Instigator / Pro

Bones

1761

rating

debates

95.16%

won

Topic

#3283

THBT: Atheism is, on balance more reasonable than Christianity.

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Bones

Tags

Religion

Parameters

Publication date: 01.03.2022 11:39PM
Last updated date: 03.28.2022 04:26PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: One week
Max argument characters: 25,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

PGA2.0

1487

rating

debates

35.71%

won

Description

THBT: Atheism is, on balance more reasonable than Christianity.
--
Definitions:

General terms:

· Christianity - the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices. In particular, Christians prescribe to the literal belief in the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being.
· More reasonable - To be an option that is based on or uses better judgment and is, therefore, more fair and practical
· Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods.
· Reasonable - agreeable to or in accord with reason; logical.

PGA2.0 Requested Terms:
The argument from Morality:
· Morality - the degree to which an action is right or wrong. Morals often describe one's particular values concerning what is right and what is wrong.
· Ethics - 1. the discipline dealing with what is good and (evil) bad and with moral duty and obligation
2a: a set of moral principles: a theory or system of moral values. Ethics can refer broadly to moral principles, one often sees it applied to questions of correct
behaviour within a relatively narrow area of activity

Biblical Evidence - Internal and External:
· Eschatology - the study of final things.
· Biblical Typology - the aspect of biblical interpretation that treats the significance of Old Testament types for prefiguring corresponding New Testament antitypes or fulfilment.

Life's Ultimate Questions - Worldview Analysis
· Worldview - the most fundamental (core) philosophical beliefs and assumptions a person holds about the universe and the nature of things.

Logic:
· Logic - a particular way of thinking, especially one that is reasonable and based on good judgment.
· Aristotelian Laws of Logic
· Law of Identity --> X = X, 2)
· Law of Non-contradiction --> X ≠ non-X.
· Inductive Argument - an argument that is intended by the arguer to be strong enough that, if the premises were to be true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false.
· Deductive Argument - a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises - are true.

Bones Requested Terms:

The argument from Gratutuious evils:
· Evil - morally bad, cruel, or very unpleasant.
· Good - morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious:

Occams Razor:
· Occams Razor - The principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more.

Contentions:

Bones will substantiate his burden of proof with the following four contentions:

· The Anti-Kalam Cosmological argument.
· The argument from Gratutuious evils.
· Occams Razor
· The Anti-Ontological argument.

PGA2.0 will substantiate his burden of proof with the following four contentions:

· Life's Ultimate Questions - Worldview Analysis
· Biblical Evidences - Internal and External
· Morality and Ethics and finally
· Logic

Rules:
1. No arguments made in bad faith i.e, kritiks.
2. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
3. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
4. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
5. A breach of the rules should result in a conduct point deduction for the offender.

Round 1

Bones

01.04.2022 12:15PM

Pro

Thx PGA2.0, I am excited to get this debate finally started.

Prelim:

BoP:

The resolution of this debate is as follows:

Atheism is, on balance more reasonable than Christianity.

Here, the terms Atheism and Christianity ought to be clarified. As definitions have been stipulated in the description, the resolution can be interpreted as :

A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods is, on balance more reasonable than the belief in the the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being.

Immediately, the nature of this debate becomes clear - this is a conversation whereby a lack of belief is judged against a belief, and where the veracity of each is in contest. Here, we ought introduce Russell's teapot:

Russell's teapot is the analogy which shows that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Furthermore, Hitchens Razor can also be applied:

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor articulated as"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

As such, I declare the burden to be on CON, on the basis of

how the burden operates as shown by Russell's teapot
the principle of Hitchens razor

Atheism:

Another preliminary point which ought be clarified is the definition of Atheism, provided both above and in the description. Notice that Atheism is only a lack of belief - it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science. It is simply a lack of belief. Take, for example afairism, the lack of belief in fairies. Such a title can only convey one thing about a person - that they believe that fairies do not exist. It does not mean that they are Conservative or Liberal, it does not mean the believe in science nor does it mean they believe there to be a beginning to the universe. It is simply a lack of belief in fairies. Much the same can be said for Atheism. Thus, questions such as "how did the universe begin", or "does objective morality exist" are not important, as an atheist does not tautologically prescribe to any particular belief in these questions. They merely lack a belief in God.

Contention I: Anti-Kalam Cosmological argument

The Kalām Cosmological Argument (KCA), popularised by theologian Dr William Craig's operates by asserting the metaphysical impossibility of actual infinities and invokes a God to terminate the infinite regress. The argument takes the following syllogism.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This argument is fundamentally predicated by what is known as the A-Series of time. In this series, events are ordered as future, present, and past. Futurity and pastness allow degrees, while the present does not. Craig himself states:

“From start to finish, the Kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time”

Conversely, from the perspective of the B-Series of time, events can be ordered according to different series of temporal positions in a two-term relation which are asymmetrical, irreflexive and transitive.

The fundamental difference between the A and B series of time is that while events continuously change their position in the A series, their position in the B series does not. Craig describes asserts that:

“On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived.”

Thus, with the knowledge of the competing series of time, I shall form the basis of my anti-Kalam cosmological argument.

p1: If the universe is caused, the A-series of time is true

p2: The A-Theory of time is untrue

c1: The universe is uncaused

p1: If the universe is caused, the A-series of time is true

This premise is valid via truism and corroborated by Dr Craig.

p2: The A-Theory of time is untrue

Preconditions for Causation

The Oxford languages dictionary defines causation as that which relates to cause and effect. Where an event involves a cause and results in an effect, causation is associated. By virtue of truism, without a cause preceding an effect, causality must be absent. Moreover, the time between any cause and effect must be a finite and measurable number. Hence, it can be drawn that causality is inherently tied with the arrow of time, as the cause would have to precede the effect by a finite amount of time.

Moreover, the nature of causation requires that cause “X” and effect “Y” both be logically possible, either contingently or necessarily. For example, it is impossible that there exists a cause of which results in the effect of a circular square. Hence, it is necessary that the coherence of causality lies in logical, physical and metaphysical laws/axioms.

Therefore, the nature of causation is inherently incumbent on logical, physical and metaphysical laws/axioms. If something is incoherent or breaks the laws of logic (circular square), it cannot be caused. Thus, the idea of a caused universe is ultimately illogical, as prior to the origin of the universe, there were neither time’s arrow nor physical/logical laws. As the necessary conditions for causation to take place did not exist prior to the Big Bang, it is unjustified to speak of causation as the cause of said effect.
As the A-series of times affirms the proposition of a caused universe, and the conditions of a caused universe are wholly illogical, the A-series of time is inaccurate.

The B-series of time

As alluded to in the introductory, the B-series of time is an alternative theory, of which the general scientific consensus affirms. In short, the theory asserts that the universe is tenseless and exists with one time and three spatial dimensions, where there is no objective passing of time. This is a contrast to the A-series, which asserts that only the present moment is true.

Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity supports the B-Theory of time and refutes the A-theory, on the following grounds;

General Relativity (GR) depicts a universe where time is an axis in a 4-dimensional, block universe.
Special relativity (SR) holds true that the laws of physics are the same, regardless of the frame of reference. This means that people can disagree on the present moment but are all equally correct.

Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity depicts a universe where time itself is an axis in a 4 dimensional, spatial plane. The theory provides an infused description of gravity and space-time and shows that space-time can be curved and distorted by objects with a large mass. Gravity, caused by large objects warping the fabric of spacetime, affects not only the movement of an object through space, but also the object's passage through time.

Consider the words of Marina Cortês, a cosmologist from the Royal Observatory of Edinburgh.

"Imagine a regular chunk of cement. It has three dimensions but we live in four dimensions: the three spatial dimensions plus one time dimension. A block universe is a four-dimensional block, but instead of (being made of cement, it is made of) spacetime. And all of the space and time of the Universe are there in that block."

Thus, it is harmonious with Einstein's Theory of Relativity that the future and past are already encoded into the “block universe”. From the block time perspective, the past, present and future are equally real.

Such a universe renders the A-Series of time false.

SR.

Furthermore, the B-theory is also affirmed by Special Relativity, which asserts that it is impossible for two events to occur at exactly the same time if those events are spatially separated. This is a result of how objects moving at a quicker velocity will experience time slower when compared to stationary objects. Hence, this too refutes the A-theory, as it demonstrates that there is no “real present” and that an event can be perceived in different frames of reference.

2.II.II.I Retrocausality

As has been observed in the quantum world, “backwards causation” can be achieved by linking time-symmetry and retrocausality. Retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, an effect can change the cause. Scientific research provides an abundance of facts which provides support for retrocausal quantum theories, in which the future influences the past. Huw Price, a major proponent of retrocausality in quantum theory laws out an argument which suggests that any quantum theory that assumes that

must allow for retrocausal influences. Moreover, experiments such as the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser designed by Yoon-Ho Kim aim to prove the existence of backwards causation. The said experiment is a rather complicated construction - it is set up to measure correlated pairs of photons, which are in an entangled state, so that one of the two photons is detected 8 nanoseconds before its partner. The result indicates that the behaviour of the photons detected 8 nanoseconds before their partners is determined by how the partners will be detected. Undeniably, this should act as proof of backwards causation, in that the effect has affected the cause.

Moreover, quantum entanglement further affirms this point, and shows that when a particle is observed and its wave function collapses, the entangled particles interact with each other retrocausally.
Furthermore, revisitation of the famous Bell Theorem, which was once under great scrutiny finds that the quantum non-locality observed in nature in the form of statistical correlations violating Bell’s inequality can be understood as the signature of retrocausal effects.

These such findings are incongruent with the A-series of times, as the A-series is reliant on the axiom that the cause comes before the effect. As the studies I have provided prove that this axiom is false, it is conclusive that the block universe theory is not only harmonious with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity but also makes sense of theories which would be deemed utterly absurd under the A-Theory of time.

c1: The universe is uncaused

With this conclusion, it is then possible to enter the findings into the final syllogism of this argument.

p1. If God exists, the universe was caused.

p2. The universe was not caused

c1. God does not exist.

Contention II: Gratuitous evil

p1. If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils (GE).
p2. There are gratuitous evils in the world.
c1. God does not exist.

p1. is true by virtue of truism. By definition, a GE is a type of evil of which creates no good. A GE does not lead to virtue, does not teach a lesson, and is completely unjust. A GE definitionally cannot be cannot be justified by "free will" or "compensation in a latter life", for such would be a God justified good. By definition, a GE is inexcusably immoral. Thus, as God is omnibenevolent (all loving, infinitely loving) he would not allow gratuitous evil to occur.

p2. is also verified by truism. To assert otherwise is to dictate that every single bit of suffering that exists is necessary. Take, for example, the victims of the holocaust. The Nazis systematically murdered an estimated six million Jews and an additional 11 million people during the war, totally a rounded 17 million people. PRO's position is that at least 1 of these deaths was not necessary. CON's is that every single one was necessary. On top of them all being necessary, CON's position further entails that every second of suffering was also necessary - God could not have jumped in even a mere second to alleviate a sliver of the agony, as that would suggest that gratuitous evils exist.

c1. Thus the conclusion is upheld. God does not exist.

Contention III: Anti-ontological argument

p1. The creation of the universe is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

p2. The merit of an achievement is the product of

Its intrinsic quality and
The ability of its creator

p3. The greater the handicap of the creator, the more impressive his achievements are.

p4. The most formidable handicap possible for a creator would be there non-existence

p5. Therefore, if we assume that the universe is the product of an existent creator, it is conceivable that a greater feat would be to create the universe while not existing.

p6. An existing God would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived, as an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist

c1. God doesn't exist.

Contention IV: Occam's razor

The Occam's Razor, also known as the law of parsimony states that “plurality should not be posited without necessity”. The principle deems a theory most likely if it has the least ontological commitments when compared with other theories. The principle can also be expressed as “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity”. Thus, my application of Occam's Razor can be framed by theism versus metaphysical naturalism. Whilst Metaphysical naturalism has only two ontological commitments (the physical universe and the laws that govern it), Theism has three commitments (the physical universe, the laws that govern it and a divine being).

Hence, the theory of which God is not necessary is, according to the law of parsimony, more likely.

Conclusion:

I have substantiated my claim with 4 arguments - the Anti-Kalam Cosmological argument, the argument from Gratuitous evils, Occam's Razor, the Anti-Ontological argument. Such arguments thoroughly negates the veracity of Christianity and thus uphold the resolution.

PGA2.0

01.11.2022 05:22AM

Con

I thank Pro for his painstaking efforts in accommodating some of my definitions in the Description.

BoP

Pro argues, "Atheism is a lack of belief"; therefore, the BoP lies solely on the Christian framework. I beg to differ. I see it as lying with the person making a claim, especially in such philosophical matters as dealing with the nature of origins. Pro is making claims. The debate is about which position is more reasonable, Atheism or Christianity. I wholeheartedly agree with Pros' shared BoP in a previous debate on the existence of God. His third rule in that Description stated:

3. The Burden of Proof is shared.

In R1 of that debate, Pro stated:

The burden of proof...is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

It operates as follows,

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."

Pro uses Russell's teapot analogy showing the philosophical burden lies 'upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims.' Russell's worldview interests, friends and sphere of influence, and his liberal view on sex and marriage did not coincide with the Christian worldview; he rejected it. He had a bias and vested interest at stake. I do not see his position as neutral.

“I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God...The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus,...But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.”

“That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion."

― Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects

Russell's 'facts' on the Inquisition and witch death toll (see Statistics) is high and possibly exaggerated. Most sites I read ranged from 3,000 to 300,000. Compare that to the death toll from atheistic regimes during the 20th-Century. For the Inquisition death toll,

"modern conservative scholars estimate around 40,000–50,000."

His point, "in the name of" Christianity very often does not reflect its teachings, as is the case with prophecy. I will mention Russell's view on prophecy (the Second Coming)* under Biblical Evidence.

Pros examples (Russell and Hitchens) come from people who had a vested interest in promoting (and did) their worldviews, that of agnosticism and atheism.

Thus, I disagree with Pros R1 contention that the BoP rests solely with me. Furthermore, the Description stated:

"Bones will substantiate his burden of proof with the following four contentions..."

As for Pros definition of atheism,

"Notice that Atheism is ONLY "a lack of belief."

That definition is not accepted in Christian circles, and some online dictionaries and websites describe atheism not only as Pro does but also,

"Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods."

Pros definition is influenced by his worldview, something I will discuss in more detail under Life's Ultimate Questions - Worldview Analysis.

While the etymological roots of the word atheism trace to the 5th century B.C.E.,

"The actual term atheism emerged first in the 16th century."

Its usage derived from,

"French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts)..." [1]

'Denial' of the biblical God became apparent before and during the French Revolution and the "Age of Reason" (the Enlightenment). Science (and to some degree scientism) and secular humanism (man as the measure of all things) largely replaced God as the intellectually tenable elitist belief. A cultural paradigm shift happened, edged on by Darwin's theory of evolution. The New Atheism brought a brutal core denial or hostility towards religion. Recently, for propaganda reasons, the traditional "denial" meaning of the word shifted to "lack of belief."

Additionally, only "lack of belief in God" leaves a worldview vacuum that requires a filler belief, another means of explaining existence.

Atheism is utilized in one of two contexts,

1) mystically or spiritually, and

2) materialistically.

I will tackle the materialistic side in this debate.

***

R1 - Opening Arguments - Why Christianity is more reasonable

R2 - Critique of Pros position

R3 - Rebuttal and closing arguments

***

1) Life's Ultimate Questions - Worldview Analysis

What is a worldview? It is a core set, web or system of beliefs through which a person interprets or views the world.

How we make sense of the world depends on where we start. Since all worldviews work from basic, core presuppositions, I want to contrast Christianity with Atheism; which is more reasonable (sensible, rational, logical) to believe? The fundamental presupposition atheism works off is lack of belief in or denial of God or gods. I say denial because atheists, in their thinking, live life as if God or gods do not exist. The core presupposition Christians work from is belief in the biblical God. In evaluating these beliefs, both hold some philosophical and "empirically unfalsifiable claims" to make sense of existence.

Axiom presuppositions of a worldview or core beliefs try to answer life's ultimate questions regarding:

i) Metaphysics/Cosmology/Ontology/Origins - How did the universe get here? Where did I come from? What are we? Are we more than physical? What caused us?

Why do we exist? What is real?

ii) Theology - The concept of God

iii) Axiology, --> What difference does it make? Is there meaning?

Morals
Values

iv) Teleology - Is there an ultimate purpose or goal?

v) Epistemology - How do we know?

vi) Destiny - What happens to us when we die?

(Note: 'Why' questions can expose an intent, a purpose)

Andrew Montano identifies twelve in addressing the Naturalistic Worldview (a view included in atheism): 1) Theology/Concept of God, 2) Metaphysics/External Reality, 3) Epistemology/Knowledge, 4) Ontology/Origins, 5) Anthropology/Psychology/Humanity, 6) Location, 7) Axiology (Morals), 8) Axiology (Values), 9) Predicament, 10) Resolution, 11) History, 12) Future/Destiny. [2]

Ronald H. Nash, Worldviews in Conflict, p.26, lists five significant elements of a worldview: 1) God, 2) reality, 3) knowledge, 4) morality, 5) humanity.

Pro, in his R1 opening arguments, tackles the question of God (i.e., Atheist lack of belief in God is a belief), evil in humanity (morality and humanity), reality (cosmology and ontology) while stating the inconsistent claim that atheism is not a belief system.

***

Contrasting Worldviews - Three Core Beliefs:

i) Origins

ii) Axiology

iii) Epistemology:

i) Cosmology/Origins - How did we get here; how and WHY did the universe and life originate?

--> Origins of the universe

Christianity - The axiom or starting point is God as Creator. Biblical revelation is the vehicle.
Atheism - The starting point is usually material naturalism or the natural realm. Science and scientism are the vehicles.
Christianity - Explanation: Creator.
Atheism - Explanation: Philosophical naturalism, materialism.
Christianity - Agency and intent behind the universe --> God.
Atheism - Accidental, random. It just is.

What agency does atheism have for the universe? Without intentionality, it is purely by chance that things begin. Does the universe have a cause? The atheist doesn't know, although he offers many theories. The Standard Big Bang Model (SBBM) is the most accepted, which gives the universe a beginning. It is evidenced by:

Expansion of the universe (observed by the redshift in light from observable galaxies).
General Relativity (time, space, and matter appear co-related; you can't have one without another).
The Second Law of Thermodynamics/Entropy seems irreversible in a closed system.
Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) from the SBBM. Norm L. Geisler, Frank Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, p.76-84.

Of course, with Atheism, there are many theoretical models. It depends on the scientist's thinking and which cosmological model is supported, or preferred. That is the extent of certainty. Scientism does not have what is necessary for certainty. I chose the SBBM because it confirms the biblical teaching of the universe's beginning.

Problems with the atheistic worldview:

a) Atheists use scientism instead of science.

No one observed the universe's or life's origin,
Nor can these origins be repeated.

Thus, there is a philosophical naturalism to the atheist's belief in this regard.

b) How does the atheist explain the uniformity of nature or nature's laws? How can they know the future will be like the past or present, or as Greg Bahnsen pointed out, will the sunrise tomorrow just because it has in the past?

c) Why should they think so without intent or mind behind it?

Why does the atheist find mathematical laws that describe how nature operates? These laws appear to be discovered, not invented. They are principles working long before someone put a formula to them. Being able to express them mathematically is a reason for a Mind behind the universe.
How can the universe have meaning or purpose without intent (thus intentional Being) behind it?
Pro brings up the problem of gratuitous evil. He needs to explain how atheists get the concept of evil.

Christianity's Solutions:

Christianity explains and can make sense of universal constants and nature's laws. There is a Mind, design, and thus purpose behind the universe.

a) The universe displays God's nature and glory. It points to Him in the anthropic principle (not too hot, not too cold; just right) and His mindfulness towards us.

b) The laws of nature affirm what the Bible says:

"The heavens tell of the glory of God; And their expanse declares the work of His hands. 2 Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge."

c) The Christian belief system has what is necessary for truth, certainty, and answers to life's most ultimate questions, the WHYS of existence. The improbability of such constants without intent and purpose is a magic elixir to the atheist, seemingly appearing out of nothing. (as long as someone can think such absurdity, beyond observation and experience, they pass). The atheist system of thought is not reasonable.

