A Debate I'm Having...

[Drewish]

So I’m having a debate with a Christian Apologist. I thought some of you might enjoy reading it (it is still ongoing by the way.)

He said:

I'm privileged to be taking part in this debate. And I appreciate my opponent for being willing to be involved. He seems to be a genuine seeker of truth and that should make this discussion very exciting.

In this discussion I am going to lay out what I believe to be the most compelling arguments for the existence of the Christian God. I am going to use an acrostic to help arrange my arguments so that it will be easier to remember. The acrostic I have created is C.O.R.E. F.A.C.T.S. In order to demonstrate that it is more reasonable to believe that God does not exist, my opponent will have to overcome each of the arguments and demonstrate why they are invalid. It should be noted from the start, that these “core facts” are the arguments that best support my Christian worldview and so far in my discussions with skeptics I have, yet to hear a compelling reason why these arguments are invalid.

The first core fact that I will put forth is C - Caused. The universe was caused. The argument has been classically known as the cosmological argument for the existence of God and it goes like this. 1.) Everything that begins to exist had a cause for its existence 2.) the universe began to exist, thus 3.) the universe had a cause.

Now this argument in and of itself may not seem to imply God, but at closer observation I think you’ll see that it does. Modern astrophysics has now confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt what theists have said all along. The universe was not always here. When the background radiation wave still emanating from what is often called the "the big bang" astrophysicist George Smoot claimed, “If you’re religious, It’s like looking at God.”

Why would he say such a thing? Modern science accepts the premise that the universe consists of at least 3 things: Time, space and matter/energy. Whatever caused the universe to exist could not have been made up of these things or else it could not have caused their existence. This means, in brief, that whatever caused the universe to exist was not temporal, but eternal (non-temporal) not made of matter and does not occupy space. Confronted with this, then impending evidence, agnostic astrophysicist Robert Jastrow claimed, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

In fact the argument is so strong that even without the evidence from modern cosmology, the universe had to come to exist for at least two reasons. 1.) Time cannot extend infinitely into the past because if it did there would never have been enough time to arrive at today, and 2) we now know that the universe is expanding rapidly. If it is expanding that means that if the tape could be rewound we would observe it retracting down to a single point and then nothingness.

This implies that an immaterial spaceless and timeless intentional (because only an intentional being could have intended a universe) being caused the universe to come into existence.

“O” is the second core fact and it stands for ordered. The universe exhibits incredible order. Stephen Hawking said in his book A Brief History of Time, “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” Other scientists have said that it is like dozens of dials stand before us and if they were changed in the most infinitesimal way (if the gravitational force was slightly different or the strong nuclear force was changed or the electro-weak force) the universe would not be ordered as it is, but would result in chaos. This would seem to imply an intelligent designer.

“R” is for rules. The universe seems to have guiding rules. These rules are not only the rules of mathematics, and logic, but also the rules of morality. These rules are objective. 2 + 2 = 4. This is objectively true and will always be objectively true. The logical law of non-contradiction is objective. “A” can not be “A” and at the same time and in the same sense “non-A.” In the same way it is my contention that human beings have objective moral values. That is to say it is wrong and it has always been wrong to torture innocent babies for fun. It is and always has been wrong to murder or rape. To maintain that these morals are not objective, but are subjective would be to say that there was nothing really wrong with the slaughter of 6 million Jews in the holocaust, or that pedophilia is not really wrong. These would just be preferences on atheism because there would be nothing really right or wrong at all. In fact we couldn’t even speak of anything being better or worse than anything else. These terms are meaningless without objective moral values and object moral rules can only come from an objective moral rule-maker. I should also add that I am not saying that agnostics cannot be moral. Indeed many agnostics lead better lives morally than do many Christians. This is precisely the point. All men have the moral law written on their heart.

“E” is for experience. Though I would not try to convince you of my own experience of God. Without any compelling reasons to doubt these previous arguments, I see no reason to doubt my own experience of God. And it is an experience that I would invite others to seek.

The F.A.C.T.S. arguments have to do with Jesus Christ. I think the best explanation for the events of the life of Jesus of Nazareth is that there is a God.

“F” is for Fatality. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion. This is accepted virtually across the board in modern scholarship. New Testament scholar Gary Habermas has counted the scholars for and against and shown that overwhelmingly Christ’s death is affirmed among even skeptics in scholarship today. The idea that Jesus did not die is the modern day equivalent of the “flat earth theory.”

