is morally accountable, but by choosing to live in society, we face the disapproval and/or justice of our peers.

Has anyone ever thought about why morality is changing? I think it is because in most Western or Westernized nation, most people no longer have to struggle for survival. This would explain why there are conflicting (I am with the proponents of both) sides on abortion and homosexuality (conflicts between the happiness derived from self - presevation of individuals and the preservation of society). As we become more individual creatures, thanks to phones, internet, etc. we have to come in contact with society less and less, and people develop more and more personal moralities.  

If anyone would like to talk to me more about this, feel free to email me. This is just a small part of my personal philosophy. Chopi

[chopiabin]

Wired,iIf you want to show a flaw with the Bible, then all I have to do is say it is wrong. If it were divine truth then it should be able to prove itself beyond a doubt, and there should exist no other religions on earth. How do you explain that? Also, the bible says that homosexuality is wrong -  without using the bible as proof, can you prove that? It also says that Jesus was resurrected and that he was divine. I believe that he existed, but that he was simply a leader who was mythologized. Without using the bible as proof, can you prove that Jesus was divine and resurrected??? These are what I call flaws. Also, everything that you "google" in five minutes is not necessarily true. Those people have an agenda - they want to remove all flaws from the bible. You should read well- documented research if you want unbiased thought.

Also, I know biology very well, and I know that all species (except for a few, who began evolution from different chemical processes - bacteria that digest sulfur for instance) ARE related. Even the most most disparate organisms have many chemical processes in common. Glycolysis is present in both bacteria AND eukaryotic cells. This provides a link between the two.

[chopiabin]

Sorry I'm posting again - too much coffee!
This is just something that had to be said. Wired said that we shouldn't teach evolution because it isn't proven. This is a silly statement. Can we prove anything? Can one "prove" that 2+2 =4, what does the word two mean anyways? We can not "prove" anything. We can not prove any scientific laws. You can not even prove that your parents really are your parents (DNA analysis just shows how closely one's DNA matches with that of another individual). All we can teach is that which is most clearly observable. Evolution IS a theory. It just so happens that science based on it fits perfectly with the observable earth. In fact, nearly all modern biology is based off of evolution, and, unless you are proposing that we stop teaching biology to children, the two can not be separated.

[eddie92099]

Chopiabin, you rock dude.
Ed

[TwinkleFingers]

most people no longer have to struggle for survival.

i guess you have no idea that 3rd world countries exist.

Where did morality originate from? Early society. As animals, we have the instinct of self - preservation.

which came from....? dont you think we are different than animals? or did we evolve faster than they?

[eddie92099]

i guess you have no idea that 3rd world countries exist.

Chopiabin said, IN THE SAME SENTENCE, "in most Western or Westernized nation". Seriously, can you not read?

dont you think we are different than animals?

Fundementaly no,
Ed