--> Origins of life

Atheism - Life comes from non-life. Where is it witnessed? The universe does not appear to be conscious. Where do consciousness and being come from?
Christianity - Life comes from the living; being from a necessary Being. God is conscious. (simple)

ii) Axiology - see Morality and Ethics.**

iii) Epistemology - How do I know; what is truth?

Atheism - Our knowledge is only as good as the extent to which we know things through our reasoning, and our fallible minds are the limit to our certainty.
Christianity - Providing the Christian God exists, we can KNOW and have the certainty to the extent He has revealed; even further through induction by thinking His thoughts after Him, as many of the founders of modern science did. Henry M. Morris lists over a hundred Bible-believing Christians who were instrumental in founding a field of science. (I believe) Johann Kepler (1571-1630) coined the term "'thinking God's thoughts after Him,' a motto adopted by many believing scientists since his time." Henry M Morris, Men of Science, Men of God. p. 13.

John Herschel (1792-1871) - "All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truths come from on high and contained in the sacred writings." Ibid, p. 42.

A worldview needs to pass tests for:

Internal logical consistency, coherence --> Corresponds with reality?
Factual Adequacy --> Do the facts check out?
Existential viability --> Is it livable, or is it philosophically hypocritical/inconsistent?

2) Biblical Evidence - Internal and External

a) The biblical God's existence is evidenced in the texts by:

i) The revelatory nature of the biblical narrative.

Thousands of times, human writers reveal God as speaking and prophesying. (God spoke -123 times; God said - 600 times; the Lord spoke - 377 times; the Lord said - 1088 times)
Explicit statements in the Bible are called God's word. (The word of the Lord - 449 times)
Explicit statements about the Spirit of the Lord/God - (115 times)

ii) An if/then covenantal relationship to a nation. (280 times in the OT)

Israel, the northern and southern kingdoms, are a historical people confirmed by secular history.

--> "[T]wo dates are known with certainty on every Old Testament timeline. Those dates are the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V in 722 BC (and Sargon II after), and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple of Solomon by the Babylonians under King Nebuchadnezzar in 587/6 BC."

Secular history traces and confirms many biblical narratives, people, places, and events.

-->, i.e., the Hittites, King David, and many more.

iii) By those who claim to be eyewitnesses of Jesus.

iv) The early church fathers preserved quotes and references to both testaments.

b) Prophecy was written before the facts: - i.e., the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the destruction of the Old Covenant.

Reasonable - Every NT writing dates before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. (see John A.T. Robinson, Redating the NT [3])

i) Fact - there is no mention of an already destroyed city or temple in the NT writings.

“One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period – the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple – is never once mentioned as a past fact. “ - John A.T. Robinson

ii) Fact - Israel no longer exists in OT covenant relationship after AD 70.

--> No more animal sacrifices for the atonement of the people's sins. Jesus is now our sin offering.

--> No more animal sacrifices for a peace offering to God. Jesus is now our peace with God.

--> No more Levitical priesthood acting as mediators between Israel and God. With the changing of covenants comes a changing of the law.

--> No more feast days. Fulfillment is in Y'shua/Jesus!

--> No more temple or temple economy.

Reasonable - Almost every NT writing warns of a soon, near, quickly coming judgment that no NT writer said had happened.
Reasonable - The primary audience of address in the NT is OT Israel; the Jew.
Reasonable - The OT writings were written before the 1st century AD.

iii) Many Dead Sea Scrolls were written before the 1st century AD and contained biblical "books" and passages.

c) The Internal consistency of the Bible is understood by prophetic evidence:

God speaks before the fact occurs. Facts point to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Old Covenant in AD 70. Daniel 9:24-27; Daniel 12:1-4, 7-9, 13 with Luke 21:23; Luke 21:25; Luke 21:23;

i) "This age" in the NT can refer to no other age than the generation Jesus came to while under the Old Covenant Law and the Prophets.

ii) "This people," it is reasonable to believe, refers to the Jews during the time of Jesus.

iii) "This generation" refers to the generation Jesus came to. How can it refer to another generation?

iv) The "age to come" speaks of the New Covenant age. --> The New Covenant is an everlasting covenant. Through His grace and mercy, the New Covenant depends on what God does, what He accomplishes on our behalf.

v) The Old Covenant was an if/then covenant. It depended on what the people did.

vi) The "Second Coming" is audience relevant, speaking to the 1st century Jews, something even Bertram Russell* seemingly understood yet saw no evidence for because he said:

"For one thing, He certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time."

Russell and many Christians mistook the nature of His coming, "in the clouds" or "in the glory of His Father."

d) Biblical typology confirms its uniqueness from other world religions:

i) The promised OT messianic type/figure is revealed in the NT antitype - Jesus Christ.

ii) What applies to Jesus/Y'shua in the OT physical reality is explained and understood in the NT physical reality with:

types and shadows,
a spiritual application, and
the fulfillment of around 300 messianic prophecies.

Thus, the OT revelation is understood more fully, more meaningfully in the NT, and finds fulfillment in the NT times. Both testaments describe historical realities.

The Physical/Spiritual Connection:

--> 1st Exodus 40 years, one generation - 2nd Exodus 40 years, one generation.

--> 1st Passover, blood on two doorposts and lentil - 2nd Passover, blood on the cross beams and top of the stake

--> 1st Moses, a prophet who leads his people to the Promise Land - 2nd Moses (Y'shua), a prophet who leads His people into the Promise Land.

--> 1st Crossing from Egypt (bondage) to freedom - 2nd crossing from spiritual bondage to freedom.

--> 1st manna from heaven - 2nd Manna from heaven.

--> 1st Promised Land - Heavenly country.

--> Mount Sinai - Mount Zion.

--> Moses before God - Jesus before God.

--> Physical land - heavenly spiritual land.

--> Old Jerusalem - New Jerusalem.

--> Two blood covenants.

f) External evidence for the destruction of the Temple, City and Old Covenant is historic:

i) Many Dead Sea Scrolls date to before the Christian NT and contain prophecies (see The Messianic Prophecies and the Scrolls plus Two Major Prophets and the Dead Sea Scrolls) from copied OT writings.

"There are 225 Biblical texts within the Dead Sea Scrolls which comprise around 22% of the total collection." [4]

Here is an extensive list. [5]

"Cave 1, which was excavated in 1949, and Cave 4, excavated in 1952, proved to be the most productive caves. One of the most significant discoveries was a well-preserved scroll of the entire book of Isaiah." [6]

II) Josephus (The Wars of the Jews) and other historians confirm many biblical accounts on the destruction of the temple and city plus the taking captive of the people to other lands.

e) Biblical Manuscript Evidence is Reliability!

Anyone who says "no evidence" is not critical to many of the facts presented above. Thus, it is most reasonable to believe the Bible is true, and if the Bible is true, then atheism is false.

3) Morality and Ethics**

"Confusion will be my epitaph

As I crawl a cracked and broken path

If we make it, we can all sit back and laugh

But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying

Yes, I fear tomorrow I'll be crying...

Knowledge is a deadly friend

When no one sets the rules

The fate of all mankind, I see

Is in the hands of fools." - King Crimson, Epitaph

Who sets the rules for morality if there is no absolute, objective, universal, immutable standard and measure? Can Pro show there is without God, or does finite human preference become the standard? If so, why is that "right" or "good?" Because Pro says so? So Pro must show that morals are real, objective, absolute, more than subjective feelings. What makes his thoughts any BETTER than mine if they are just feelings? Once we use a qualitative measure, we must refer to something to judge the value against, some qualitative standard, something immutable. If not, Pro is again in a vicious cycle of relativism, claiming his views are better than mine because he likes them. To argue "better" (better than what?) implies there is a best. Can Pro show the a priori necessary conditions for moral knowledge via his finite mind? The Christian position has what is required; omnibenevolent, omniscient, immutable Being. Can Pro show how values arise from an amoral universe?

"If there is no God, everything is permitted." ― Fyodor Dostoevsky.

Concerning atheistic goodness, what does Pro point to as his measure? There are lots of conflicting atheistic values. So, does Pro have a fixed, unchanging standard? In an ever-changing world of ideas, how does Pro maintain the identity of good (A = A)? A thing is what it is, not something else.

Making Sense of Morality and Ethics

Atheism - Lacks an objective, immutable, universal standard for the 'good.' Thus, it lacks a fixed identity. A =/= A.
Christianity - God is objective (in the sense of omniscience, knowing all things), immutable (does not change), universal (His goodness applies to all). Therefore, A = A.
Atheism - The universe is amoral; it is not a sentient being. It does not have what is necessary for morality - mindfulness.
Christianity - God is omnibenevolent, the greatest possible good. He, as a sentient Being, has what is necessary.
Atheism - The universe is ultimately meaningless, having no purpose.
Christianity - Ultimate meaning is a relationship with God, which gives purpose to life.
Atheism - No ultimate justice for Hitler. His crimes outnumber his sentence.
Christianity - God is just.
Atheism - Not justifiable.
Christianity - Justifiable.

Atheisms appalling moral record during the 20th-century shows it is not more reasonable than Christianity.

According to Theodore Beale:

There has been a confirmed twenty-eight countries with avowed atheists at the helm in world history.
In these historical regimes, with eighty-nine rulers, more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao. [7]

Atheism and mass murder:

An estimated "40,472,000 [to] 259,432,000 human lives" taken in the last 100 years. [8]

Atheistic China and human rights abuses; a few examples:

The Laogai - "at least 1,100 known forced-labour camps is driven by hard-line ideology, Communist Party directives..." [9]
The Laogai use group think, control, and repression on undesirable groups; "a political tool for maintaining the Communist Party's totalitarian rule." "[T]he Laogai crushes the human spirit and often tortures the human body..." [ibid]
Organ harvesting (12:03 min) for profit has been a government policy for those sentenced to death sentence since 1984. [ibid]
Baby eating and abortion (until recently, one child per family) are human rights violations and dehumanizing.
Chinese Militarism [10] and Economic Expansion threaten the region and view global dominance.
China is a primary exporter of fentanyl to the USA. [11] (see 10:35 min)

4) Logic

What are the atheist's preconditions for the laws of logic? The Christian contends the laws are universal, eternal, require mindfulness, are immaterial, must be immutable, and are undeniable in making sense of anything. Can the atheist affirm there is ever a time when the laws do not apply (A=/=A)? Are the laws contingent on human thinking, or independent and necessary for making sense of anything? The same qualities equate to God's mind and character - eternal, immutable, immaterial in nature, applying universally, and yes, necessary!

Round 2

Bones

01.17.2022 08:22AM

Pro

Thx PGA2.0,

Observations:

CON's method of argumentation throughout the debate is to simulate a theoretical conversation between atheists and theists in an attempt to expose the inconsistencies of the atheist position and then articulating the theist's world view as more accurate. They use subtitles such as "problems with the atheistic worldview" followed by "Christianity's solution". I assert that the "problems" with the atheistic worldview are not actually problems and that voters ought to only consider the solution provided by Christianity as this is most harmonious with the scientific method.

In the scientific method, in order for a hypothesis to be successful, experimenters must prove that the hypothesis is true by showing that it can make testable predictions, not by showing that alternatives are faulty. Take, for example, drug X which cures cancer. If a scientist wants the drug to be approved, they need to show that it cures cancer at an acceptable rate. What they can't do is say "all the other drugs on the market don't work, therefore my drug works".
Unfortunately, this is exactly what my opponent has done with the supposed "atheist problems". His argument can be simplified to "the atheist has problems therefore theism is superior". This is known as the God of the Gaps, which is the theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.
What my opponent needs to do is to support his thesis, not disprove others.

Prelim:

BoP:

CON rejects my usage of Occam's razor and Hitchens razor on the grounds that they "come from people who had a vested interest in promoting (and did) their worldviews, that of agnosticism and atheism". Such is an example of an ad hominem attack, that is, the attack of a person's membership in a group or institution. We ought judge the veracity of a statement by testing its relevance to our society, not by the status of it's speaker.

Even if I were to concede the definition of atheism - the burden does not change. Consider the case of the garden bed fairies. If I were to assert that there are invisible, intangible, inaudible and indetectable fairies dancing in my garden, would it be reasonable for me to approach a skeptic and state "well you don't believe in these fairies so where's the evidence?". Obviously, the burden is on the fairists, not the afairists, regardless of how we bicker over definitions.

Atheism:

CON doesn't mention this point, however, it is crucial to this debate and worth me reitirating what was stated.

Notice that Atheism is only a lack of belief - it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science. It is simply a lack of belief. Take, for example afairism, the lack of belief in fairies. Such a title can only convey one thing about a person - that they believe that fairies do not exist. It does not mean that they are Conservative or Liberal, it does not mean the believe in science nor does it mean they believe there to be a beginning to the universe. It is simply a lack of belief in fairies. Much the same can be said for Atheism. Thus, questions such as "how did the universe begin", or "does objective morality exist" are not important, as an atheist does not tautologically prescribe to any particular belief in these questions. They merely lack a belief in God.

Even if we accommodate for CON's desired definition, though I believe it to be inaccurate, the point still stands. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science.

Rebuttals:

Life's Ultimate Questions:

1) Life's Ultimate Questions - Worldview Analysis

CON first opens which this statement.

Atheism is no more of a belief system than afairism or awitchism. As I stated in the preliminary subsection atheism, titles such as afairism can only convey one thing about a person - that they believe that fairies do not exist. It does not mean that they are Conservative or Liberal, it does not mean the believe in science nor does it mean they believe there to be a beginning to the universe. Atheists do not prescribe to one set of world view - some are materialists and some are solipsists, some prescribe moral objectivism and others prescribe nihilism.

CON's argument can be divided into multiple sections.

i) Origins
ii) Axiology
iii) Epistemology

CON poses 2 problems for the atheist position.

No one observed the universe's or life's origin,
Nor can these origins be repeated.

I invite voters to refer to my observations at the start of this debate. However, as these are easy objections, I will reply.

1. The direct observation of an event is not necessary for the confirmation of its existence. Take for example literally everything that is behind you. We can know with practical certainty that the world exists without needing us to observe it.

2. The replicability of an event is not necessary either - we cannot replicate what happened yesterday yet we know that it once existed.

CON poses multiple questions for PRO. Again, refer to observations.

How does the atheist explain the uniformity of nature or nature's laws?
How can they know the future will be like the past or present?
Why does the atheist find mathematical laws that describe how nature operates?
How can the universe have meaning or purpose without intent (thus intentional Being) behind it?

1. There is not an "atheist" position on questions like these. There is the position of the solipsists, the materialist and those who prescribe to quantum mysticism. However, their positions are not relevant here. This debate is simply the lack of belief in God vs belief in God. Furthermore, scientific research finds that the laws of nature are not so constant, and that the strength of electromagnetism - one of the four fundamental forces of nature, seems to vary across the universe.

2. Inductive reasoning and the validity of scientific determinism - the assumption that if you drop a ball 100 times in the exact same conditions, the same results should be yielded.

3. I adopt a non-platonic view on mathematics known as logicism, that is, mathematics is an expression of logic which holds only so much as its axioms correlate with reality. Mathematics works because that is what we have designed it to do, so much so that when it doesn't work, we alter it's axioms so that it does. To ask why mathematics is effective is to ask why reason is effective. Take, for example, a spiral nebula. The logarithm describing the nebula is not in the nebula, it is in your understanding of the nebula.

4. Meaning derives from the physical world : it is simply the value and significance something has to a living organism—whether it is good or bad for the organism's survival and flourishing. Humans, with our extravagantly embellished evolution of consciousness, have evolved to be a highly complex meaning-seeking species. The meaning we attach to events and to our sense of self is as richly layered and interconnected as our complex neural networks.It is a human habit to infer deliberate intention to events in self-referential ways. Adopting a secular worldview entails recognizing that meaning is a human attribution and things do not happen for a predetermined reason, unless of course caused by deliberate human action.

Now, CON offers Christianity's solution, which, as I stated in my observations, is the crucial part. Unfortunately, much of the "proof" consists of using theism as a lifebuoy for all the questions which atheism alleged cannot answer. Don't know how the universe started? Just plug in God. Don't know why mathematics is so effective? Plug in God. Don't know why natures laws are constant? Plug in God. CON states:

Atheism - Life comes from non-life. Where is it witnessed? The universe does not appear to be conscious. Where do consciousness and being come from?
Christianity - Life comes from the living; being from a necessary Being. God is conscious. (simple)

Two problems.

1. Even though I have refuted CON's criteria of what makes a hypothesis unusable (the fact that no one witnessed it), that very standard would not allow for Christianity to be true, as, in CON's model, no one witness God making man.

2. Furthermore, CON's declaration that God is simple is simply false. A being capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple. Worse yet, other corners of God's consciousness are simultaneously preoccupied with the doings and emotions and prayers of every single human being.

ii)

Refer to Morality and Ethics.

iii)

CON makes a statement which epitomises my rebuttal.

Christianity - Providing the Christian God exists, we can know...

IF God is real, THEN X problems will be solved. CON has been thorough in exclaiming the problems which Christianity can solve, however, has not proven that God is real.

2) Biblical Evidence - Internal and External

Before I rebut this section, I wish to introduce David Humes "Of Miracles", in which he states:

no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish

God is defined as a being possessing infinite attributes, thus, using Hume's principle, only a miracle of which is even more miraculous than an infinite beings existence will be sufficient in proving God's existence. From reason alone, even if Jesus were to be observed by the entire population, such would be a finite miracle, which, though miraculous, is not as extraordinary as an infinite being.

Thus without even looking at the evidence in this section, David Hume's "Of Miracles" principle debunks the argument from biblical evidence.

CON provides a total of 12 arguments in 3 sections.

Section A

CON's i) argument is essentially that God's name is written a lot of times in the bible, therefore he exists. By this standard, Harry Potter also exists because his name is in some book quite a few times as well.

ii) articulates the destruction of two separate kingdoms. I fail to see a relation to the resolution.

iii) claims that there were eyewitnesses of Jesus, however the source CON uses is simply the bible. Moreover, the sources cited do not offer historians any opportunity to fact check these witnesses. Such would be akin to me stating that the entire dining hall was documented in seeing Harry Potter therefore he exists. Further Still, eyewitness testimonies are notoriously inaccurate.

iv) is literally that people quoted the testaments. I fail to see a relation to the resolution.

Section B - fulfilled prophecies?

i) PGA2.0 states

the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the destruction of the Old Covenant. Every NT writing dates before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. (see John A.T. Robinson

Fact - there is no mention of an already destroyed city or temple in the NT writings.

From my understanding, the following is what CON is attempting to articulate:

p1. Fall of Jerusalem occured in 70 AD.

p2. NT was written before 70 AD.

p3. There is no mention of an already destroyed city in the NT.

c1. ?

If the NT was written before the fall of Jerusalem, why would it be mentioned in the NT? In fact, it would be more of a miracle if it was mentioned in the NT.

ii) is essentially just that some scrolls were written before the 1st AD. CON needs to establish the significance of these scrolls and what they actually predicted.

Section C

CON asserts in this section that God spoke before the facts occured, and that bible verses were written before events. However, they fail to acknowledge that the Bible is a big game of telephone, with people passing down stories throughout the generations. The Gospels, for example, weren't written down until at least 50 years after the death of Jesus. Such would be akin to revisiting the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, minus the videotape, minus the journalists, minus Walter Cronkite, and with only a handful of witnesses, none of whom are the ones writing these stories down. The oldest complete New Testament manuscript we have dates back to the mid-4th century, more than 300 years after Jesus died.Most of the old manuscripts we have come from the Middle Ages and it wasn't until the 17th century that we finally got the King James Version of the Bible.

Section D

PGA2.0 states

The promised OT messianic type/figure is revealed in the NT antitype - Jesus Christ.

Lord Voldemort was also revealed as a physical being in the Goblet of Fire.

Section F (where's section E?)

This section declares that Gods exists because there is external evidence for the destruction of the Temple. Even if the benefit of the doubt were given and a temple was prophesied to be destructed, this is in now way impressive, given the extensive errors in the bible.