“A” is for Appearances. Jesus appeared to many of his followers after his crucifixion. Though I will not use blind faith in the Bible, even the German scholar Gerd Ludemann (no friend to Christianity) affirms that what 1 Corinthians 15 says historically is true, namely that Jesus’ followers had appearances of what they believed to be the risen Jesus. Moreover, there are creedal statements made there affirming Christ’s resurrection that most scholars believe date back earlier than the documents themselves placing them incredibly near the event itself. In other words, we have almost immediate evidence of individuals who saw what they believed to be the risen Christ. Even the hyper-skeptical “Jesus seminar” affirms this truth.

“C” - is for Commitment level. The commitment level of the early Christian church was so great, they were so convinced of what they saw, that they were willing to die for that belief. Men will live for a lie, but they will not die for something they know to be untrue. Muslim extremists may die for a lie, but they do not know it to be a lie. They believe. Many of these Christians would have known (if the resurrection were a fabrication) and died for a lie anyway.

“T” is for Testimony. This kind of commitment level developed because it was based on eye-witness testimony.

“S” is for Solution. The best solution to the question of what to do with these facts is surmise that Jesus really did die and rose again. As my friend Mike Licona says, “If a man claims to be God and rises from the dead we should believe him.

If Jesus really did die and rose again we have a divine miracle on our hands and that is evidence for the existence of God.

These are the C.O.R.E. F.A.C.T.S. of my position. If agnosticism is to be maintained, then my opponent is going to have to respond to these arguments. Thank you.

I said:

I also am glad to be taking part in this debate regarding the existence of the Christian God. I shall attempt to respond to each of the arguments in order, presenting my own questions regarding them along the way.

As to the idea of Cause:
I would first agree that the observable universe does appear to have an originating point. Einstein’s theory of relativity and the concept of space-time tell us that one cannot have time without something existing, and it does currently appear that the universe has a clear starting point. However, this does not imply the existence of God. Just as biology can give the appearance of intent from simple natural processes in evolution, so might the cause of our universe be just as devoid of intent or explicit purpose. Also, bear in mind that physicists are still attempting to understand all the forces at play in our universe, and it was only within the past few decades that we even became aware that our universe is indeed expanding. To say that because we do not know what caused our universe, therefore God did it, implies that there is no point in continuing the search. I think both of us will agree that the new field of Cosmology opens up a chance to delve much deeper into the question of “Where did this all come from?” And if we really both seek the truth, then neither of us should fear that, but should instead be thrilled at the prospect of what we might learn about our universe and its origin in the years to come.

However, Christianity is not the only religion that states that the universe had a beginning. And I would ask my opponent, why is this proof of Christianity and not any other of countless religions that make a similar claim? Also, the book of Genesis makes several other claims regarding the origin of existence and life that are clearly false. For example:

001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Here Genesis claims that the earth was formed before light existed, but visible light is just a range of frequencies of energy, and we know that light and other forms of energy existed long before the earth was formed. In fact it is because of latent static from the universes creation that we are able to determine as much as we are about the origins of the universe. How can we take the first passage:

001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Ö literally and use it as proof of God’s existence and not see the very next two lines for their glaring falsehood?

As to the idea of Order:
I shall respond to this with a narrative poem, the Story of the Puddle. There once was a puddle that was able to think, though did not know it was formed by the rain. It did not know it could easily have fallen into a stream or been lost down the drain. No the puddle had formed in a pot hole that it fit in quite well and nothing else of the world could it see. “It’s just my size this place I am in, this world must have been made for me!” Then the sun came out and the puddle shrank, and it wondered why its world became small. The puddle knew that all would be fine, “After all, this world is mine!” and soon there was no puddle at all.

Yes there is order, but we fit so well into that order because we developed and arose out of it. Couldn’t the universe exist with different laws and a different order? Is this the only universe that God was capable of making? If not, then why does order in the universe imply that God exists?

As to the idea of Rules:
Here I will completely agree with my opponent on the need for moral objectivity. I am an Objectivist myself, and am often taken aback by the number of secular individuals who believe that they can have the morality of Christian Apologetics without its justification. My opponent and I may not agree on the nature or source of this objective morality, but on this particular point I find that I have much more in common with him than many of the subset of atheists who ascribe to subjective morality.

As to the idea of Experience:
My opponent seemed to shy away from fully explaining this one, and as this is a debate I can certainly understand that. Our personal experiences are our own, and I shall refrain from calling upon my own experience and stick to logic and facts so long as my opponent will.

As to the idea of Fatality:
I would not put denying Christ’s death at such a level as the flat earth theory, but I have no problems with agreeing that Jesus was crucified so that we might focus on the other points of this debate.