3) Morality and Ethics

Before I begin my rebuttals, I am compelled to direct voters towards my preliminary statement under Atheism. CON's argument here is essentially "there is something we don't understand, that is, morality and its origins, therefore atheists cannot explain it, God exists". Such an argument is a textbook example of "the God of the Gaps" fallacy.

To steelman CON's argument, the following are his talking points.

Without God, there is no objective standard for good and bad.

"Pro must show that morals are real, objective, absolute, more than subjective feelings"

PRO must provide a moral standard

"does Pro have a fixed, unchanging standard?"

Atheists have committed appalling crimes therefore is is not more reasonable than Christianity.

"Atheisms appalling moral record during the 20th-century shows it is not more reasonable than Christianity"

PRO asserts that God is necessary for an objective morality to exist. First, he must prove that

God can create an objective morality which humans can understand.
An objective morality is necessary.

I wish to show that the first point is void on the basis of Hume's Guillotine, known as the Is-Ought problem.

The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume's law or Hume's guillotine is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements.

With such, an objective morality is impossible. Consider the following hypothetical conversation (inspired by CON's form of argument).

Theist: Objective morality exists
Atheist: How does it exist?
Theist: Because God exists
Atheist: How do you know God exists?
Theist: The argument from X, Y and Z.
Atheist: How do you know arguments X, Y and Z are true.
Theists: Because they are logically sound.
Atheist: How do you know logic is sound?

Fundamentally, there is no objective truth which can be derived. The most CON can say is that we ought follow the rules of the bible, however, this puts them on the same playing field as the atheist. CON cannot arrive at an ought from purely is statements. I directly challenge them to do so. Even if God exists, CON cannot prove it objectively.

Again, I must emphasis once more, there is no such thing as an atheist morality. Some atheists believe in objective morality, some believe in subjective morality, some believe in no morality and some don't even believe that you exist.

The entire point CON makes is that atheists have done evil things. Without even pointing to the crusades and burning of witches and homosexuals propelled by Roman Catholics, the point is fundamentally fallacious. I can assure you that all the "atheists" who committed the crimes were also "afairists", and "asantaists" and "aleprechaunists". Does such a lack of belief create violence? In fact, it seems that the opposite is correct. Non-religious countries experience greater economic growth, atheist communities fare better than religious societies, and also that poor nations have the highest proportion of people who identify as religious. But even if this were not the case and theist countries were far more prosperous that atheists, this would in no way demonstrate any validity of religion - only that it has societal benefit.

4) Logic

Using the existence of logic to justify the existence of God is circular. The statement "God created and proves the existence of logic" itself requires logic to comprehend. Logic precedes our understanding of God. CON only believes in God because he believes it to be logical.

PGA2.0 states:

Can the atheist affirm there is ever a time when the laws do not apply (A=/=A)?

Can the theist prove that God is necessary for the existence of logic without using logic? The reason for your belief in God cannot be an alleged creation of God.

Conclusion:

CON's major flaw in this round is his tendency to fall into the God of the Gaps fallacy. Much of their argument consists of poking holes at the "atheist" position (which isn't really the atheist position, it is the objective morality position, the materialist position etc) and concluding that as their are no other alternatives, God is the answer.

PGA2.0

01.24.2022 07:19AM

Con

Thank you!

Observations:

The irony is, while Pro charges, "Atheism is, on balance, more reasonable than Christianity," he makes a claim about which position is more reasonable. Thus, he should share the BoP. Instead, he dismisses that he holds a worldview linked to atheism. He drives the whole theoretical conversation to the Christian worldview (i.e., 'Con's method of argumentation' and BoP) while perhaps not recognizing his primarily philosophical and theoretical position/worldview and the problems generated. His four philosophically argued points are "stimulating" the conversation, too. He forgot to look in the mirror. My aim is not to stimulate but to compare and contrast the Christian strengths more reasonably.

Pros two bullet points answered:

The scientific method utilizes both means to prove a hypothesis (not one), confirming the hypothesis true or displaying too many anomalies to continue embracing the hypothesis. Anomalies cause scientists to start looking for alternatives. Thus, my position is justifiable. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, stated a paradigm shift occurs when a theory starts building up anomalies and problems it can't solve because they question the reasonableness of the hypothesis. (See also [1]) The scientist is looking for a better explanation. The same is valid here. The very nature of the debate questions what is more reasonable, so I ask the reader not to be fooled by Pros semantics. Philosophically, is it more reasonable to believe mind behind the universe or a chance universe? Atheists deny a personal God/gods, whether for lack of belief or other underlying issues such as supposed self-autonomy or worldview/life experience conflicts.
Yes, I have identified these bottlenecks of the atheistic worldview, positions for which the atheist cannot give a satisfactory or more plausible answer. That is part of the Christian position in undermining Pros position of "lack of God/gods." It showcases that atheism cannot make sense or provide a more reasonable argument for their position of "lack of belief," or outright denial of God, whether through the contradictory/inconsistent nature in how they live* or through an outright statement of God not existing.
Perhaps Pro does not recognize that I supported my thesis with evidence and by disproving or doubting his "likely validity." I supplied the Bible and its teachings, supported by internal and external evidence. I also showed Pro's viewpoint on origins as less plausible, considering where he would start without God. Instead of God of the Gaps, Pro is guilty of Science of the Gaps. Atheists reason that because we cannot prove God through the scientific method, God does not exist, or there is a lack of evidence. That is false. I did not base the totality of my claim solely on "God said it, I believe it" but on evidence and common sense. Both sides can use Genetic Fallacy and Appeal to Authority.

BoP:

Pros view - No burden, no accountability, folks!

Pro charges an ad hominem attack by me on Hitchens and Russell, whereas I quite rightly pointed out there is no neutrality in their held positions. I am not stating something untrue. I have good reasons to believe both set out to undermine Christianity and had a vested interest and bias in attacking Christianity. Pro makes unwarranted assumptions that depend on the reader accepting his conclusions. He never attacked or countered my arguments with contrary evidence for Hitchens or Russell.

Con suggested I rejected Occam's Razor. I did not. More on this later.**

Atheism:***

Pros "afairists" analogy or "lack of belief in fairies" is, IMO, a faulty analogy:

1. Afairists do not necessarily disbelieve or hold a lack of evidence for God's existence but may include a God as Creator. Atheism does not.

2. Afairianism is not a worldview and does not comprise explanations for life's ultimate questions. Atheism does.

Read an atheist site. The atheist's denial or lack of belief excludes God in explaining reality. Thus, they have alternative BELIEFS about existence and worldview answers to ultimate questions on origins, axiology, epistemology, destiny, etc. Those EXCLUDE God completely as an explanation but explain by natural methods. I rightly pointed out that there are problems in doing so. Once the atheist jettisons God, they are left with (physicalism) empirical material evidence alone with which the laws of logic or science do not comply. Such laws are immaterial, absolute, invariable, unchanging, and necessary for making sense of physical things.

Many atheists in name, just like many Christians, fail to think of why they hold their positions(the unexamined life). That does not diminish the evidence that shows that atheism, as a whole, is a belief system. It takes FAITH to believe what the thinking atheist does (one who examines the position), and 'atheism' is a word that holds particular connotations to it, as I noted in R1. Additionally, the atheist continually smuggles in ideas that deny God, or God as the best explanation, living as if God does not exist while borrowing from the Christian framework (inconsistency).

Andy Bannister, The Atheist Who Didn't Exist, lists several reasons why atheism is a belief system (Ch. 2):

1. The statement, atheism is a lack of belief... proves too much. i.e., It means that inanimate objects can be atheists for stones lack belief in God too.

2. The atheist makes many positive claims that are either true or false such as "there is lack of evidence for God's existence." Beliefs are true or false.

3. There are atheist buses, churches, humanism associations and clubs, books, philosophers and prophets. These people have all kinds of beliefs about God while denying Him. Pros beliefs about my understanding of God's existence show he understands what I mean by the Christian God (see Description).

4. Consequences follow by denying God's existence, such as not having sufficient justification for the moral good or evil. Our intrinsic value is diminished.

5. Atheistic lack of evidence in God does not isolate itself there. It must reorient itself in explaining everything via an alternative method and belief (materialism, naturalism, and scientism).

6. Atheists hold common beliefs driven by their ideology. i.e., Physics and astrophysics explain the world and universe, biology and evolution explain life, and chemistry explains its composition and how it changes. Atheists identify with particular thinking about life, the world, and the universe. I have listened to numerous atheists on Unbelievable.

Claiming lack of belief gives the atheist free reign to criticize other beliefs with no accountability - no defence needed.

"Our belief is not a belief." - Christopher Hitchens ibid, p. 32

Finally, if atheism is only a lack of belief in God's existence, how can Pro argue that atheism is, on balance, more reasonable than Christianity? Based on what? More inconsistency from his side.

Rebuttal of Pros R1:

1. AKCA:

Pros AKCA revolves around his P2 and only works if the B-series of time is correct.(P2)

In presenting the AKCA Pro, seems under the impression that because something can be thought, it must be more reasonable and is in danger of falling under the guise of scientism (Ontological scientism),in its many forms as outlined by Andrew Ter Ern Loke, God and Ultimate Origins,p.3-4

Further, Loke cites George Ellis in pointing out the limits of science and where it crosses the line into philosophy with his five examples (see also the four philosophical areas of assessment, p. 6).

Examples:

Unable to manipulate the original conditions,
Limited ability to observe a) distant regions, and b) early times,
Inability to test the physics relevant to the earliest times,
Philosophical choices shape the nature of cosmologic arguments,
Philosophic choices will strongly influence the resulting understanding. ****

All these points can apply to Pros AKCA. Remember, we speak of theories and philosophical possibilities that have some evidence. Pro appeals to the general scientific consensus being right.

How much can we know without God revealing? Fine-tuning arguments show the universe to have constants acting uniformly (see The problem of uniformity)and sustainability as described by mathematical equations that find the best answer with mind, not unintentional chance happenstance. Christians find reasons why physical things function (intentionality and purpose). To exclude God from the universe is to exclude certainty as to why it is here. Science can "only investigate processes that occur in time."[2]. We exist as A-series beings. We have a past, present, and future. We note physical time corresponds with Genesis 1:14-19. Day is separate from night by earth rotation; seasons correspond to the tilt of the earth's axis in orbit around the sun, a complete rotation signifying a year. We understand that these rotations give meaning for us in determining past, present, and future. They can be measured. Thus, they make sense in the A-theory of time via a Creator. Why would we expect to find such precision and measurements in our universe without a Creator?

The common sense image of time:
(1) The world was not created five minutes ago.
(2) Time exists everywhere.
(3) You can stop in space but not in time.
(4) Every event has a duration, a length of time it lasts.
(5) No event fails to occur at some time or other.
(6) A nearby present event cannot immediately cause a distant present event.
(7) The past is fixed, but the future is not.
(8) Time is continuous rather than a sequence of discrete moments.
(9) Time has an arrow.
(10) Given any two events, they have some objective order such as one happening before the other, or else their being simultaneous.
(11) Time passes; it flows like a river, and we directly experience this flow.
(12) There is a present that is objective, that every living person shares, and that divides everyone’s past from their future.
(13) The correct measurement of time is independent of the presence or absence of physical objects. [3]

McTaggart’s A-theory is the fundamental way to understand time; ... past events are always changing as they move farther into the past; ... “now” is objectively real; ... ontologically fundamental objects are 3-dimensional, [ibid]

Additionally, the BB points to a beginning for the universe, matter, space, time, energy. Pro ignores this contention. So, what makes Pro think that the universe and time were not created with humanity(tensed - past, present, future) in mind and that God, not the universe, is (tenseless, timeless, non-temporal - I AM)? It is a priori commitment.

Regarding Einstein's supporting B-theory, on,

1. General Relativity,

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:

Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Albert Einstein)

If one had a beginning, all had.

2. Special Relativity Refutations cause doubt:

Cosmological and Psychological Time [4]
Dingle's refutation - "validity of Einstein's theory of relativity are not scientific but philosophical...its mathematical formulation was inconsistent."
Ohm’s Law Refutes Current Version
The Sagnac Effect, The Hafele-Keating experiment, GPS, Photons, Muon particles [5]

2. Gratuitous Evil:

Pros P1 is false, rendering the conclusion void.

God as sovereign has a purpose/reason for permitting evil so that good will come of it; the saving of lives for eternity. God made humans in His image and likeness, giving them the ability to reason, love (or not), and choose. Robots are programmed, not free to choose. God created Adam (the only human being, other than Jesus, with the ability not to sin) "very good," without evil. God gave Adam (our federal head) the chance to know God and freely love Him. Using his free choice, Adam took from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God commanded he not partake. At the Fall, his nature was transformed by this knowledge of doing contrary to God's goodness. God separated Adam and Eve from their close relationship with His purity and goodness so that humanity would learn they cannot live a perfect life separated from God. History is our witness that humans do evil, yet God is merciful and gracious. Before Adam even sinned, God provided a solution to the problem of evil, His Son and His work on our behalf (those who believe) that meets both God's satisfaction and justice.
There are two aspects of God's will, His permissive will and His sovereign will.
As a righteous Judge, God punishes evil in one of two ways; through the voluntary action and life of the Son, or we answer directly for our sin. Evil is addressed in God's time.
God will not take an innocent life without restoring it to a better life.
God is not the author of evil; humans are.
Evil does not vanish with a lack of belief in God. Pro recognizes there is still evil, even though he believes there is a "lack of evidence" for God. He still needs a suitable explanation for it, one I challenge he produces without an objective, immutable, absolute reference point. And what is "the good" to Pro? He sneaks away from answering.
When atheists label God evil, who are they charging?
How can Pro identify evil without referencing the good?
Is justice ever achieved for the evil done in an atheistic framework (I.e., Stalin, Mao)?

3. Anti-ontological Argument:

Pros P1 and P4challenged:

P1: Pros idea of the universe as "the greatest achievement possible" is subjective. I could argue that God's Word, His being, His plan of salvation, humans, and a myriad of other things are greater.
P4: Anselm speaks of the Christian God as the greatest possible being. The universe is not a being in the same sense of having sentience. By nature, the Christian God is personal, self-existent, eternal, unchanging, and true. He does not lie.
A creator that does not exist is not a creator; it is illogical, impossible, and self-refuting. Thus, non-existence is not an option of such a God and does not follow.

4. Occam's Razor(Plurality should not be Posited Without Necessity): **

The key is Pros two ontological commitments.

1) Pro fails to supply what is necessary for Metaphysical Naturalism by only stating:

the physical universe
the governing laws.

Pro assumes nothing is necessary for those two entities. They just are (circular reasoning).

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein(3:41 min)

2) I could claim that Theism has only two commitments:

the necessary God (Being),
His mind.

God (the intentional, omniscient, omnipotent, immutable, omnibenevolent, eternal)explains why the universe exists. As simple as that. From His mind comes the governing laws; gravity, matter, space, A-series time, energy (the laws of thermodynamics). You neglect the cause or explanation of the physical universe and its laws for why they exist. Answer: It just is.

3) Simplicity can be largely subjective as to what is necessary. And explanation would necessarily rely on good logic.

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are true and sufficient to explain their appearance." - Isaac Newton (3:32 min)

What does Pro have to explain their appearance? Nothing.

Rebuttal

1) LUQs - WA

See Atheism.***

Pro Voter Referral Rebuttal:

1. These are largely philosophical issues with a vast array of possibilities. The question is, which worldview is more reasonable?

2. With both points, I question whether this is science or scientism? See Examples ****

Pro answers "there is [no] atheist position" to my four questions. As an atheist (presuming), he does answer using a naturalistic explanation.

I respond:

1. Without the uniformity of the laws of nature, science would be impossible (randomly different results).

2. If the universe has no intentionality (random), Pro could not do science.

3. Logic requires a mental process, as does a mathematical calculation. The laws of logic and the #1 is intangible and abstract, whereas physicalism does not explain their existence. As an atheist, what is the defacto position - physicalism, empiricism? Pro says we design mathematics to work. Not true. We discover laws operating before our existence and can express them mathematically. Physics describes a universe that is a mathematical system. Mathematics is mindful.

4. A value(meaning) is qualitative, not quantitative. You can't touch the number 1, smell it, hear it, see it, or feel it, for it is an abstract CONCEPT. Where in your brain does it exist? Pros evolution of consciousness, what a laugh. It does not explain a) what is necessary for consciousness, b)how life comes from non-life, or c) how consciousness is physical.

Pro offers scientism as his lifebuoy.

Don't know how the universe started? Plugin scientism.
Don't know why mathematics is effective? Scientism!

Two Problems:

1. The Bible attests to being a revelation from God, in which He says He made man in His image and likeness. It follows we never witness life coming from the non-living. It is assumed from Pros origins that it can, and the same about consciousness. The biblical position has what is necessary; life from the living. Pro can't say what is necessary. Thus, Christianity is more reasonable than his atheistic, physicalist beliefs.

2. With God, one thing is no more complex than another since His mind is omniscient. He speaks, and it is so.

iii) I gave reasonable proof. Pro does not accept it because of his confirmation bias.

2) Biblical Evidence

Hume is not an authority on the Christian God. (Appeal to Authority)

What could be more reasonable than an omniscient being's existence and revelation, the greatest being conceivable?

A short and long refutation of Hume's "Of Miracles."

i) Pros argument misrepresents my argument. In conjunction with i) the other points (A-F)support reasonable evidence.

ii) It shows that prophecy is reasonable to believe combined with all the other listed points. Secular history confirms tons of biblical events.

iii) The Bible is a collection of different authors, some attesting that they had witnessed Jesus alive before and after the resurrection. Simon Greenleaf, a fine legal mind and expert on evidence, wrote "a Treatise on the Law of Evidence (3 vols.,1842–1853), and which remained a standard textbook in American law throughout the Nineteenth century." He "applied the canons of the ancient document rule to establish the authenticity of the gospel accounts, as well as cross-examination principles in assessing the testimony of those who bore witness to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ." [6]

Pro would have to prove why it is unreasonable to believe the prophecies were written before the events. He did not.

Secular historians attest to Jesus also. [7] And what is a reasonable explanation for the spread of Christianity?

Harry Potter is a known fictitious person. You can't prove Jesus was.

iv) The relationship is the unity or connectedness of the message.

i) The conclusion? The internal evidence (take Revelation [8]), time statements, audience relevance, and external evidence (see 10-20) makes it most reasonable to believe the gospels and epistles were written before AD 70; thus, the prophecy indicates it came before the event. The NT never mentions the fall of Jerusalem, one of the most important events in Israel's covenant relationship. It ended it, as warned and foretold.

ii) The Daniel and Isaiah scrolls prove prophetic books came before prophetic events.

Pro claims the Gospels were not written until at least 50 years after Jesus. What is his source? An atheist without credentials. Dr. Kenneth Gentry gives evidence that refutes Pros claims, Dan Wallace on the reliability of the NT.

Pro offers Lord Voldemort. How does the evidence relate in its detail and historicity?

Pro offers biblical errors. Here is a list of alleged contradictions answered. Here is another. And another.

3) Morality and Ethics

First, Pro pigeonholes my position (GoG). Morality is a philosophical issue in trying to understand what is necessary for it and the more reasonable worldview for the Good. I did show what was necessary and explained why. Since Pros worldview lacks omniscience, is relative, subjective, and changing, how does he determine the good? He evades the question by redirecting.

Answering his points:

1. Objective morality reflects God's nature. The Ten Commandments are laws we should and should not do.

2. Without a fixed identity (A = A), how can Pro say something is good or evil?

Pro brings up the Is-Ought Problem. The is-ought problem reflects on how you get a prescription(what ought to be) from a description (what is). The is-ought fallacy comes into play with materialism, naturalism, or physicalism. It tries to stick an ought to an is. A description describes, not prescribes.

Without presupposing God, Pro must answer morality from a naturalistic position or via the confines of his mind. Why should I trust those confines? Pro says, "there is no objective truth which can be derived." That is self-refuting. The statement claims objective truth. And how can he know that? It is more reasonable to believe that morals are objective or there are no such things. Does Pro want to say there are no such things? If not, he must develop a necessary objective, unchanging standard. I directly challenge him to do so or show me why what he says is "good" or "better" or why any other qualitative judgment he makes is so.

Pro again charges, "there is no such thing as an atheistic morality." He is right unless he can produce that elusive objective, absolute, unchanging, standard! He can't make sense of morality without first presupposing God. All the while, Pro uses qualitative terms (inconsistent). Pro does not have what is necessary to make sense of morality unless he borrows from the Christian framework. From the Christian perspective, I can explain why he knows some things are evil (like torturing innocent children for fun). Pro innately knows in his inner being that torturing children for fun is wrong, but from his worldview perspective (no God), can Pro say and show such things are 100% evil? He seems to think so because he charges God with doing evil. Or, once again, does all Pro has in explaining evil the retort that he doesn't like it (preference)? Is that more reasonable than the Christian position?

Pro then brings up the crusades, witch burning, and homosexuality. He must explain why he "feels" these things are evil other than his opinion. He has not done that. Pro is stuck claiming that atheism is not a belief; therefore, he holds no accountability for his thoughts. He can remain silent.

Pro then attacks the strawman. He switches the argument away from morality to economic growth and poverty. He thinks that because someone lives better, that makes them more moral. The question remains, how does Pro as an atheist, holding to naturalism and physicalism, devoid of God as his default, make sense of morality? He hasn't given an example he can make sense of it (that I am aware of), which I find more unreasonable than my Christian position.

Conclusion:

Pro, as an atheist, or defending the atheistic position (of lack of belief in God) must show why his standing is more reasonable than the Christian position. He has not done that.

Round 3

Bones

01.30.2022 11:21PM

Pro

Thx PGA2.0 for what has been a compelling and respectful debate!

CON's observations refuted:

CON: The irony is, while Pro charges, "Atheism is, on balance, more reasonable than Christianity," he makes a claim about which position is more reasonable. Thus, he should share the BoP.

In my R1, I defined the terms within the resolution and concluded that, using the agreed definitions, the extended resolution can be interpreted as follows:

Using the revision, I utilized two logic tools, being Hitchens razor & Russell's teapot and concluded that CON bears the burden of proof. CON refutes Hitchens and Russell on the grounds that

CON: I quite rightly pointed out there is no neutrality in their held positions. I am not stating something untrue

PRO never charges that CON was saying something untrue, merely that CON was saying something which was irrelevant. PRO openly admits that there is bias in the opinion of Hitchens and Russell however that is not a reason to discard their opinion. If CON's assessment is true, I could easily rebut their entire argument by stating "PGA2.0 is a theist therefore he is not neutral therefore all his arguments are wrong". Obviously, this does not suffice, I must rebut what CON actually says, instead of their impartial stance.

Further, CON contests PRO's assertion that CON's "stimulating conversations" type of arguments are void as they assume PRO's position, by claiming that PRO does the same. However, this is to ignore a vital distinction which involved the BoP. Consider the following:

Quotations of CON:

Atheism - The universe is ultimately meaningless, having no purpose.
Christianity - Ultimate meaning is a relationship with God, which gives purpose to life.
Christianity - Explanation: Creator.
Atheism - Explanation: Philosophical naturalism, materialism.

Quotations of PRO:

God is omnibenevolent
Gratuitous evils are unjustified.
They occur.
Therefore there exists a contradiction.

Both arguments make assumption, but it is clear that PRO's assumptions are far more reasonable than CON's. CON consistently misrepresents the atheist position and conflates it it nihilism, materialism and philosophical naturalism. PRO merely assumes that the common definitions are appropriate.

CON: The scientific method utilizes both means to prove a hypothesis (not one), confirming the hypothesis true or displaying too many anomalies to continue embracing the hypothesis.

Though disproving a hypothesis and proving a hypothesis can work in situations, we ought not conflate the two. Consider the following examples.

I have 5 numbered balls in a container with a hole in it. I draw 4 balls. The only number remaining is 5. Therefore, we can conclude that, as all other alternatives are inappropriate, the number 5 remains in the container.
It is the year 1955 and the polio outbreak has just occurred. There is no foreseeable cure and people are dying. Suddenly, a witch doctor turns up with their fishbone and claims that they can cure polio. As all other options have failed, the witch must be right.

What is the difference between the two? Both utilize elimination as their method of proof, yet their veracity are vastly different. The distinction lies in the fact that the first has quantifiable options, whilst the second does not. It is obviously more appropriate to approach God in the second way, as we have clearly not "ticked off all the balls". Furthermore, history has shown us that we can know a priori that many claims of religion have been falsified. Take evolution as an example - 150 years ago it would have been perfectly reasonable for one to believe that God exists because of the "design" of animals, yet today, we know that such an argument is historic and inaccurate. Thus, the argument from falsiblity, which is CON's entire argument, is rendered false.

CON then offers more evidence for atheism being a belief system. As I am pressed for words, I will briefly cover them. I recommend voters to open two tabs to view both my argument and CON's, so they know exactly what I am rebutting

An atheist is a person who lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. A rock is not person.
If someone claims that there is no evidence for fairies, they do not need to prove this, as their "belief" is really just an objective claim that something does not exist. How can you interact with something you claim does not exist? Such would be a contradiction.
Hoarding together with people who lack a belief in X does not make it a belief system. Just because me and the rest of the world lack a belief in fairies, does not mean we bear the burden.
This "consequences" line of thinking is very similar to the "arguing by removing alternatives" which was refuted above.
CON states that atheists must fill their lack of belief with other beliefs such as materialism, naturalism, nihilism or solipsism. However, this just prove my point even more, atheism cannot be a coherent belief system as some atheists are solipsists and other are materialists. Though it is true that atheist need to fill in their lack of belief, this debate does not regard such belief.
I also hold many "common beliefs" with a lot of afairists - most of them believe in gravity and a lot of them also believe in a globe earth. Does this give afairists the BoP?

Affirmations:

AKCA:

CON attempts to refute the veracity of the B-series of time. To steel-man, the following were their refutations.

General Refutations.

1, George Ellis 5 points which essentially dictate that PRO relies too much on science.
2. Excluding God excludes certainty.
3. Intuition makes sense of the A-theory.

Refutations of the proofs provided by CON.

On General relativity

4. If one had a beginning, all had.

On Special relativity

5. Has been refuted by many papers.

Argument from quantum mechanics and retrocausality were both dropped. They in themselves prove the inconsistencies of the A-theory.

Again, I recommend voters open CON's argument so they know which 5 points I can refuting.

Unless you have a time machine, no one can manipulate "original conditions". Can CON recreate God's creation of man in 6 days?
Though it is true that there are limits to science, to say that science cannot answer everything therefore it cannot something is to commit a variation of the fallacy of composition. Though my eyes are not sharp enough to see my opponent, this isn't to say that it is so poor that it cannot accurately observe the screen in front of me.
Though we cannot directly observe the physics at earlier times, science provides a fair indication it's early conditions. If this were to really be considered an unjustified assumption, PRO can easily charge CON of the same thing. How can they know that the writers of the bible operated under the same "logic" as us?
The "philosophical choices" which CON alludes to are not really as preposterous as they sound. Science operates under assumptions such as "if I drop a ball in the exact same way in the exact same conditions 100 times, it will travel at the same speed every time".
Refer to 4.

2. PRO never claimed science reveals certainty - literally nothing in the world is certain - but science is able to provide conclusions which are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, PRO can deploy the same attack at CON: does CON know that God exists for certain? Without a doubt?

3. Intuition is a poor argument, especially in the face of science. Consider the Monty Hall problem.

4. Fallacy of composition. If each sheep in a flock has a mother, does the flock have a mother?

5. CON cannot expect to cite some papers and successfully refute PRO's argument. However, the papers are mere arguments, not facts.

Does the citing a paper which disagrees with PRO excuse CON of all arguments? Of course not, CON must specifically point out some statement or another made by me, and use the article to say, “that is factually incorrect” the point of articles and studies is to provide warrant to your claims, and an individual concluding that my position is wrong, is not enough there. Otherwise, PRO could simply do the same thing, there are countless studies which affirm the veracity of special relativity.

Once again, CON has dropped my argument from quantum mechanics and retrocausality. The very existence of these two phenomenons render CON's position false. As such, Vote Pro.

Gratuitous evil:

CON contends with premise 1, that If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils. However, this is true via tautology, it is true because it has been grammatically constructed in a way which renders it true. By definition, gratuitous is not necessary, appropriate, or justified. CON is attempting to justify something which is definitionally unjustified. CON states, "God is sovereign has purpose for reason evil". Clearly this is a strawman, there is a reason this argument isn't called "the argument from reasonable evils", it is called the gratuitous evils for a reason. CON then asks "How can Pro identify evil without referencing the good?". Good is not necessary for the identification of evil, one can merely compare X act with neutrality. Is leaving a deer in the wild (neutral) better or worse than hitting it with your car (evil)?

Anti-ontological:

CON misses the point here. Obviously, the term "universe" is not the important part of the syllogism, CON is free to insert whatever they believe to be the greatest possible achievement. Consider the following:

p1. The creation of the X is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

p2. The merit of an achievement is the product of

Its intrinsic quality and
The ability of its creator

p3. The greater the handicap of the creator, the more impressive his achievements are.

p4. The most formidable handicap possible for a creator would be there non-existence

p5. Therefore, if we assume that X is the product of an existent creator, it is conceivable that a greater feat would be to create X while not existing.

p6. An existing God would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived, as an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist

c1. God doesn't exist.

Let X be whatever CON believes to be the greatest achievement, be it God's Word, His being etc.

Again, notice that whatever X is, isn't actually important - if CON believes that the creation of the grapefruit is the most marvellous thing, this does not alter my syllogism one bit.

CON then contests with p4 (refer to above) by stating that "A creator that does not exist is not a creator; it is illogical, impossible". This just enforces PRO's position - a being which can overcome logic and make possible the impossible is clearly greater than a being who can't.

Further, recall that p4 only asserts that "The most formidable handicap possible for a creator would be there non-existence". I challenge CON to provide a more formidable handicap.

Rebuttals:

LUQs - WA:

CON poses multiple questions. To paraphrase:

1. The uniformity of the laws of nature are necessary for science
2. If the universe has no intentionality (random), Pro could not do science.
3. Logic and mathematics require logic and a creator.
4. What is necessary for consciousness?
5. How does life comes from non-life?

1. Again, I can turn this onto CON - CON's position requires the constant operation of logic. Clearly, this is an absurd argument - there are some things which we know inductively which are axiomatic truths.

2. CON must evaluate. Natural selection is an example of complexity from simplicity.

3. CON asserts this as if it were a known fact and does not provide reason for why maths indicates a creator. However, I invite them consider the words of:

Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder

Interviewer: “But maybe you do not agree that the effectiveness of mathematics is all that unreasonable?”

Hossenfelder: “No, I do not think that it is all that unreasonable that mathematics is effective in the Natural Sciences because, what is mathematics about? It is a way to describe patterns, to describe regularities, and that's exactly what we do in the Natural Sciences.”

Theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg

"I don't think mathematics can be ever regarded as an explanation in itself of anything; this has not always been well understand, perhaps it’s still controversial. Physical theories aren’t the way they are because of principles of mathematics, principles of mathematics are the language in which we state our physical principles, and they are the way-- the intellectual tools we use for calculating the consequences of those principles, but nothing is the way it is because of some mathematical principles.”

Cognitive linguist and philosopher George Lakoof

“It’s (Mathematics) not in the world, the world is as it is. Let’s take a very simple case. Take a spiral nebula […] The logarithmic spiral is not in the nebula, it's in your understanding of the nebula. The marvellous thing about mathematics is that we can create mathematics with our brains that fit phenomena in the world remarkably. It is not a miracle that that's the case because we are have the capacity to see and understand the world to categorize it in terms of what our brains do, and then we can create a mathematics out of that in a systemic way using what our brains allow us.”

Though there is no general consensus in this question due to the infancy of the science of consciousness, there are many papers which suggest that consciousness is a physical process caused by the organization of energy in the brain. Notice once again that my opponent is trying to prove God by disproving other hypothesis - even if I could not answer CON's question, this does not bolster their position. People

CON charges that PRO uses scientism as his lifebuoy. However, adding a "tism" behind science does somehow devalue the efficacy of the scientific method. CON states:

Don't know how the universe started? Plugin scientism.
Don't know why mathematics is effective? Scientism!

The definition of science is as follows: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation. If we plug this definition into CON's allegation:

Don't know how the universe started? Study of the natural world using facts learned through experiments and observation.
Don't know why mathematics is effective? Study of the natural world using facts learned through experiments and observation.

Equivocating God with science is erroneous at best. When confronted with the question "how did the universe begin", CON essentially answers "you can't explain how the universe started? Guess it was God then", whilst PRO's uses repeatable observations and scientific facts to affirm their proposition. Holes in our knowledge is not evidence for the existence of God.

CON: The biblical position has what is necessary; life from the living. Pro can't say what is necessary.

Abiogenesis is a scientifically affirmed thesis which asserts that life can in fact arise from non-life. It was proven by the Miller Urey Experiment conducted 70 years ago.

Biblical evidence:

CON charges that PRO commits an appeal to authority when citing Hume. Such displays a fundamental misunderstanding in the fallacy. Consider the following.

Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).

PRO brought Of Hume's paper and in particular his statement because it is congruent with logical. What is the point of having a proof more miraculous than the miracle of which it attempts to explain?

I must reiterate, because this is very important, God is defined as a being possessing infinite attributes, thus, using Hume's principle, only a miracle of which is even more miraculous than an infinite beings existence will be sufficient in proving God's existence. From reason alone, even if Jesus were to be observed by the entire population, such would be a finite miracle, which, though miraculous, is not as extraordinary as an infinite being.

What is more reasonable - believing a child when he says he sees an alien, or believing that he has lied/been confused? Obviously the latter because this is less of a miracle than the prior. Such principle can be easily applied to God and the bible.

CON charges that PRO misrepresents his i) argument. The entire argument was literally

Explicit statements about the Spirit of the Lord/God - (115 times)

along with other passages mentioning the word of the Lord and whatnot. This is not proof of God.

CON : Harry Potter is a known fictitious person. You can't prove Jesus was.

Obviously I can't prove Jesus was anything because I don't believe he exists. The reason for my mention Harry Potter is to draw a comparison between CON's standard of proof with reality. If having name appear multiple times in an unsourced book is proof for the creator of the universe, then Harry, who's name is littered all over the book and internet fanpages, must also exist.

CON: most reasonable to believe the gospels and epistles were written before AD 70; thus, the prophecy indicates it came before the event.

CON's argument is only successful if their very specific date is granted. A quick google search will reveal that the general consensus for the writing of the bible was around 50-100 AD. Should we hinge the existence of God on a date which has a 50 margin for error?

CON: Pro claims the Gospels were not written until at least 50 years after Jesus. What is his source?

A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel.

The sections of the New Testament concerning Jesus are called the Gospels and were written about 40 years after the earliest written Christian materials, the letters of Paul, known as the Epistles.

CON: Pro offers Lord Voldemort. How does the evidence relate in its detail and historicity?

I offered him because CON seemed to be under the impression that if a document promises a revelation, it must have occurred. Promise of an event is not proof if it's occurrence.

CON: Pro offers biblical errors. Here is a list of alleged contradictions answered. Here is another. And another.

Again, offering sources without expanding is pointless. I could easily find 100 sources exposing the contradictions in the bible. Refer to AKCA: General refutations.

Morality and ethics:

CON refutes the is-ought problem by describing it. This is not sufficient. However, their description is quite good.

The is-ought problem reflects on how you get a prescription(what ought to be) from a description (what is).

How does CON get a prescription? How did they arrive at the conclusion that we ought believe in God. Because of their arbitrary and subjective values. CON ignores my syllogism, however, I will not let them off lightly because it is a strong point.

Theist: Objective morality exists
Atheist: How does it exist?
Theist: Because God exists
Atheist: How do you know God exists?
Theist: The argument from X, Y and Z.
Atheist: How do you know arguments X, Y and Z are true.
Theists: Because they are logically sound.
Atheist: How do you know logic is sound?

Both the atheist and theists rely on axioms. The theist position is not truly "objective", it is contingent on the veracity of evidence, logic and reason. Whilst atheists believe we "ought" value well being, theists believe we "ought" value reason. Both are oughts, and both are cut by Hume's Guillotine.

CON: Pro again charges, "there is no such thing as an atheistic morality." He is right unless he can produce that elusive objective, absolute, unchanging, standard!

Why must morality be "objective, absolute and unchanging?" Many people adopt a subjective view on morality. My opponent is appealing to their incredulity as a form of rebuttal.

CON: From the Christian perspective, I can explain why he knows some things are evil (like torturing innocent children for fun).

What is the proof for this? I presume CON will say something along the lines of "it is God's command and therefore it is objective". But how do they know that God objectively exists? Even if CON provides a sound argument for God's existence (they haven't) they will have at some point subjectively transitioned from descriptive terms to prescriptive terms, thereby violating Humes Guillotine.

CON: Pro innately knows in his inner being that torturing children for fun is wrong, but from his worldview perspective (no God), can Pro say and show such things are 100% evil?

Why do things have to be 100%? As a matter of fact, I know nothing for 100% certainty. Furthermore, CON appeals to his emotion - he believes that because people have an inner sense for what is wrong, it must therefore have a metaphysical origin. Consider the seemingly obvious question - Which tastes better, chocolate or roadkill. I am sure that CON will say chocolate. I'm sure that 99% of people (probably a higher consensus than whether torturing children is fun" will say that chocolate tastes better. Does this mean that chocolate is objectively better? Does this mean there is a chocolate God governing the workings of the cosmos? Obviously not. Further, such a preference is technically not "objective", it doesn't trouble us to assume that it does - anyone is justified to look at person choosing roadkill over chocolate as insane.

CON: PRO must explain why he "feels" these things are evil other than his opinion.

The "feeling" that murder is wrong is loosely comparable to the "feeling" that chocolate tastes better than roadkill. It is an innate part of being human. Even if CON does not accept this, there are many doctrines which prove that murder is wrong, such as the Future Like Ours thesis.

Conclusion:

CON has failed to sufficiently respond to my three contentions. They drop an entire proof for the AKCA, which disproves the entire notion of a creator. CON then contends with a tautologically true premise within the Gratuitous Evils argument and their questions regarding the Anti-Ontological argument have been successfully responded to. As such, Vote Pro.

PGA2.0

02.06.2022 04:29AM

Con

Thank you, Bones, for arranging the debate!

Summary:

I challenged Pro in four areas to show he, an atheist (or at least supporting that position), provides a more reasonable explanation for the way things are. Those areas are:

1) Life's Ultimate Question – Worldview Analysis. My argument established he has a worldview (a belief system) as an atheist. It runs contrary to a supernatural belief system.

2) Biblical Evidence. I identified adequate evidence for the biblical faith from the biblical manuscripts and external historical references.

3) Morality. I showed the Christian system of thought better explains morality. Pro never attempted to reason why his beliefs could justify right and wrong or good and evil.

4) Logic. I left it largely untouched for lack of space. I contend my other three arguments are more reasonable than Pros counters. Thus, I ask you would vote accordingly.

1) LUQ's – Pro continually stated atheism is not a belief. That runs counter-intuitive to logic for the following reasons:

Pro continually tried to prove God's non-existence. (I.e., explicit statements, "God doesn't exist." stating a belief)
Discounting the supernatural leaves the natural, or perhaps as Pro likes to claim, solipsism (only his mind is sure to exist - Is Pro debating himself?).

2) Biblical Evidence – See my Rebuttal of R3.

3) Morality – In denying the Christian God (lack of belief in His existence), Pro fails to answer what is necessary to understand morals. If he claims morality is subjective, how do his views become better than opposing views? If he's unsure whether there are or are not objective moral values, that undermines his belief in goodness. It can mean whatever a person deems it to mean. If he says objective morals exist, it becomes incumbent to demonstrate he has what is necessary to support objectivity. Pro failed on all counts. He did not show how his subjective views could withstand scrutiny, and if he believes morals are objective, he did not provide what was necessary to prove it. Thus, his atheistic view of morality failed to be more reasonable.