As to the idea of Appearances:
My opponent was very clear to state that people saw what they believed to be a risen Jesus, and not to claim that Jesus did actually rise. Witness testimony isn’t a very strong or credible source (especially from potentially bias witnesses such as Jesus’ disciples) however there is one statement that was made that intrigued me in this section. My opponent said that, “Moreover, there are creedal statements made there affirming Christ’s resurrection that most scholars believe date back earlier than the documents themselves placing them incredibly near the event itself.” I should like some more detail regarding that, not because I doubt my opponent’s integrity, but because it would be news to me.

As to the idea of Commitment:
While I hold that it is important to be committed to one’s beliefs, it is imperative that one first deeply question and understand what one believes before asserting ones commitment (many Christian denominations practice this by restricting confirmation until a specific age.) I understand that the initial reaction that there is a difference between modern Islamic terrorists and Christian martyrs (other than the obvious difference between killing and dying for one’s faith) however, Scientology serves as an excellent example of how large numbers of people can be swayed by a message that is clearly false, even when they lived during its founding. I do not think that any ideology should be justified by the ferocity of its fanatics.

As to the idea of Testimony:
I shall hold off on discussing this until we go further in debating the Appearances section, as the two are very clearly linked.

As to the idea of Solution:
There are many cult leaders who have claimed divinity in some right or another. I cannot ascribe to the circular logic that is, “Jesus is God because Jesus claimed to be God, and we know Jesus was telling the truth because Jesus is God.” Or am I misunderstanding this point?

He said:

I would like to point out that, though this debate focuses on the existence of the Christian God, I nowhere defended a position of biblical inerrancy. Though I have my own views on these issues, that is not the focus of this debate, and it is entirely plausible that that the Christian God exists whether or not the Scriptures were ever written. This has always been the view of Christian theology for the obvious reason that according to Christianity, God existed prior to any written revelation. So the arguments against various scriptural passages fall on def ears for the purposes of this debate. If my opponent would like to have a separate debate on another occasion regarding bibliology I would be happy to accommodate him.

As far as the Cosmological argument I mentioned, it was not claimed that the cosmological argument taken on its own indicates any particular God, yet it is sufficient to establish that a God exists. In symphony with my other arguments I think the Christian God will emerge, but with regard to the cosmological argument it is a misunderstanding of the argument to assume that taken on its own the Christian God is all that is in view. However, if agnosticism is to be upheld it will have to be demonstrated that the evidence from cosmology does not indicate any god at all.

Surprisingly, he admits, “Einstein’s theory of relativity and the concept of space-time tell us that one cannot have time without something existing, and it does currently appear that the universe has a clear starting point.” Yet, he then goes on to argue, “However, this does not imply the existence of God.” First, this seems Prima Facia to be an acknowledgment that time, space and matter/energy came to exist a finite time ago. Still, what he does not mention is the logical deduction that whatever caused time, space and matter to exist must then be spaceless, non-temporal and non-material. Far from having no knowledge of what the first cause is like, we have this positive evidence, derived from modern physics, which points us to a first cause with the attributes mentioned above.

As for intentionality, he claimed that the universe could have arisen with the appearance of design as do biological systems in the universe. However, this is an entirely different circumstance. It is like the evolutionist who claimed, “I can make a man out of dirt just like you God.” God said, “show me.” Then the scientist said, “I will first take some dirt and water. . .” and God said, “Wait a minute. Get your own dirt and water.” The point is that at least with biological systems you have material to work with. Yet, the first cause of the universe brought the universe to exist, literally, out of nothing, and it seems that you do not object to this. Thus, this requires intentionality because the first cause had to intend to bring about something that didn’t exist.

As for the furthering of science, it is not my position that physicists should cease their study of cosmology simply because of the reality of God. There is still much to be learned about the universe and what happened at the beginning, even if one holds to theism. In fact some of the greatest institutes of modern science were started by Christian movements and groups. Besides all this, the argument that the existence of God would bring an end to cosmology is a commission of what is known as the “fallacy of consequences,” which is an attempt to discredit a view because of what might happen consequently if the view were true.

With regard to my argument from the Order of the universe he claims, “Couldn’t the universe exist with different laws and a different order? Is this the only universe that God was capable of making? If not, then why does order in the universe imply that God exists? This doesn’t seem like a coherent argument. Moreover, it seems to commit the fallacy of the “faulty dilemma,” in that it claims, if the universe could have been created differently then order does not imply God.