I showed the Christian worldview has what is necessary for morality to be true:

The biblical revelation describes God in terms that fit what is required: He is almighty (all-powerful, omnipotent), omniscient (God knows all things, both what is good and evil), immutable (His nature never changes), eternal and self-existing (without beginning or end), and just (He carries out justice in His time). Thus, God meets the standard for objectivity and morality.
Good (in something) would have to have a fixed identity that God supplies (He is immutable), and His nature is omnibenevolent.
'Good' does not become evil depending upon who thinks it. It has a specific identity. 'Good' is good (A = A).

These qualities (omniscience, etc.) are necessary to understand morality, which Pro did not refute. So the Christian argument presented outshines the atheistic one since Pro failed to show atheism is "more reasonable."

Pros objections did not stand scrutiny.

I gave stats on what people with a lack of belief in God did during the 20th-century alone. Look at what people with a lack of belief in God say about morality and how such people live inconsistently. They say, "torturing children for fun is wrong," but when you ask them if that is morally objective, they deny moral objectivity. Thus, if they can't commit to a moral objective, you can only take from such thinking that torturing children for fun is a subjective preference, 'good' for some, evil for others. Which do you prefer? It depends on who thinks what for its moral value. The 'good' loses its value.

4) Logic – N/A

Pro countered my four arguments with four of his own. They were:

1) The Anti-Kalam Cosmological Argument.

2) The Anti-ontological Argument.

3) The argument against Gratuitous Evil.

4) Occam's Razor.

1) I addressed the Anti-Kalam argument with several counterarguments to P2.

I argued the philosophical nature of such an argument that relied on scientism, not science, for George Ellis's five reasons.
I showed why I believe the A-series of time fits the Kalam argument better.
I posed the problem of evidence collected regarding the BB that strongly suggests the universe had a beginning, and along with the universe also space, time, matter, and energy.
I presented Thomas Kuhn on paradigm shifts to suggest that we may still not have it right and how it questions the reliability of origins.
I gave reasons why Einstein's Special Relativity may be in doubt. A 'better' supported explanation may create another paradigm shift.

Thus, I successfully undermined Pros' P2, showing it was not necessarily so. That questions the conclusion. Even though Pro made an unusual and exciting argument, I don't think it stands (ref: five bullet points). I believe the A-series of time is still more reasonable for us and the universe. It appears the universe did have a beginning based on various factors (its expansion, background radiation, etc.). We think in terms of past, present, and future. We trace origins to a distant past. We chronologize.

2) With the anti-ontological argument, I again challenged P2. I believe Pro did not establish the universe as greater than the greatest being, and I questioned the subjectivity of the issue, giving other subjective examples on what could be considered greater. Pro compared apples to oranges, being to a thing. Thus, I believe his argument failed.

3) With Gratuitous Evil, I showed a plausible explanation for such evil. God is omniscient and omnibenevolent yet has a purpose for evil, that good would come of it. God created humanity in His image and likeness. That meant the human being could choose (free will). Thus, gratuitous evil is the product of human sin. When Adam disobeyed God, relativism was born, and he, along with humanity, learned the consequences of living without God's purity, love, and protection. Not only this, God imposed penalties for sin so that human beings would not live forever in a state of continual sin. Human evil and natural calamities remind us of the consequences of living outside God's grace. Suffering, for some, causes them to reach out to God and depend upon Him, not themselves and their temporary situation. For an innocent life taken, God restores it to a better place.

The explanation is reasonable.

I reiterated that if Pro denies God or "lacks a belief" in God, Pro still has to account for evil. In R1 and R2, Pro neglected to do so. Pro failed to show that he has a standard that can account for evil as evil, rather than just preference. One human's evil is another human's good unless Pro can produce an objective' good,' a right that is not wrong, based on how a person looks upon it. The irony is that Pro identifies something as evil (the Christian God) yet borrows from the Christian framework (objective moral values) to make sense of evil. His framework is inconsistent. He never established its accountability. Thus, I believe his argument failed, and Christianity proves the victor.

4) Occam's Razor– I believe I established that Pros example did not explain what was necessary for his two points. I also condensed the three-point God hypothesis to two. I think the argument failed on those two grounds.

Rebuttal:

Observations

While the agreed definition stated, "Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods, "I pointed out that atheism is not only (remember Pro inserted "only," redefining the Description) a lack of belief, but a viable belief system in its own right (for a thinking atheist). Pros current definition was adopted recently by atheists, and to a more considerable extent, atheism is a denial of God or gods. I pointed out that atheism is a worldview since atheism tries to answer the same philosophical questions religious systems of belief do, except without appeal to God or gods (the supernatural). Thus, a lack of belief in God is a belief in something else, either naturalism or, as Pro pointed out, solipsism. As such, Pro, an atheist (or one affirming the atheist position), must show that his beliefs have a more reasonable explanation than Christianity.

Pros two "logical tools," Hitchens razor (no evidence = dismissal) or Russell's teapot (where is the burden of proof for the teapot?), are flawed. One assumes proof for God is lacking; the other (the celestial teapot) is equally compelling evidence (or lack of) to the Christian God. Both are weak since I supplied clear evidence (biblical, prophetic, moral). Pro provided two unwarranted claims.

'Afairism' or Santa appeals to one less god or gods. The evidence for those beliefs, once again, is not equal to Christianity.

The significance of Hitchens or Russell's belief system and supposed "neutrality" is that they are not impartial; they hold a bias. Their arguments tend to favour their denial or lack of belief in God on their merit. They had something to lose, so my point is not irrelevant.

R2: "Russell's 'facts' on the Inquisition and witch death toll (see Statistics) is high and possibly exaggerated. Most sites I read ranged from 3,000to300,000."

Quotations from Con (see R3):

Are my statements unreasonable? Let's take one:

Atheism: "The universe is ultimately meaningless, having no purpose."

If there is no supernatural God behind the universe, what are its meaning and purpose? Atheist's reply:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." - Richard Dawkins

"The scientific study of the universe shows what in the universe would care, the space-time continuum, stars, galaxies? What is there to care about us other than us? And the answer is nothing."- Michael Shermer (25-35 sec)

"To assume there is meaning to the universe is to misunderstand our cosmic insignificance."- Dr. Adam Rutherford

"We're not here for a universal purpose, and there is no grand plan, no matter how tempting it is to believe it." - Dr. Pete Etchells

"Yes, of course, I know that life is ultimately without meaning or purpose, but the trick is not to wake up every morning and feel that way." - Alom Shaha

My statements are not unreasonable; the assumptions do not misrepresent atheism (as Pro claims).

Pro attacks my refutation of his view of the scientific method (i.e., using both the hypothesis as true and showing that alternatives are faulty). Regarding Pros "5 numbered ball" example, I can show alternate thoughts question his conclusion. It depends on how one understands five numbered balls in a container. Are five numbered balls(1, 2, 3, 15, 30) the same as five balls numbered sequentially, 1 through 5 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)? It also depends on the sequence/order in which the balls are drawn(which four balls did Pro draw?) as to which number remains. If Pro removed them in sequential order # 5 would remain. Thus Pros example is shown to be faulty. (Amphiboly)

Notice how Pro liken God in his second example. It is the "one less God" type of argument over again. Evidence for God should be taken in its own right, not on such a sketchy example/analogy (comparing witch doctor to biblical God claims). Pro also classifies all religions into one group (Begging the question). Each needs evaluation on its own claims.

I leave the example of evolution for another day.

Atheism - A belief system:

1. Pro misses the idea behind my thought. Pro continually said atheism is a "lack of belief." Pro also stated: "Notice that Atheism is only a lack of belief." Many more things qualify as atheists, including stones, if that is all atheism is.

Remember Pros own definition (see Description) - "Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods." Pro is trying to requalify his offered description.

2. Pro again uses the "one less God" argument in referencing fairies to suggest both equally lack evidence. Each claim needs consideration on its merit. (Non sequitur, Strawman)

3. Generally speaking, an atheist uses the natural realm to explain origins. Atheists congregate together on a denial of the supernatural.

4. We are examining two belief systems to which is more reasonable, one denying the supernatural, the other affirming it. Pro never showed that atheists could explain morality or give a definite answer to origins.

5. Pro says some atheists are solipsists. However, even so, they still explain existence by using naturalism and, in the process, elevate themselves to the only mind that they can know for sure (i.e., God replacement).

6. To Pros point, I say, so what (Non sequitur)? We are comparing Atheism to Christianity as more reasonable. Many professing Christians, like many atheists, deny some tenants necessary for their faith. I.e., Pro still uses naturalism, through scientism (not empirical science), to explain life's big questions.

1) AKCA (See Summary)

I removed one leg in Pros three-legged syllogism, P2, by raising doubt to its truthfulness or well-groundedness. I neglected quantum mechanics (the idea that an effect could precede a cause is doubtful) and retro-causality, attacking Special Relativity, as Pro largely ignored the evidence for the universe beginning. We did not think it was necessary. As the most significant authority conceivable, I reasoned that God has revealed (granting the Bible is true) the universe had a beginning, just as the BB suggests a start of space, time, matter, and energy. Pros greatest conceivable authority is his finite mind (solipsism) or scientism (the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory. [10]). Why should I trust either of his authorities?

Pros refutation of Ellis answered:

1. Pro makes my point! And no, I am not God, so I can't recreate origins, but I can point to God revealing the creation.

2. Pro confuses science with scientism.

3. Science hypothesizes how the early universe might have been. Views are conflicted. What "other logic" is Pro suggesting? The Monty Hall problem???

4. Again, Pro did not refute the statement. The fallacy of Composition? I asked Pro many times to justify that morality can be made sense of without God. He never did. He also, once again, confuses science with scientism. Where did he show the origins of life and the universe observed 100s of times and thus, verifiable in doing so?

5. Nothing here to refute. Philosophical assumptions are made.

2) Gratuitous Evil (see Summary)

How is my argument unjustifiable? I argued a purpose for gratuitous evil, saving lives for eternity, free of evil. God allows evil for a purpose not to violate the creature's volition, and that greater good would come of it.

20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about [a]this present result, to keep many people alive. - Genesis 50:20 (NASB)

"A God who wills to create free moral agents cannot also eliminate the possibility of those creatures producing moral evil." p. 218

Pro, quoting me, changes my statement to read, "God is sovereign has purpose for reason evil." Here is what I said, "God as sovereign has a purpose/reason for permitting evil, so that good will come of it." God did not justify it; he allowed it, as He allowed the creature free will so that good would come of it. God punishes evil. (Pro creates his own strawman)

Final, Pro says good is not necessary to recognize evil, but how would he know something is evil unless he had a concept of good? He compares evil to neutrality by the example of a deer in the wild (good) contrasted to a deer hit by a car (evil). Describing a deer hit does not make it evil. He "derives a moral imperative from the description of a state of affairs." He also uses the term neutral with the terms better or worse and evil. How does he evaluate better, worse or evil?

3) Anti-ontological

Again, I do not follow the logic of P3 or P4.

P1: Pro gives no reason why X (the universe, whatever) is valid.

P3: Why does Pro think that "greater" handicaps equate to "greater" achievements?

P4: Pro states a logical impossibility and contradiction (like a square circle). He thinks because he can say something, it makes it logically possible.

***

1) LUQ

1. Pro can't know anything without the use of logic. It makes things intelligible.

Naturalism does not explain the uniformity of nature. There is no guarantee that the future will be like the past or present in a chance universe.

2. Natural selection selects nothing.

3. "There's an elegant simplicity and beauty in nature revealed by mathematical patterns and shapes, which our minds have been able to figure out," "Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. "Max Tegmark. Therefore discovered, not invented.

4. Mental properties (consciousness) are different from physical properties.

I am asking which hypothesis is more reasonable, and Pro admits even if he could not answer, this does not bolster [my] position. What? The fact that I have a plausible explanation does strengthen it.

Pro uses science as his lifebuoy for everything = scientism = "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques."
Pro does not realize that "many scientists have now abandoned the notion of a reducing early Earth atmosphere" of the Miller-Urey experiment. "1. They cheated. They designed the apparatus to separate amino acids from the mix once they were formed."
Equivocating God with science? I showed how most fields of science were birthed by theists trying to think God's thoughts after Him. I also asked how Pro could know the future will be like the present and past (science works on the past being like the present and future). I argued that God was the more reasonable explanation.

3) Biblical Evidence

Pros argument from Hume on miracles has a lot to be desired. First, there is no citation page number to Hume's quote. What is the greater context? Second, how can a miracle be "more miraculous than an infinite being's existence?" It assumes too much. Instead, a miracle is beyond our creaturely abilities to explain. Miracles were proof that God was working through Jesus and those called. The resurrection from death goes against what every person witnesses and experiences. It changed the disciples and spread Christianity throughout that known world.

Was Hume an authority on miracles or the Christian religion? No, he abandoned the Christian faith at an early age. Therefore, I question his credibility as an authority on the Christian faith.

"Evidence of his un-Christian beliefs can especially be found in his writings on miracles, in which he attempts to separate historical method from the narrative accounts of miracles. [138]" (See Religion)

Pros likening of a child when he sees an alien to God and the Bible does not present an argument, just his impressions.

Pro misunderstands the argument. The citations of God speaking, the Lord said, etc., were used to show that God has revealed is plausible. The human authors claim God is speaking.

Pros comparison of Harry Potter to Jesus is weak, and it denies or disregards the evidence. We know Harry Potter is a figment of the author's imagination. The attestations of Jesus as a real Person are confirmed biblically by many witnesses. These NT authors were unlikely to write about a fictitious character because they staked their lives on His existence and resurrection. There are 19 extra-biblical sources.

The "late dates" Pro charges were primarily due to one vague statement by Irenaeus on Revelation. As I pointed out biblically, the internal biblical evidence points to early dating. Pro largely ignored it.

Pros first source shows little evidence she understands the extensive internal evidence (space prevents me from elaborating). How is Pros video (2nd source) relevant? Early dating is more reasonable. [1] [2] [3] [4]

It is most reasonable to believe the promised revelations occurred as events in history after the prophecy, per my R1.

The point is any supposed error Pro comes up with has a reasonable explanation.

Pro is guilty of the same thing he charges me of, posting links with little or no explanation or expansion (e.g. R5, C), just stating something without a shred of proof (i.e., Lord Voldemort).

3) Morality and Ethics

Pro asks, "How does Con get a prescription?" Answer: Via a prescriber that is sufficient to explain the good. I don't get it from a mere 'is' or description but from a moral agent.

What syllogism (two premises and a conclusion) is Pro referring to here? Is Pro referring to his eight bullet points? Pro also admits both the theist and atheist rely on axioms. Thus Pro increases his belief from only lack of belief in God to include axioms.

Pros 1st bullet point -->Theism: "Objective morality exists" is not quite my argument, even though I believe it does. My argument is that without God, morality is nothing more than subjective preference that cannot determine the good. Therefore God (omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, etc.) is necessary to explain the good. Pro cannot adequately explain it without God, nor did he. Thus the Christian position is more reasonable.

Pro asks, "Why must morality be 'objective, absolute, and unchanging?'" I explained that the good has no fixed identity if it is not. Thus, it can mean whatever someone prefers it to mean. Is that position more reasonable? Just makeup whatever you like and call it 'good.'

Pro asks, "What is the proof for this" (torturing innocent children for fun is wrong)? Is Pro saying that he doesn't know torturing innocent children for fun is wrong? Or is he saying (maybe) that he prefers not to do it, but for those who think otherwise, it is alright for them? Either way, for someone not to know this as 100% wrong, you should protect your children when that person is present. Pro can't know unless there are objective moral values, of which he sends a mixed message:

1. "Fundamentally, there is no objective truth which can be derived."

2. "Some atheists believe in objective morality, some believe in subjective morality, some believe in no morality, and some don't even believe that you exist."

Notice that #1 is self-refuting. Pro states an objective truth; otherwise, what he says is false. Thus, as an atheist, he cannot hold such a position logically.

Is #2 reasonable in determining the moral 'good?'

Notice too; Pro says, "I know nothing for 100% certain." Again, Pro undermines his argument. Can we trust what he says?

My answer to "How do [I] know that God objectively exists?" He is necessary to understand morality and ultimately to make sense of anything without first borrowing from a Christian framework (the latter is an argument for another time). Pro demonstrated he 1) could not or 2) would not make sense of morality, and I continually challenged him to do so. He failed to show, as an atheist, what he believes is more reasonable than what I think as a Christian.

Pro questions which is better, chocolate or roadkill. He confuses a personal preference distinction, an is (subjective preferences - tastes, likes, feelings) with a moral value, obligation, and duty distinction, an ought (what is right to do). Physical properties just are. Moral properties are different from non-moral ones. 'Better' can be measured qualitatively or quantitative, one abstract and conceptual, the other empirical and sensory. Quantitative values have a fixed objective reference point. How does Pro get an abstract qualitative measurement from a purely physical universe? We never got into the discussion. Pro avoided explaining morality from an atheist perspective. How can moral statements assert true meaning if there is no fixed reference point?

***

I hoped Pro would show why atheism is more reasonable than my four arguments. Pro, representing atheism, denied atheism had a position except for the lack of belief in God while stating a position.

Vote Con!

PGA2.0

03.28.2022 04:26PM

#71

-->

@Double_R

YOU: "If you’re interested, I wouldn’t mind doing a debate on the definition of atheism. I would defend the lack of belief definition and take full BoP. Would have to be next month though, about to all but disappear for a few weeks."

Sounds good. Let's work on getting a debate going then.

PGA2.0

03.23.2022 06:10PM

#70

-->

@Bones

ME: "Your moral values lack what is necessary to justify your position, whereas my position had what is required."

YOU: "Again, there is no such thing as an atheistic morality."

Yes, in a sense, I agree there is no such thing as atheistic morality unless the atheist borrows from a theistic worldview in making sense of it. That is, the atheist cannot justify why something is good or bad, right or wrong from a materialistic or naturalistic foundation without invoking preference or might makes right. He borrows from the Christian worldview to make sense of qualitative values and virtues.

PGA2.0

03.22.2022 04:56PM

#69

-->

@Bones

ME: "Your moral values lack what is necessary to justify your position, whereas my position had what is required."

YOU: "Again, there is no such thing as an atheistic morality."

As an atheist or a person representing that position, do you know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil? You suggested you did with your argument for gratuitous evil. That is a MORAL argument. Are you saying that someone who denies or lacks belief in God and the supernatural also lacks morality? I argue with you unless you BORROW from the position! I argued that the atheist could not justify the moral good. Therefore your position on morality is not more reasonable than the Christians. The whole idea of the debate was to show that, on balance, atheism was more reasonable than Christianity. Instead, you showed science of the gaps (scientism) in your speculative scenarios about the A and B-series of time, special relativity, without much sourcing as to how you arrived at such ideas???

For instance, you quote or borrow from Einstein but provide no sourcing as to where you got the quote or ideas:

"Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity supports the B-Theory of time and refutes the A-theory, on the following grounds;

General Relativity (GR) depicts a universe where time is an axis in a 4-dimensional, block universe.
Special relativity (SR) holds true that the laws of physics are the same, regardless of the frame of reference. This means that people can disagree on the present moment but are all equally correct."

No source???

Again, and again, you provide no source reference. Here is another example:

"p1: If the universe is caused, the A-series of time is true

This premise is valid via truism and CORROBORATEDD by Dr Craig."

What is the context? How do I know you did not lift this out of context?

***

ME: "Hitler preferred to kill Jews. How was that right? Why should I believe what you say as good is good? "

YOU: "Because Hitler's actions did not conform to the accepted definition of what morality and good is."

Why are the "accepted definitions" good and the German society accepted Hitler's GOOD (killing Jews and other undesirables)? If Hitler had won the war, would the accepted definition still have been "good?" Good in your statement implies majority - accepted definition - from who? Why is their definition any better than Hitler's if there is no objective, ultimate standard? Provide one. You seem to think that majority rules, a fallacious argument from authority.

PGA2.0

03.22.2022 04:33PM

#68

-->

@Bones

ME: "You made a correlation between God and witchdoctors, both here and in the debate, which I showed was not sound because the analogy or similarity has minimal comparison in regards to evidence"

YOU: "Like I said, the correlation was about 1) who bears the burden and 2) does utilizing the lack of an alternative and utilising the lack of a sound option is erroneous. Adding evidence would, in my analogy, be akin to the witch producing evidence. If that is done, it should be considered. However, my point is that saying "there's no other sound option" is a terrible argument."