He then gives an argument in the form of a poem which is charming and clever, but the simple answer to it is “puddles aren’t universes.” The analogy fails in that the there is no direct connection. The problem is that the chances of life arising through successive variations and mutations has an insufficient probability rate. There are two reasons that “Order” implies design.

1) According to Sir Frederic Hoyle (and everyone who has looked into it since) The chances of life arising undirected by personal intelligence is 1 in 10 to the 40th power. That is one chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle And some more recent physicists have calculated it higher than that. Moreover, that is just to get one living organism.

2) Paul Davies has now taken the probability argument out of the biological world and moved it back a step. Andrew Pessin, (chair of philosophy at Connecticut College explains Davies’ position, “Focus now not on the biological realm but on the laws and properties of physics itself. Unlike living things, these have not been subject to random mutation and evolution. If order or design is found on this level of the world then it simply cannot be explained by Darwin.”

Now evolution is not on the table here. Even if one were to prove that evolution were true beyond a reasonable doubt, how it happened is the problem.

I argued that “Rules,” or the existence of objective moral values require God’s existence. I am glad to hear that he agrees, However, surprisingly he grants objective moral values, but then claims there is some other basis for objective morality than God. You’ll notice that he never responded to my argument that this requires a rule maker or a moral lawgiver, but simply claimed we may disagree on the basis for such “Rules.” Unless, we hear some other basis for morality that is truly objective, then the argument is successful.
He admits that Jesus truly died by crucifixion and so questions such as did the historical person named Jesus ever exist, or did he really die, are off the table. He even seems to agree that the followers of Jesus truly claimed that they had seen him alive and well after he had been dead. His argument rests instead on the idea that the followers of Christ were somehow biased in favor of the resurrection. I’m not sure if he is claiming that they were lying about what they had seen, or if they were mistaken for some reason. He’ll have to clarify that before I can make any further statement on the matter. Yet, he claims, “Witness testimony isn’t a very strong or credible source” The strikes me as very odd since much of what anyone holds to be true is based in part on eyewitness testimony. I will agree that eyewitness testimony grows stronger and more convincing when more people and various kinds of people are giving testimony. This is why it is interesting to note that the first century church was comprised of various kinds of people. Moreover, over 500 individuals gave testimony to having seen the risen Jesus. A note should be made here. Though I will not rely on scripture or scriptural inerrancy to support my position, 1 Corinthians 15 is given a special place in scholarship in that it is viewed to be historically accurate by skeptics and believers alike. The hyper-skeptical “Jesus Seminar,” German agnostic Gerd Ludemann and many others have testified as much.

He requested that I back up my assertion that 1 Cor. 15 is viewed by scholars to contain creedal statements that stretch back even further than the 50s A.D. when the letter was written. I am happy to provide that evidence http://www.apologetics-wiki.com/wiki/in ... s_15_Creed When Paul claims in 1 Cor. 15:1-8 the gospel which he preached to them, the phrases he uses, in the original language, are structured in the form of a creed. And are strikingly different from Paul’s other writings.

He claims that the commitment level of the early church is not a good reason to trust their message because other fanatical groups were swayed by teachings founded during their lifetime. The problem is that these followers were swayed by the veracity of a singular event, namely the resurrection. The point is they were willing to die because they had first hand knowledge that this event happened. This is why I said, people will live for a lie, but they will not die for something they know to be untrue. The difference between the commitment level of this group and any other is that theirs was based upon their knowledge of an event.

He then says, “I cannot ascribe to the circular logic that is, “Jesus is God because Jesus claimed to be God, and we know Jesus was telling the truth because Jesus is God.” Or am I misunderstanding this point?î Yes, I think so. I never argued that we should believe that Jesus was God because he said that he was. I am simply saying that if a man claims to be God and then dies and is raised from the dead, we should believe him. There is no circular logic there. Furthermore, this simple comment is not so much an argument from me as it is a truth resulting from my previous arguments.

Let me just say that although I am handling these comments from my opponent rather directly, I greatly appreciate the gracious tone with which he is debating.

I said:

I am a bit confused. If one does not hold that the Christian God is in fact the god described in the Bible... Perhaps you would be so kind as to describe exactly what it is you mean by “the Christian God” as I am now not quite sure what position it is you are defending if you simultaneously assert that the Christian God is real and the Bible is has within it flaws and misinformation.