I was asking you, as an atheist, or one representing that position, to provide a sound option, otherwise how can you say atheism, on balance, is more reasonable than Christianity? Instead, you compared the burden of proof of atheism to a witch-doctor and add this,

"It is obviously more appropriate to approach God in the second way[that is the witchdoctor example you provided], as we have clearly not "ticked off all the balls"." [*]

Your previous statement was,

"Both utilize elimination as their method of proof, yet their veracity are vastly different. The distinction lies in the fact that the first has quantifiable options, whilst the second does not."

The second does not. Then you compare God to the second [*]. That is simply not true.

Thus, as I said, you made a poor correlation between God and witchdoctory that I showed was not warranted. Christianity has remarkable evidence. Some quack in the bush claiming a cure for polio does not. You purposely took an extreme example that lacked evidence to showcase your point while comparing it to God.

And the idea that atheism is ONLY a lack of belief is preposterous. Tell that to the multitudes of atheists online every day. The biggest proponents of atheism show it is far more than merely or only a lack of belief in God. These atheists who are in denial or say they lack belief use materialism, humanism, and their own minds as the standard for all things. And they have elaborate worldviews built on naturalism. Remember, once you deny God as the reason for the universe you insert reasons from the natural realm and/or your limited mindset.

Even you, in one of your other debates on the existence of God argued for a shared burden of proof, and gave an excellent argument as to why that was necessary. Suddenly you are disputing the atheist has a burden for his ontology, cosmology, morality, and epistemology.

Bones

03.22.2022 12:42AM

#67

-->

@PGA2.0

"You made a correlation between God and witchdoctors, both here and in the debate, which I showed was not sound because the analogy or similarity has minimal comparison in regards to evidence"

Like I said, the correlation was about 1) who bears the burden and 2) does utilizing the lack of an alternative and utilising the lack of a sound option is erroneous. Adding evidence would, in my analogy, be akin to the witch producing evidence. If that is done, it should be considered. However, my point is that saying "there's no other sound option" is a terrible argument.

"Your moral values lack what is necessary to justify your position, whereas my position had what is required"

Again, there is no such thing as an atheistic morality.

"Hitler preferred to kill Jews. How was that right? Why should I believe what you say as good is good? "

Because Hitler's actions did not conform to the accepted definition of what morality and good is.

PGA2.0

03.21.2022 07:53PM

#66

-->

@Bones

YOU: "Again I must reiterate, the debate about morals is a different debate (which we can have). This debate regards Theism v. Atheism. There is no such thing as an atheistic moral view just as how there is not an a-witchest view on morality."

Yes, I would like to have that debate, but I am debating Skepticalone on the same topic first.

The debate about morality/morals was part of our debate I used in showing that the Christian position was more reasonable than the atheist position on morality. Once you deny or lack belief in God or gods, you do not have a proper foundation for morality. It just becomes personal and group PREFERENCE. How is such preference right? It just is, especially if we are nothing more than chemical, biological machines, governed by chance and determinism. Hitler preferred to kill Jews. How was that right? Why should I believe what you say as good is good? Because you say it? And once you use qualifiers like "BETTER," the standard comes into question. What is your best? How do you ever arrive at best? If there are no fixed and ultimate standards, these qualitative values become meaningless. It just depends on who thinks what and can enforce their preference. How is that good?
The same goes for gratuitous evil. You stated, " If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils," and also, "a GE is a type of evil of which creates no good." If God does not exist, you would still have to explain gratuitous evil. You never did. I asked what your standard for GE was? Why is it anything other than a human preference? I asked you what was the necessary standard to identify and account for gratuitous evil. Indeed, the history of dictatorship and authoritarian governments failed to identify some of the atrocities as gratuitously evil that you identified and pinned on the biblical God. I asked you to produce your standard to see how you come up with such thinking, and also, why are you charging a God you do not believe in with gratuitous evil?

PGA2.0

03.21.2022 02:43PM

#65

-->

@Bones

YOU: "It doesn't matter that there is no cure for Covid - however, when one proposes that they have a cure (just like how you propose the existence of God), you bear the burden of justifying such claim."

YOU: "The analogy which I proposed in no way regards the veracity of Christianity - it merely attempts to show who bears the burden. Would you agree that, in the analogy I provided, the witches "proof" for their cure is not satisfactory? Do you agree that proposing an alternative and utilising the lack of a sound option is erroneous?"

You made a correlation between God and witchdoctors, both here and in the debate, which I showed was not sound because the analogy or similarity has minimal comparison in regards to evidence. I laid out the biblical evidence to support God, a written revelation backed by prophecy, internal and external evidence that confirmed the truthfulness of the Word. Secular or external sources confirmed people, places, events. I ask you to show compelling evidence for your claims to establish the analogies were a valid comparison. Why? You made a claim. Do you not have a burden to substantiate it? Do you think that just because you can state something it then makes it true???

YOU: "The element which rationalises my morals are epistemologically unjustified presuppositions. There must reach a point in which I make an axiomatic claim which tautologically cannot be justified. The same applies for you, merely, your axiom is, I presume, that God is the maxim which is good."

Your moral values lack what is necessary to justify your position, whereas my position had what is required. Yet, you make claims that the biblical God practices gratuitous evil. I asked you to justify that. You presented an argument for gratuitous evil yet provided no standard to justify that it was what you claimed it to be, other than your opinion. Big deal. Why is your opinion true? I provided what was necessary for moral values. You mostly ignored my argument. It went hand-in-hand with the biblical argument (evidence). Therefore, my position was more reasonable than yours. You felt that it was justified just because you could make such a statement (gratuitous evil). I explained that God had a purpose for permitting evil, that good would come of it. I presented you with the free will defence that you ignored. I provided you with the fact that the Bible said these people God was bringing judgment on deserved it for their evil practices. I presented that God will not take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place. And I gave you verses to back up my claims. You ignored my explanations. I gave you reasoned explanations, yet you could not provide why your charges or your standards were actually so.

Bones

03.21.2022 09:11AM

#64

-->

@PGA2.0

The analogy which I proposed in no way regards the veracity of Christinaty - it merely attempts to show who bears the burden. Would you agree that, in the analogy I provided, the witches “proof” for their cure is not satisfactory? Do you agree that proposing an alternative and utilising the lack of a sound option is erroneous?

The element which rationalises my morals are epistemologically unjustified presuppositions. There must reach a point in which I make an axiomatic claim which tautologically cannot be justified. The same applies for you, merely, your axiom is, I presume, that God is the maxim which is good.

Again I must reiterate, the debate about morals is a different debate (which we can have). This debate regards Theism v. Atheism. There is no such thing as an atheistic moral view just as how there is not an a-witchest view on morality.

ComputerNerd

03.21.2022 06:48AM

#63

-->

@PGA2.0

I find it humorous you dedicated an entire comment for one point but didn't understand the basis for the point.

If something cannot come from nothing, than God could not have come from nothing.

Double_R

03.21.2022 02:23AM

#62

-->

@PGA2.0

“Nope, once the definition is changed you want me to say nothing of it. That is what it boils done to.”

The definition wasn’t changed, it was laid out in the description *before* you accepted the debate.

“ A lack of belief in God means that you have to fill the supernatural gap with…”

This is literally redefining basic English. A lack of X simply means that X is not present. It does not mean Y, or Z, or A, or… or… or…

If we were talking about a true dichotomy then you would be correct. But your argument is a false dichotomy because you incorrectly define theism/atheism as answers to god’s existence rather than descriptions of one’s position on the issue.

Double_R

03.21.2022 02:13AM

#61

-->

@PGA2.0

A few basics here that need to be addressed;

1. Good either exists or he does not exist. There is no middle ground.

This is not a disputable claim, it’s the third law of logic. Please Google it if you need to.

2. Point number one is a statement in regards to the actual answer to the question of whether a god exists. Theism and atheism do not address the actual answer, they a address the subject of belief. In other words, it addresses one’s *mindset* towards that proposition.

3. Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One can for example be an agnostic atheist. Theism/atheism address belief. Gnosticism/agnosticism address knowledge, specifically whether one’s position on whether god’s existence is knowable.

People try to redefine what an agnostic is all the time, and so dictionaries had to take that into account, but that’s why we again go back to the definitions laid out at the start of the debate.

I’d like to respond to your claims below but before I do, can we agree on the basics here first?

PGA2.0

03.21.2022 02:12AM

#60

-->

@Bones

YOU: "Haven't been reading but I'll briefly chime in. Imagine that we are in 2020, where COVID is in its full swing. No one has a cure to the virus. Now, suppose that a witch doctor with her fishbone suggests that she has a cure to the virus. Of course, with such a preposterous claim, evidence ought to be introduced. But then, the witch doctor states "you have no sound alternative, therefore, my proposition is sound". My stance is that proposing an alternative and utilizing the lack of a sound option is erroneous. It doesn't matter that there is no cure for Covid - however, when one proposes that they have a cure (just like how you propose the existence of God), you bear the burden of justifying such claim."

The analogy fails. You are proposing that the evidence for Christianity is the same or similar to this witchdoctor quackery. That is not the case. There is plenty of evidence for Christianity, as I showed in the debate. The moral argument is not something you made sense of as an atheist. The argument from the Bible is another evidence you largely ignored.

Once again, your argument for gratuitous evil (a moral argument) had a lot to be desired. First off, you are making moral claims without justifying how your standard is sufficient. Why is what you think as gratuitously evil actually so? Because you say so? Or do you have a standard that sufficiently explains right and wrong, good and evil? You never showed you could justify your standard or even had one. Second, how can a God the atheist says he has no belief in be evil???

I was hoping you would disclose these things but you did not and neglected my concerns.

PGA2.0

03.18.2022 12:02AM

#59

-->

@Bones

Glad to hear from you! I will check back in on Saturday. Busy week babysitting the grandkids during March break.

Bones

03.17.2022 10:15PM

#58

-->

@PGA2.0

Haven't been reading but I'll briefly chime in. Imagine that we are in 2020, where COVID is in its full swing. No one has a cure to the virus. Now, suppose that a witch doctor with her fishbone suggests that she has a cure to the virus. Of course, with such a preposterous claim, evidence ought to be introduced. But then, the witch doctor states "you have no sound alternative, therefore, my proposition is sound". My stance is that proposing an alternative and utilizing the lack of a sound option is erroneous. It doesn't matter that there is no cure for Covid - however, when one proposes that they have a cure (just like how you propose the existence of God), you bear the burden of justifying such claim.

PGA2.0

03.17.2022 03:18PM

#57

-->

@ComputerNerd

ME: "No, it does not because, as I pointed out, that is not all atheism is, just a lack of belief in God. You have to bring in a whole slew of beliefs to explain existence by denying God, as I pointed out."

COMP: "I am not fully atheist or religious in belief, so I don't necessarily have a proper answer to this claim, however, it is in my judgement that a higher ratio of PRO atheist beliefs to CON atheist beliefs would be a way to decide if one is atheist."

I'm not sure what you mean?

ME: "Why??? Are you the debate police? Do you decide what I can and can't say regarding the debate after the debate has finished? Are you trying to censor my discussion and my justification of why I feel the vote missed the point? Am I not free to comment?"

COMP: "Not at all! I simply wanted to point out that, even if you were justified on this, moderators aren't able to change the debate after it's finished, so there's no use in putting in this much effort to rebuttals."

Moderators do it when they believe a vote is unreasonable, but that is not the point here. It wasn't as blatantly obvious that he favoured one position over another. I wanted to express my views on his vote, why I felt he was looking at it from a biased position, the same position that causes many atheists and deniers of God to say that atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in God or gods. While it can be a lack of belief, it is also many other things. Atheists have all kinds of beliefs that arise from looking at the world, the universe, life, existence from a natural rather than natural/supernatural position. They rule out the supernatural. Everything is explained from inside the box (the box being the universe).

PGA2.0

03.17.2022 02:58PM

#56

-->

@ComputerNerd

ME: "Scientists argue that the universe had a beginning, including time, space, and matter. Therefore the cause of that must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. As a contingent being, you seem to fill in the gaps by science (really scientism) of the gaps by your denial or lack of evidence for God."

COMP: "The infinitely small [1] chance of [2] a atom being created that compresses itself and [3] explodes to create [4] a fully functional universe, is [5] STILL more likely than a fully conscious, fully complete, all powerful deity appearing out of mid-air. [6] There will always be knowledge locked away from us, and there is no use filling that hole with stories, [7] in the form of the Bible, [8] WHICH have been proved to be written CENTURIES after they were supposed to happen."

[1] You are using chance as a creative agent, not a mathematical probability. What ability does chance as a creative force have to do anything? Chance has no ability, no intentionality, no agency.

[2] Where did the atom come from? Science investigates causality. What caused the atom? The BB is the effect. Einstein (reluctantly) and others believe that space, time, and matter had a beginning.

If nothing existed before space, time, and matter, how can something exist from NOTHING? What kind of logical absurdity is that? What is nothing? Is it something? If the physical realm began to exist, then it was caused by something non-physical. Time can't be infinite. It has a beginning. You can't measure something eternal. If you started counting to infinity, you would never get there. There would be no less infinite numerals left than when you first began. How would you get to the present from infinity? The eternal is outside something that started to. God transcends time.

[3] What was there to cause the explosion? Something that does not exist cannot create itself. If time, space, matter came into existence, they need a cause.

[4] Again, what is the agency to do this? Why would a random, chance happenstance create purpose and order from chaos? Again, without a mind behind the universe, there is NO reason.

[5] Says who? The universe has to have a sufficient explanation for its existence. How does a mindless, uncaring nothing give such an explanation? If the universe were eternal, existing in the B-series of time, it still doesn't explain its ability to do things. Not only this, but the universe appears fine-tuned for life and existence. We can DISCOVER laws that do not depend upon us for their existence. We don't invent these laws; we discover them. We are not necessary for their existence. They exist despite us. Why? You, as a human, make and obey laws other human beings put in place. They are put in place by intelligent minds. Why not for the universe, too? Why can we describe things in mathematical precision? It takes minds to do maths. It takes minds to reason. Why should we be able to reason and find answers if the universe is a chance product? NO reason. Things just happen. No reason they should continue to occur in an orderly pattern or fashion. Yet they do. The uniformity of nature is the reason we can do science. We can predict because things continue to happen in a repetitive manner. How does that happen by chance happenstance? If I roll a six once, what are the chances it will happen a second time, a million times in a row, and continually without intent and agency (I.e., SOMEONE fixing the dice)?

[6] The only reason you can discover knowledge is that truth is to be found. Why would that be so in a willy-nilly chance happenstance universe? NO reason. Yet you continually find reasons. Go figure.

[7] The Bible gives reasons that make sense. We, as human beings, were created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, we are conscious, rational, intelligent beings who can create, design, and reason why. A mindless, chance universe is not conscious, mindful, reasoning, intelligent. One DNA cell has enough information in it to be mind-boggling. From the microscopic to the macroscopic, everything points to intelligence. You, indoctrinated into a particular way of thinking, do not consider this.

[8] I challenge you to show me that statement of yours is true.

ComputerNerd

03.17.2022 04:00AM

#55

-->

@PGA2.0

YOU: So what? If atheism is a belief system, as you admit, and if it denies God is the cause, then it must have a natural cause for the universe and everything in existence. Once you reject the supernatural as a plausible explanation, all that is left is the natural. Therefore, everything that exists you try to explain from within the box (i.e., the universe). Not only this, but you do not have a sufficient cause for the universe if you believe it began to exist. Scientists speculate in all kinds of theories of what might have happened if a blind, indifferent chance is the maker. It just doesn't make sense. You need a necessary, self-existent (eternal), non-physical/immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, intelligent, revealing Creator to make sense of the universe. Scientists argue that the universe had a beginning, including time, space, and matter. Therefore the cause of that must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. As a contingent being, you seem to fill in the gaps by science (really scientism) of the gaps by your denial or lack of evidence for God

ME:
The infinitely small chance of a atom being created that compresses itself and explodes to create a fully functional universe, is STILL more likely than a fully conscious, fully complete, all powerful deity appearing out of mid-air. There will always be knowledge locked away from us, and there is no use filling that hole with stories, in the form of the Bible, WHICH have been proved to be written CENTURIES after they were supposed to happen.

YOU: No, it does not because, as I pointed out, that is not all atheism is, just a lack of belief in God. You have to bring in a whole slew of beliefs to explain existence by denying God, as I pointed out.

ME: I am not fully atheist or religious in belief, so I don't necessarily have a proper answer to this claim, however, it is in my judgement that a higher ratio of PRO atheist beliefs to CON atheist beliefs would be a way to decide if one is atheist.

YOU: Why??? Are you the debate police? Do you decide what I can and can't say regarding the debate after the debate has finished? Are you trying to censor my discussion and my justification of why I feel the vote missed the point? Am I not free to comment?

Not at all! I simply wanted to point out that, even if you were justified on this, moderators aren't able to change the debate after it's finished, so there's no use in putting in this much effort to rebuttals.

PGA2.0

03.16.2022 07:39PM

#54

-->

@Double_R

@Bones

@ComputerNerd

You: "What is so difficult about that? Why MUST people commit themselves to answering this question in your view?"

Are you an atheist or agnostic?

"History and Etymology for atheism
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

a - without/against
theos - god

"Atheism is in the broadest sense a rejection of any belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities and any statements to the contrary are false ones.[1][2][5][6] This is not to be confused with 'negative atheism' (or agnosticism) which declares that there is no evidence or knowledge about gods or god and thus has no belief in reference to a God or gods.[7] It is an important distinction because young children are not 'atheists' simply because they have no view on God or gods. The infant would have no evidence for any view on the topic. The English term 'atheist' was used at least as early as the sixteenth century and atheistic ideas and their influence have a longer history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

Note - a rejection of God or gods.
Note - specifically, "no deities" and any statement to the contrary is FALSE.

YOU: "BTW it's not that I'm ignoring the rest of your posts, it's because I am here going back and forth with you as a judge in this debate and being that I cast the deciding vote against you I feel like that should be the focus here. I would love to address the rest but it's not relevant to my vote and I just don't have the time to go point by point right now. I would gladly discuss these other points at a later time when I have more time to spare."

The vote is cast. It is pasted. I am pointing out why I believe it was a misjudgment on your part from my point of view. I wanted to hear your justification. I also wanted a discussion on the debate. I still do not believe PRos viewpoint was more reasonable. I don't think he can provide a sufficient warrant to justify his position in three of his four arguments, and the fourth was doubtful. In answering my arguments, I believe he also failed.

As for it being relevant, I don't think you can make sense of the existence of humanity, life, the universe, morality, etc., without first presupposing God. I invite you to try. IMO, when you judge, you bring hidden presuppositions into the mix. How do I know that? Because no one is neutral.

PGA2.0

03.16.2022 07:38PM

#53

-->

@Double_R

@Bones

@ComputerNerd

ME: "I had a right to respond and dispute his claim, significantly when he changed it from a lack of belief to "only" a lack of belief"

YOU: "Are you really being serious?"

Yes.

***

YOU: "Please explain the difference between "a lack of belief" and "only a lack of belief.""

A lack of belief in God means that you have to fill the supernatural gap with the natural in explaining anything to do with origins, morality, existence, etc. Thus, atheism is a worldview that tries to explain existence, origins, morality from a naturalistic frame of mind.

ONLY a lack of belief does not include any other beliefs. Basically, 'only' signifies that atheism is NOTHING MORE than disbelief in God or gods. That is not all it is, for it explains the world, the universe, everything by natural causes. Remember, once you deny the supernatural God or gods, what is left? Not only this, but atheists on this site and elsewhere argue against and deny the God of Christianity. That is a belief in itself too. You can't argue against something unless you believe in something else as the cause or explanation. And atheists argue against God.

***

ME: "So, lack of belief or denial of God or gods leaves you with a naturalistic system of BELIEF as the answer, or your mind and perhaps an illusion. Would you disagree?"

YOU: "Yes.

YOU: "God either exists or he does not exist. There is no other option."

Or you exist, and everything is a figment of your imagination, and the universe is just an illusion you create because you are lonely with yourself. But this position is not well defended. I agree, either God or random chance happenstance, no other sensible options, and without God, how sensible is the explanation of existence?

***

YOU: "Belief does not work the same way. There are longer just two possibilities, there are three: you can either believe God exists, believe god does not exist, or remain undecided on what to believe. The latter is a middle ground which does not exist within the actual answer to the question.

One who remains undecided does not have to fill the "gap" with anything. They can simply recognize that they have no rational way to explain existence and leave it at that."

***

One who remains undecided is an agnostic, not an atheist. An atheist is without God. An agnostic is not sure. The definition has of atheism has been redefined to include soft and hard atheism. Weak atheism is just another word for agnosticism, IMO. An agnostic does not know. Initially, the atheist believed they knew there was no God. Both atheists and agnostics live life as if God does not exist.

PGA2.0

03.16.2022 06:34PM

#52

-->

@ComputerNerd

Your Words:
"Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods."

***

Those were the words Bones used to describe atheism in the Description.

***

"Notice that Atheism is only a lack of belief - it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science. It is simply a lack of belief."

***

These were the words Bones used in the R1.

***

ME: "Is atheism ONLY a lack of belief? No, it is not. I had a right to respond and dispute his claim significantly when he changed it from a lack of belief to "only" a lack of belief. I could have gotten into the word's history and what it meant more than I did, but my interest was in refuting "ONLY" a lack of belief. It is a belief system in its own right."

***
My argument in my R1 was that atheism is a worldview. If you lack belief in God, you have a belief in something else to explain existence, origins, morality, and My response to Bones R1 that preceded my argument stating atheism was ONLY a lack of belief was to say, no, that is incorrect. That is not all atheism is. By lacking belief in God, you explain and believe that nature, your mind and other contingent minds, and materialism are sufficient in understanding the universe and things in it. Do you deny this?

***

ME: "It is a belief system in its own right"

YOU: "Are you serious? The definition he mentioned was a lack of belief in God or Gods. Despite it being a separate belief system, the term "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in a spiritual entity."

***

So what? If atheism is a belief system, as you admit, and if it denies God is the cause, then it must have a natural cause for the universe and everything in existence. Once you reject the supernatural as a plausible explanation, all that is left is the natural. Therefore, everything that exists you try to explain from within the box (i.e., the universe). Not only this, but you do not have a sufficient cause for the universe if you believe it began to exist. Scientists speculate in all kinds of theories of what might have happened if a blind, indifferent chance is the maker. It just doesn't make sense. You need a necessary, self-existent (eternal), non-physical/immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, intelligent, revealing Creator to make sense of the universe. Scientists argue that the universe had a beginning, including time, space, and matter. Therefore the cause of that must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. As a contingent being, you seem to fill in the gaps by science (really scientism) of the gaps by your denial or lack of evidence for God.

***

YOU: "As well as this, the change in sentence structure JUSTIFIES the use of "only a lack of belief" instead of "a lack of belief."

No, it does not because, as I pointed out, that is not all atheism is, just a lack of belief in God. You have to bring in a whole slew of beliefs to explain existence by denying God, as I pointed out.

***

YOU: "Even if you can justify any of this, the debates over. If you're salty, go rematch him with an updated description and definitions."

Why??? Are you the debate police? Do you decide what I can and can't say regarding the debate after the debate has finished? Are you trying to censor my discussion and my justification of why I feel the vote missed the point? Am I not free to comment?

ComputerNerd

03.16.2022 08:40AM

#51

-->

@PGA2.0

Your Words:
"Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods."

"Notice that Atheism is only a lack of belief - it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science. It is simply a lack of belief."

Is atheism ONLY a lack of belief? No, it is not. I had a right to respond and dispute his claim, significantly when he changed it from a lack of belief to "only" a lack of belief. I could have gotten into the word's history and what it meant more than I did, but my interest was in refuting "ONLY" a lack of belief. It is a belief system in its own right.

"It is a belief system in it's own right"
Are you serious? The definition he mentioned was a lack of belief in God or Gods. Despite it being a separate belief system, the term "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in a spiritual entity.

As well as this, the change in sentence structure JUSTIFIES the use of "only a lack of belief" instead of "a lack of belief."

Even if you can justify any of this, the debates over. If you're salty, go rematch him with an updated description and definitions.

Double_R

03.15.2022 10:28PM

#50

“ I had a right to respond and dispute his claim, significantly when he changed it from a lack of belief to "only" a lack of belief”

Are you really being serious?

Please explain the difference between “a lack of belief” and “only a lack of belief”.

“ So, lack of belief or denial of God or gods leaves you with a naturalistic system of BELIEF as the answer, or your mind and perhaps an illusion. Would you disagree?”

Yes.

God either exists or he does not exist. There is no other option.

Belief does not work the same way. There are longer just two possibilities, there are three: you can either believe God exists, believe god does not exist, or remain undecided on what to believe. The latter is a middle ground which does not exist within the actual answer to the question.

One who remains undecided does not have to fill the “gap” with anything. They can simply recognize that they have no rational way to explain existence and leave it at that.

What is so difficult about that? Why MUST people commit themselves to answering this question in your view?

BTW it’s not that I’m ignoring the rest of your posts, it’s because I am here going back and forth with you as a judge in this debate and being that I cast the deciding vote against you I feel like that should be the focus here. I would love to address the rest but it’s not relevant to my vote and I just don’t have the time to go point by point right now. I would gladly discuss these other points at a later time when I have more time to spare.

PGA2.0

03.15.2022 08:54PM

#49

-->

@Double_R

ME: “ He avoids making sense of these questions while representing the atheistic position of lack of belief in God or gods.”

YOU: "Like I eluded to in my RFD and below, once the definition of atheism established in the terms of the debate is accepted, all of these arguments become moot. Pro doesn’t have to explain morality because there is nothing about a lack of belief in a god that would burden one to do so.

***

Nope, once the definition is changed you want me to say nothing of it. That is what it boils done to.

***

YOU: "I understand that you vehemently disagree with the definition, but you’re allowing your personal opinion of what the definition should be cloud your entire perception of the problem I’m pointing out to you. Accept just for one second, just for the sake of argument that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief… what is Pro’s burden in this debate?"

***

Yes, I do disagree. I explained what a worldview was and why atheism qualifies. Yes, I agreed, it can be a lack of belief, but much more of the time it is a denial. Atheists certainly live their life as if God does not exist. They look for explanations excluding God for their existence.

As for my personal opinion, do the facts match it or not? Answer my last post by justifying the facts do not. Are you an atheist? I think you used to be, but I see that you have no profile description. If an atheist, then do you have beliefs about the world, the universe, your existence, and the existence of humanity? Do those explanations entail a purely natural explanation? If not, what else?

*****

ME: “By denying God or gods, they fill the gap with other explanations or else they are complete dummies. So they have beliefs that do not look to God or gods as an explanation.”

YOU: "You are again confusing atheists with atheism. I can show you countless examples of Christians using Christianity to justify all kinds of irrational and horrible things. That doesn’t make those things part of Christianity."

Nope. Not in its original sense. An atheist is different from an agnostic or theist. He denies (lives without - 'a') the existence of God, or gods. He claims there is no God or gods. An agnostic is not sure? He also lives as if there is no God or gods. A theist affirms God or gods. While both the Christian and the atheist can live counter to their beliefs and hold all kinds of counter and irrational beliefs and act on them, the atheist has a belief - he does not believe in God or gods. And with such a belief, it necessarily leads to other beliefs. So, in effect, the atheist has all kinds of beliefs that he has to hold to attempt to make sense of existence that does not include God or gods. All kinds. IMO, you just don't like the label and neither do others, thus, in recent years the atheist community has taken to redefine the meaning. That way they can avoid the burden of proof. But, in effect, they live as if God does not exist, they think and explain without reference to God, all the while arguing for His lack of existence, complaining about how unjust He is, but never explaining how justice and meaning come from an amoral, uncaring universe. If there is no purpose to life then ultimately what difference does it make how you live it? How do you determine right from such a meaningless universe? Is it actually right, or just your preference? If there is no ultimate standard what makes your preference any more right than anyone else's?

PGA2.0

03.15.2022 07:58PM

#48

-->

@Double_R

ME: "I refuted that ONLY throughout the whole debate."

YOU: "You can't refute the terms and conditions agreed to before the debate."

***************************************************************************

Did Pro change the definition in his R1?
Here is the definition -

"Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods."

Here is what Pro argued in R1 -

"Notice that Atheism is only a lack of belief - it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science. It is simply a lack of belief."

When you deny God or gods, you fill the gap with another BELIEF system, usually naturalism. Atheists have BELIEFS about Christians' same things - origins, morality, truth, knowledge, etc. Instead of God as an explanation, it is usually filled with naturalistic answers alone. There are only a handful of possibilities/explanations for why the universe exists (and subsequently us), 1—God, random chance happenstance, or 3. an illusion. Care to list other means that make sense of the universe? So once you jettison God, you are left with the other two (which I argue can't make sense of things, they just pose as if they can), or perhaps you would like to propose something else? So, lack of belief or denial of God or gods leaves you with a naturalistic system of BELIEF as the answer, or your mind and perhaps an illusion. Would you disagree?

So try and make sense of existence without a personal, necessary, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal, immutable God as the most reasonable explanation. That is what the atheist attempts. He is seldom called on it since the gatekeeper of societies prevents serious discussion by ridicule, propaganda, misrepresentation, banding together, and a host of other issues, IMO.

FLRW

03.14.2022 08:59PM

#47

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn't add up. There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus' historical existence. Hence Atheism is more reasonable.

Double_R

03.14.2022 05:48PM

#46

-->

@PGA2.0

Reach out to me if you want to do it. Like I said, I’m going to be away for about a month with little to no activity here so I’ll probably be back regularly on the site by around mid April

Double_R

03.14.2022 05:46PM

#45

“ I refuted that ONLY throughout the whole debate”

You can’t refute the terms and conditions agreed to before the debate.

“ He avoids making sense of these questions while representing the atheistic position of lack of belief in God or gods.”

Like I eluded to in my RFD and below, once the definition of atheism established in the terms of the debate is accepted, all of these arguments become moot. Pro doesn’t have to explain morality because there is nothing about a lack of belief in a god that would burden one to do so.

I understand that you vehemently disagree with the definition, but you’re allowing your personal opinion of what the definition should be cloud your entire perception of the problem I’m pointing out to you. Accept just for one second, just for the sake of argument that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief… what is Pro’s burden in this debate?

“By denying God or gods, they fill the gap with other explanations or else they are complete dummies. So they have beliefs that do not look to God or gods as an explanation.”

You are again confusing atheists with atheism. I can show you countless examples of Christians using Christianity to justify all kinds of irrational and horrible things. That doesn’t make those things part of Christianity.

PGA2.0

03.14.2022 04:28PM

#44

-->

@Double_R

@Bones

Let me put it another way. As an atheist, does he believe in ontology, cosmology, origins, and morality? If so, he has a worldview that looks at life, usually from a naturalistic or materialistic point of view. I would list a whole slew of atheists as my examples. By denying God or gods, they fill the gap with other explanations or else they are complete dummies. So they have beliefs that do not look to God or gods as an explanation. They don't lack beliefs on these fronts. They argue mostly from naturalism, which engulfs empiricism (the five senses), materialism (matter is the fundamental substance of all things), secular humanism (the human as the measure), physicalism (the physical is all there is), scientism (science is the only method and only authoritative in determining anything as proof).

PGA2.0

03.14.2022 03:59PM

#43

-->

@Double_R

@Bones

The title of the debate is, "Atheism is, on balance, more reasonable than Christianity."

"Atheism is," meaning atheists have a BoP.

Atheism is (on balance) more reasonable than Christianity. That is the prime contention.

Then Pro, representing the atheist position, continually says that he has no BoP, that the ONLY thing atheism is ONLY lack of belief in God or gods. That is not all atheism is, and Pro demonstrates that by making arguments from cosmology, ontology, morality, and origins. Those areas of debate delve into the questions of truth, authority, and epistemology, among other things. How does Pro know these things? He must have beliefs that oppose the beliefs in God or gods to construct a worldview that is different from Christianity. He does just that.

D_R: "It defines "Christianity," "more reasonable," and then "atheism.""

Notice the definitions given by PGA and the ones provided by Bones to clarify some terms and the general ones. Notice that Pro defines atheism as "A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods." Now notice in R1 Pro sheds off his BoP, per the title, and also redefines the definition of atheism to be, "Atheism is ONLY a lack of belief - it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science. It is simply a lack of belief." I refuted that ONLY throughout the whole debate. Once one denies God or gods, what is left to believe in other than materialism and nature or, as Pro pointed out, solipsism, and once you go there, I question the authority of the solipsist, among other things. Who would be Pros' ultimate authority without God or gods?

How did Pro answer my questions on morality and the problem of evil? How should Pro live as an atheist if there is no purpose for life? He believes in how to do this, but they don't answer why something is good in an amoral uncaring universe. Why is his OPINION or PREFERENCE any BETTER than mine? He never establishes there is truth or an objective moral standard. He avoids making sense of these questions while representing the atheistic position of lack of belief in God or gods. He avoids any burden of proof. He never gives his standard for determining gratuitous evil or even what that means. His definition in the Description is a definition for evil, not gratuitous evil. Does he think they are precisely the same? Who is his authority on gratuitous evil? He never identifies one. Is it himself? Does he think he is necessary for determining what is RIGHT and GOOD? No, he just throws out these terms then denies that he has any BoP as an atheist. We know Pro is not necessary for rights and the good if they existed before he did. Only personal beings have authority, so who is his ultimate authority? He avoids identifying it while representing the atheistic position. He never identifies his standard and why it is good or better. Better than what? There is no refers there. He just throws out these terms and avoids a BoP. Does he think that is more reasonable while representing atheism?

PGA2.0

03.14.2022 03:16PM

#42

-->

@Double_R

@Bones

D_R, yes, I am interested in debating the meaning of atheism, but I have a pending debate with Skepticalone first. I might consider doing two at once. Let me think about it.

Double_R

03.14.2022 12:11PM

#41

-->

@PGA2.0

If you’re interested, I wouldn’t mind doing a debate on the definition of atheism. I would defend the lack of belief definition and take full BoP. Would have to be next month though, about to all but disappear for a few weeks.

Double_R

03.14.2022 12:09PM

#40

-->

@PGA2.0

The definition is in the description of the debate under general terms. It defines “Christianity”, “more reasonable”, and then “atheism”. The definition provided is “A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods”. I don’t know what background conversation you guys may have had, but that’s all the judges have to go by so you need to read it carefully before accepting the debate.

That turned out to be crucial here because it determined what Pro is supposed to be defending in this debate, which was not a world view but rather a rejection of one very specific claim - “god exists”.

It really is that simple, I can see you vehemently disagree with that definition of atheism, but that’s the definition according to this debate.

PGA2.0

03.12.2022 08:51PM

#39

-->

@Double_R

@Bones

BoP and lack of belief:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QepTGHiSSn4

PGA2.0

03.12.2022 07:41PM

#38

-->

@Double_R

@Bones

Final,

The scope of the debate was defined in the heading, "Atheism, is on balance, more reasonable than theism."

Besides his four arguments, what reasons did Pro give to suggest atheism was more reasonable than theism? He denied he even had a position all when while arguing for a position. And when he replied to my four lines of evidence that Christianity was more reasonable, did he show that it was not the case? No, he avoided explaining his standard for morality, how he arrives at gratuitous evil, that his view of Occam's Razor on naturalism versus Christianity was correct, that his AKCA could be true if Special Relativity was incorrect, or in fact even if his view on time was true. Einstein and others stated that time, matter, and space had a beginning. The ontological argument as he stated it in his syllogism fell on its face too, IMO.

PGA2.0

03.12.2022 07:25PM

#37

-->

@Double_R

@Bones

Continuing,

So, as Frank Turek pointed out, in the link above, atheism.
1. If atheism is merely or ONLY a lack of belief the atheist offers no evidence against God. (This is not true, as I pointed out)
2. Trees, rocks, etc., also qualify. They lack belief too. 'Only' applies to them.
3. Most atheists try to explain the world and existence, as did Bones, representing the atheist position all the while arguing that an atheist
does not have a position other than only their lack of belief in God or gods.
4. "They believe in certain theories to explain reality without God" (as shown by Bones in our debate). Atheists still try to explain reality, as did Bones.
5. Atheists usually express a POSITIVE belief in materialism, naturalism, secular humanism, empiricism, science (really scientism), physicalism, etc., in explaining reality. They, as atheists, don't lack a belief in materialism or these other isms listed. They flock to these beliefs.
6. Having no BoP is nonsense. Atheists not only identify what they believe are deficiencies in theism (I.e., on this debate forum I think of Stephen), but they also make the case for naturalism/materialism/empiricism in their arguments (I think of many others, including you, D_R). Once God is jettisoned, they either come from a position of their own minds as sufficient for truth and what is, or they rely on materialism and the natural realm, expressed through subjective beings. They look for the answers within the box as to why the box is there.
https://crossexamined.org/atheism-lack-belief-god/

[3] Nope. Everything is off the table once the definition is changed to ONLY a lack of belief. Pro was trying to avoid his commitment to a BoP by stating "a lack of belief in God or gods." But when he said ONLY I rebuked his statement by opening up what atheism actually is, and how the definition and the atheist, before it became embarrassing to admit it, were adamantly denying God or gods, especially the Christian God because a movement, the Enlightenment and Age of Reason thought humanity could explain existence without reference to God or gods. Humanity became the measure of all things. This thought pattern is not new; it happened with Adam in the Garden when the serpent asked, "Did God really say?" and by disobeying God, Adam (and humanity) opened their minds to evil.

As I pointed out in the debate, the atheist cannot explain or justify evil. And Bones never gave a sufficient reason for gratuitous evil. To think that someone like Hitler, in all he did, did not suffer the same kind of pain he put others through. It is not equal justice. Equal justice is an eye for an eye, life for life. In fact, the atheist cannot explain morality. That is why it is safer to hide behind "merely a lack of belief." In this way, there is no accountability for what he believes.

Bones, in this very debate, presented a naturalistic belief system as representing the atheist.

PGA2.0

03.12.2022 07:24PM

#36

-->

@Double_R

@Bones

Thanks for the reply, D_R!

ME: "Again, after Pro continually argued atheism is not a belief (i.e., no position except a lack of belief in God or gods), he argued for a position. Does that make sense? How is that most reasonable?"

YOU: "Pro never argued in favor of any particular worldview. Every argument he made was in refutation of theistic claims. [1]

I understand your frustration in feeling like you were duped into a shared BoP debate only to be left having to prove your worldview while your opponent just gets to swat it down and not make any claims himself. The single biggest mistake you made was accepting the terms of the debate which clearly define atheism as a lack of belief. Once that happens the only thing Pro has to demonstrate is the reasonableness of not accepting god as defined. [2]

As I strive to be objective in this debate and I see that perhaps the single biggest contention in this debate centers around the definition of atheism, the only thing I can do is see what the rules state and apply it. And once "lack of belief" is established, that renders nearly half of your case moot. [3]

It's always a shame when good debates go off on two different pages, but it's on the participants to know the rules they agreed to and engage within them.

*****************************************

[1] In Pros' very first round, under the subtopic 'Atheism' stated, "Notice that Atheism is ONLY a lack of belief..." That is simply not the case. That statement changed the definition of atheism before I had made any arguments and needed expounding on.

[2] Again, Pro decided in his 1st round of the debate that he would not be accountable for anything other than his four topics. In his previous debates, I rightly pointed out that Pro had very well explained what the BoP is, yet was unwilling to follow it here. Pro also tried to justify atheism as nothing more than a lack of belief in God or gods by analogies to fairies and celestial teapots. I rightly pointed out that each argument needed to be evaluated on its own evidence.

Remember, the term ONLY a lack of belief is not true, and it needs to be flushed out. I found this gem today, but it mirrors my views in many ways of what I presented in the debate, probably because many Christian apologists share ideas or have pat answers to these questions. Here is the link - https://crossexamined.org/atheism-lack-belief-god/

Some of my sources for these ideas on atheism came from the influence of other Christian apologists such as Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Kenneth Samples, Ronald Nash, John Frame, William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, Greg Koukle, Peter Kreeft, Jim Wallace, J.P. Moreland, Edward Feser, Norn Geisler, R.C. Sproul, Nancy Pearcey, Francis Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis, Andy Bannister and many others, including some of the early church fathers. Andy Bannister's book, The Atheist Who Didn't Exist, went into much detail about why atheism is more than ONLY a lack of belief. Many atheistic books and websites include materialism as a necessary belief for any thinking atheist. Of course, just like Christianity, some atheists work on blind faith. I recognize that. They haven't examined why they believe what they do or the evidence for the Christian God. They blindly accept the credentials of others without examining how these people arrived at such a BELIEF. As I said, if you reject God or gods, then for the thinker, there needs to be an explanation that uses nature or the natural realm to explain our existence and the important things of life, the things that constitute a worldview. There are only a few explanations of why we are here when you get through all the bull. 1) A necessary self-existing being created us. 2) Nature is responsible (i.e., random, chance happenstance). 3) This is an illusion. Of course, some people just don't care. When you examine these three positions, two are unreasonable, and only one is justifiable - the Christian God.

PGA2.0

03.12.2022 05:34PM

#35

-->

@whiteflame

@Bones

Thank you. I appreciate your feedback, whether for or against.

whiteflame

03.12.2022 03:23PM

#34

-->

@PGA2.0

@Bones

This one's next on my list, guys, sorry for not getting to it during the voting period. Should have it done by the end of the weekend.

Double_R

03.12.2022 02:26AM

#33

-->

@PGA2.0

Forgot to tag you…

Double_R

03.12.2022 02:25AM

#32

“Again, after Pro continually argued atheism is not a belief (i.e., no position except a lack of belief in God or gods), he argued for a position. Does that make sense? How is that most reasonable?”

Pro never argued in favor of any particular worldview. Every argument he made was in refutation of theistic claims.

As I strive to be objective in this debate and I see that perhaps the single biggest contention in this debate centers around the definition of atheism, the only thing I can do is see what the rules state and apply it. And once “lack of belief” is established, that renders nearly half of your case moot.

It’s always a shame when good debates go off on two different pages, but it’s on the participants to know the rules they agreed to and engage within them.

“ Again, it proves atheism is a worldview. Pro has filled his lack of belief in God with many other beliefs. Once he jettisoned God or gods, he was forced to look upon existence in a naturalistic framework.”

That’s just not true. One does not have to accept the claim “god does not exist” in order to not accept the claim “god exists”. They can instead just say “I don’t know if there’s a god”.

Even if one accepts other claims such as materialism, that doesn’t make materialism, atheism. That just makes one an atheist who *also* accepts materialism.

I don’t have time to respond to the rest. If there’s anything in particular you want a response on let me know.

PGA2.0

03.11.2022 03:56PM

#31

-->

@Double_R

@Bones

D_R: "This was a fantastic debate which both participants deserve credit for, it's shame that only one side could win but that's just how it works."

There is another possibility, a draw.

D_R: "The resolution being debated here is that Atheism is on balance more reasonable than Christianity. Each participant lead their argument with 4 different points to substantiate their position, so my first step is to sort through each participant's arguments to determine which if any should be awarded."

Again, after Pro continually argued atheism is not a belief (i.e., no position except a lack of belief in God or gods), he argued for a position. Does that make sense? How is that most reasonable?

R1: "Immediately, the nature of this debate becomes clear - this is a conversation whereby a lack of belief is judged against a belief..."

Again, if atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods...period, what is most reasonable about it on the eight topics of discussion and contention? How can Pro offer these four as reasons if it is nothing but disbelief in God? Again, it proves atheism is a worldview. Pro has filled his lack of belief in God with many other beliefs. Once he jettisoned God or gods, he was forced to look upon existence in a naturalistic framework.

R1: "Notice that Atheism is ONLY a lack of belief - it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science."

Only? If the supernatural is ruled out, what does Pro have left as a choice in explaining existence? Again, he is working from his subjective mind, or that of other subjective minds, on philosophical issues no one witnessed and no one can repeat. At the same time while denying God ( his disbelief in God) he MUST then believe in something else. His whole worldview is forced into naturalism, pantheism/panentheism (the universe as conscious, rocks, living things, everything is part of this whole), or solipsism, but there are no personal Beings or beings responsible. Thus, he is working from a position of random, chance, unreasoning happenstance, not intent and purpose (his AKCA is left without intent or purpose), while he finds meaning and purpose from everything he looks at. Is that more reasonable than the Christian or theist position?

R1: "Thus, questions such as "how did the universe begin," or "does objective morality exist" are not important, as an atheist does not tautologically prescribe to any particular belief in these questions."

Again, if lack of belief in God or gods is all atheism is, how can Pro, representing atheism in this debate, make more sense or show atheism is more reasonable in the other areas of discussion? That boggles my mind.

R1: "I assert that the "problems" with the atheistic worldview are not actually problems and that voters ought only to consider the solution provided by Christianity as this is most harmonious with the scientific method."

In the scientific method, in order for a hypothesis to be successful, experimenters must prove that the hypothesis is true by showing that it can make testable predictions, not by showing that alternatives are faulty."

It is not science that determines but scientists who come with biases and preconceived ideologies. They interpret the information. It does not come already interpreted for them. The data says nothing; scientists do.

R1: "This is known as the God of the Gaps, which is the theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence."

What about the science of the gaps? Pros theological perspective is that because science has not and cannot prove God, it is taken as evidence that God does not exist. Thus, supernaturalism is ruled out, and science examines everything from a naturalistic position. Again, there is a gap in the scientist's knowledge. It is also a position in which if it is not scientific evidence, it cannot be evidence (scientism). Some things are self-evident (another example, the laws of logic). Notice that Pro used philosophical arguments, like the anti-Kalam Cosmological argument, to state his "therefore God does not exist," while his premises were in question about their truthfulness.

R1: "What my opponent needs to do is to support his thesis, not disprove others."

In this debate, there is the affirmative and the negative. Not only that, the very fact is that scientists also use anomalies to disprove a theory, as stated by Carl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. The greater the anomalies, the greater the probability that the theory will be discarded for one with fewer inconsistencies.

PGA2.0

03.08.2022 09:33PM

#30

-->

@Double_R

@Bones

D_R: "One other thing that stood out to me is that Pro consistently quoted philosophers expressing various ideas and concepts to which Con responded by attacking the bias of said philosophers. This is a clear way to lose an argument. The person being quoted is irrelevant to the point being made. Con should have engaged in the point, doing otherwise comes off as a red herring."

First off, no one is neutral. We all have biases. I was pointing out those biases from the sources Pro was using. These guys, especially Hitchen, had a beef with Christianity. Pro charged me as using ad homs here, without a lick of evidence against my position. Did he provide evidence to the contrary? No, he just stated it. And why do you think my position was irrelevant? In a court of law, the character of the eyewitness is very often brought into question. I was doing the same thing here. Then you charged me with not engaging in the point. I did.

On Russell's teapot argument, I presented two counter-arguments. 1) The analogy fails because the evidence for Christianity and the biblical God is vast compared to Russell's teapot analogy. The evidence holds together consistently, too, from the biblical manuscripts. 2) The one less God argument. Pro used the same kind of example with afairism, the one less God argument. That is to say, because the argument for the tooth fairy, the flying spaghetti monster, or the celestial teapot are reasons to doubt any are true; they are not on a par with the evidence for a biblical God. Each case needs to be examined on the merits of its own evidence or lack thereof. I gave adequate reasons on why Christianity rings true. Its ability to explain origins, morality, truth, logic far outseed anything Pro offered for the atheistic standpoint. Its internal and external evidence is also consistent with what we know. I gave the example of prophecy as an example. 1) The manuscripts show evidence they were written before the facts. The facts happened. When Jesus forecast the destruction of the temple and OT system, these things happened as foretold. Pro failed to engage much on this subject to show his position more reasonable.

PGA2.0

03.08.2022 09:09PM

#29

-->

@Double_R

@Bones

D_R: "If Con wanted to argue against the definition of atheism he should not have accepted the debate as it was constructed, so I see no other option than to give Pro this section because this undercuts a significant portion of Con’s arguments in this debate."

No. In LUQs, I argued for atheism as a worldview, that Pro actually held a position on all these topics of debate. Pro instead turned it into an issue by stating atheism is not belief but lack of belief. What then was he arguing about in representing the atheist position??? Here is what he said in R1:

"Immediately, the nature of this debate becomes clear - this is a conversation whereby a lack of belief is judged against a belief."

How can you judge a lack of belief? What would he then be arguing for???

What Pro was trying to do from the start was avoid explaining his position and putting all the burden on my position. Thus, he did not have to explain anything and he avoided so many of my concerns in doing so. I did not think that such a position was at all reasonable. I, as a Christian, gave adequate explanations. They were plausible and they made sense of morality, evil, ontology, origins.

Before he made any other arguments he attacked the BoP. That was how he introduced his position and atheism was next. Yet, IMO, he failed to show how atheism was more reasonable in at least six of the eight points. I dropped arguing for logic based on the shortage of space, plus I felt the rest of the arguments I presented were adequate.

I welcome your discussion.

PGA2.0

03.08.2022 09:08PM

#28

-->

@Double_R

@Bones

While I appreciate Double_R taking the time to vote, I will continue my disagreements which I want to express to others to consider what was not said or noticed in the vote. Please note, I do this after the voting period is over so as not to bias the vote beforehand:

D-R: "Cons 4 arguments consisted of the LUQ, biblical evidence, morality, and logic. With regards to the LUQ I think con argued his views well but this became one of the biggest contentions in the debate… what is atheism? Both sides in my view spent way too much time on this point. As a judge my first actions to settle such a dispute is to look at the definitions at the start of the debate where it clearly defines atheism as "a lack of belief". If Con wanted to argue against the definition of atheism he should not have accepted the debate as it was constructed, so I see no other option than to give Pro this section because this undercuts a significant portion of Con's arguments in this debate. With regards to the other three points, both sides argued their positions well so I consider each of these neutral."

The problem came when Pro insisted that atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in God or gods, not a worldview or system of thinking. Yes, it starts as a denial or disbelief in God or gods, but it carries way further than that. Here is how it was defined in the Description:
"Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods."

I did my best to establish atheism as a worldview, which was important during the debate because Pro was arguing from the position of atheism as more reasonable than Christianity. In other debates on the existence of God, Pro argued the BoP was shared. Not so in this debate, even though he stated his burden of proof was only in his four arguments, not on other claims. Even here, he never justified how he knew something was gratuitously evil by pointing to a reasonable standard. He just stated it was gratuitous evil from a position of neutrality. He charged God (the OT) with such evil. What was his standard for "gratuitous" evil? He defined evil in the Description, not "gratuitous evil." How did he recognize something as such? He never justified he had an adequate explanation. In my moral argument, Pro failed to explain how something could be morally good or evil when it was in a state of flux based on no unchanging, fixed necessary standard. Why were his thoughts any "better" than my opposing thoughts? He never justified they were because his preferences were not adequate. Thus, my Christian position was more reasonable than the one he represented as an atheist.

Pro was making statements on life's ultimate questions, the AKCA, the ontological argument, gratuitous evil, from his atheist position while saying he had no position except one, the lack of belief in God or gods. I explained that to disbelieve or DENY God was to look at these ultimate questions mostly from a naturalistic position. The position from solipsism does not wash well either. Here was Pro trying to avoid any accountability for his position that represented atheism by saying he had no position as an atheist, or at least representing that position. At the same time, Pro was presenting a position. Is that most reasonable? Is it reasonable at all? His atheist position could not justify his points nor adequately refute mine. IMO, his strongest argument was the AKCA. The rest I felt I countered sufficiently to be more reasonable than his. With the AKCA I cut one leg off the stool. That was, I attacked the position of Special Relativity and questioned whether what we were looking at was science or was it philosophical scientism? If my memory serves correctly, Pro did not follow up on the scientism aspect.

Pro failed to be accountable by repeatedly stating the same theme, "There is not an "atheist" position on questions like these." Only on questions like that? At other times Pro, representing atheism, stated several positions.

PGA2.0

03.08.2022 05:13PM

#27

-->

@Double_R

@Bones

While I thank Double-R for voting, I disagree with many of his assessments. For instance:

D-R: "On the other hand, the gratuitous evil argument in my estimation stands. Pro did a good job of explaining that if God is omnibenevolent, there would be *no* evil, but Con accepted in the debate that God *uses* evil to achieve good. The only reason an all good God would need to use evil to achieve good is if he were not in control of his circumstances, but God in this debate is being defined as all powerful, so this exception is a clear contradiction of logic. Point to Pro."

On God's omnibenevolence, I argued, 1) God has a purpose for allowing evil, that greater good would come from it, not that He is the doer of evil.
2) God's permissive will gives His creation, the human, free will or volition to decide. God did not create humans as mere robots. This is an important point in who does evil. 3) God places the man in Eden and gives him a choice to eat of any tree in the Garden, except one. If the man eats of this tree, he will know both good and EVIL. His disobedience will create a rift before the holy and pure God. The man chooses to eat the fruit. 4) God holds the human being accountable for evil acts when He judges evil after physical death. 5) God will not take an innocent human life without restoring it to a better place. 6) How does the atheist account for evil if we are biological machines? 7) How can Pro reference evil without referencing the good? 8) What is Pros' ultimate standard in determining what is evil? Is it relative? 9) How does Pro, without God, account for justice? Do you feel Hitler gets his just reward in an atheistic system of thought? 10) I explained that the human is the one doing the gratuitous evil via his free will. How is this not a reasonable explanation? And how does Pro even know there is such a thing as gratuitous evil without first referencing what is necessary for such evil, an unchanging standard of reference. Pro never says. How is that more reasonable? Remember, this debate is about which view is more reasonable in explaining, atheism or Christianity. Pros statement, " Good is not necessary for the identification of evil, one can merely compare X act with neutrality," is nonsensical. How can someone judge something as evil unless he first knows what is the good? Do I get an answer to that? Pros analogy of the deer fell short, as I explained in R3. 11) The Is/Ought problem is brushed off. If there is no intelligent Designer behind the universe, then how does what something does make that evil. It is just doing its random chance actions for no reason. Reason requires intention. The 'whys' require causality and uniformity. I also argued in R3 how Pro misstated my argument that he called a strawman, that evil is addressed by a good God, that without God, evil is whatever Pro chooses to make it because it is relative. The perpetrator, such as Hitler, never gets equal punishment in the atheistic mind. Thus, I argue my argument was way better. Pro could not justify his position. He did not have the means to do so and he made a poor attempt at doing so. Thus, I disagree with Double-R's assessment.

Bones

03.07.2022 09:03PM

#26

-->

@Barney

Thanks for the feedback!

Barney

03.04.2022 10:08AM

#25

I can't get through this debate, but from how far I got into it, I'll give a few impressions...

BoP:
Back and forth on this rarely holds my interest in debates... Pro wants con to have primary BoP, yet this is clearly setup as a comparative debate. He advances this notion by mocking unfalsifiable beliefs. Con's counter to this includes an attack on the source for "his liberal view on sex and marriage did not coincide with the Christian worldview"; which is a poor tactic to try to refute it as it merely distracts from the issues in question...
I really like the setup for this debate having pre-agreed argument lines, among them this was not included, and it does not merit equal consideration to them.
Both debaters will obviously reach minimal BoP for their ideas to be taken seriously. Granted, a whole debate could be had on who has BoP.

Contention I: Anti-Kalam Cosmological argument
Such a loaded bit like this, should probably be its own debate. Also, hard for this to go anywhere we haven't read a dozen times over. I assume pro will list a bunch of scientists and their conclusion, and con will pull the Jesus card.
Pro operates as predicted...
Con, please do better at organizing arguments. Any voter needs to follow eight distinct contentions, through three rounds, each round being up to 50K characters. We should be able to type "Kalam" into the search bar to find your rebuttals. I get shortening it down to "AKCA," however, the first time you do that you should expand it like so: 'Anti-Kalam Cosmological argument (AKCA).' That said, you make some very good points on the limits of science and the remaining unknowns.
A lot of the problem I generally see with this whole line, is it feels like an invite for voters to vote their bias, without touching on which is "more fair and practical" which I believe should be the core focus of this debate given the resolution and definitions.

Anyways, it's very late, and I'm off to bed. Best of luck to you both.

Bones

03.04.2022 08:52AM

#24

would be a pity to have this debate go into a no vote tie.

PGA2.0

03.01.2022 03:37AM

#23

-->

@FLRW

The Christian would answer the opposite, so who is right? Christians argue that science points the other way, that is, towards belief in God. A random chance universe lacks intentionality, purpose, and sufficient explanation for the uniformity of nature and nature's laws. Frank Turek, Stealing from God shows how many atheistic arguments fail. He shows that atheists can't live by the same standards they impose on Christians.

FLRW

02.28.2022 10:09PM

#22

A good refutation of Con's origins of the Universe is in the book, God: The Failed Hypothesis, where physicist Victor Stenger argues that science has advanced sufficiently to make a definitive statement on the existence or nonexistence of the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. He invites readers to put their minds—and the scientific method—to work to test this claim.

After evaluating all the scientific evidence—the studies done by reputable institutions on the power of prayer; the writings of philosophers who have puzzled over the problem of God and of good and evil; the efforts of biblical scholars to prove the accuracy of holy scriptures; and the work of biologists, geologists, and astronomers looking for clues to a creator on Earth and in the cosmos—Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God. He convincingly shows that not only is there no evidence for the existence of God, but scientific observations actually point to his nonexistence.

Double_R

03.07.2022 11:54PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

This was a fantastic debate which both participants deserve credit for, it’s shame that only one side could win but that’s just how it works.

The resolution being debated here is that Atheism is on balance more reasonable than Christianity. Each participant lead their argument with 4 different points to substantiate their position, so my first step is to sort through each participant’s arguments to determine which if any should be awarded.

Pros 4 arguments consisted of the AKCA, gratuitous evil, the anti-ontological, and Occam's Razor. My biggest critique of Pro is that I felt his Occam’s Razor argument had by far the most potential to uphold the resolution but he essentially abandoned it. Since the debate is focused on the concept of “reasonable”, there would have been no clearer way to make that case convincingly than to focus on the foundations of how we go about reasoning, which is what OR addresses. Also while I find the AKCA and anti-ontological arguments interesting I don’t think that the case was made well enough to be considered satisfied beyond my own biases.

On the other hand, the gratuitous evil argument in my estimation stands. Pro did a good job of explaining that if God is omni-benevolent there would be *no* evil, but Con accepted in the debate that God *uses* evil to achieve good. The only reason an all good God would need to use evil to achieve good is if he were not in control of his circumstances, but God in this debate is being defined as all powerful, so this exception is a clear contradiction of logic. Point to Pro.

Cons 4 arguments consisted of the LUQ, biblical evidence, morality, and logic. With regards to the LUQ I think con argued his views well but this became one of the biggest contentions in the debate… what is atheism? Both sides in my view spent way too much time on this point. As a judge my first actions to settle such a dispute is to look at the definitions at the start of the debate where it clearly defines atheism as “a lack of belief”. If Con wanted to argue against the definition of atheism he should not have accepted the debate as it was constructed, so I see no other option than to give Pro this section because this undercuts a significant portion of Con’s arguments in this debate. With regards to the other three points, both sides argued their positions well so I consider each of these neutral.

One other thing that stood out to me is that Pro consistently quoted philosophers expressing various ideas and concepts to which Con responded by attacking the bias of said philosophers. This is a clear way to lose an argument. The person being quoted is irrelevant to the point being made. Con should have engaged in the point, doing otherwise comes off as a red herring.

Because of these points I’d have to give the edge to Pro. Sources to Pro due to that last point. I did feel that Con’s arguments were laid out in a format that was easier to follow and keep track of, so I gave him credit for spelling and grammar.

Last point, I would like to apologize to both participants in advance of I missed anything here. It’s one of the problems with such long debates, I almost didn’t bother because of how long it took me to get to a point where I felt comfortable with my verdict but powered through because I felt my time was earned. I recommend shortening the debate next time, it might help get more views and votes.