I must assert that you are mistaken in believing that your Cosmological argument asserts that there is a God. Certainly it is possible that the force(s) responsible for the creation of the universe were sentient, but simply because life exists, that does not mean that the intention or purpose of the universe was or is the existence of life (assuming that there is a purpose.) Now this may at first seem dismissive, after all would I not simply be bias to think that there is no conscious cause to the universe and you for? So let me state clearly what it would take to convince me that the universe was set into place with an intention and purpose.

I would require that you first describe what that purpose is based on past events or history. I would then need you to make predictions about what would occur (based on assumption that if God did make the universe with an intention in mind, and you discerned what that intention was, or at least part of it, then you would be able to predict certain things accordingly, as the universe would of course follow according to God’s plan.) If you are unable to do this, then I would have to assume that either: A) You are purposefully lying to me, B) You cannot discern what God’s plan is, C) God has no plan, or D) There is no God.

Your assertion that because (As I admitted) space, time and matter are co-relative that one cannot exist without the other leads you to the clear conclusion that whatever caused the big bang to bang (starting the universe as it appears) must be God. But this conclusion is not clear. Yes it must not be something that we have no current model for in science, but only a few hundred years ago we did not even have a model for gravity. We could see its effects, we knew it was something, and it would have seemed almost magical to anyone until it was understood. We can only say that this cause must be ‘God’ only if we extend the definition of the word ‘God’ to mean perhaps nothing more than some new particle and a few equations on a blackboard.

I feel at this point that I must remind you that I am not arguing for Atheism. I think it’s entirely possible that the origin of the universe could be a sentient being (whom to us would surely be a God, if they had the capacity to create all that we are and exist in.) However, as an Agnostic I take the position that the evidence (at this point at least) is inconclusive. To be more clear, I have both Atheist and Deist friends who I think have positions that are perfectly compatible with modern science (though I don’t believe provable) and I don’t think it is belittling of a religion to say that in the end one must take the existence of God on faith, recognizing that it is not scientifically provable (as science is limited to the realm of the physical) to establish the existence of something outside of physical reality. What I am most curious about is how you assert that if in fact there is a God, that it must then be the Christian God. Nit again this will first require that you describe what it is exactly that you mean by “the Christian God.”

Speaking to my argument about order, you claim that my argument is not coherent, so I shall make it in again clearer terms. We exist. You claim that because the universe has order, this implies a source for that order, and that source must be God. I am stating that this is a reversal of consequences and causes. If God is all powerful (I am assuming that a trait of the Christian God is that God is all powerful) then God could create any type of universe God wanted. Are we to know that we are the only things that God has ever created? Why can the source of this order not follow from very simple laws creating more complex sub-structures as follows from the concept of emergence? Why is our particular order an indication of God (and more specifically, the Christian God?)

It seems you make an attempt at answering this with the infinitesimally small chance of life emerging (sources and all.) Let me be clear, we have no idea how likely or how prevalent life is in the universe. Scientists are even now not quite sure how to create life from base chemicals. Until we understand the processes involved in creating life (and even only life that is very similar to ourselves) any assumptions and equations regarding the possibility of life appearing are pure conjecture.

As to your argument that evolution cannot be used to explain existence, and is summarily limited to the biological, I would agree, however lack of understanding of the nature or causality of the universe does not demand that God be given the credit, lest we attribute every unknown to God, without requiring a valid hypothesis for what exactly we mean by God.

To my earlier argument regarding rules, I have purposefully not delved into the ontological and ethical basis of Objectivism (my world view) in order to avoid taking this debate off topic, and as your belief in the infallibility of the Bible is in question, I am left uncertain as to what exactly you mean when you say God’s rules. We can discuss this topic if you desire, but I think that (like your particular views on biblical literacy) this topic would require a debate all its own.

It seems that the final area of our debate falls upon the resurrection of Jesus. When I myself was a Christian (United Methodist more specifically), I often discussed various religious interpretations with people of other denominations. But it was always clear to me, that regardless of differing views or interpretations that to define oneself as ‘Christian’ the cut off line was the resurrection of Christ. If you did not accept that, then you were not a Christian as it was the most important aspect of the underlying theology of Christianity. I am not attempting to play any games or trickery here. I am merely seeing if we can hinge the plausibility of the existence of the Christian God on the plausibility of the resurrection of Jesus (I myself having already admitted that such a man existed and was put to death by the Roman.) If this is satisfactory to you, I would gladly focus our debate on that question.

He said:

Let me make a few things clear about Scripture. I never claimed that the God described in Christian scripture is not the God that exists. It was also never my contention that scripture was mistaken or “has mistakes.” On the contrary I have a very high view of scripture. What I am saying is that the focus of this debate is not biblical inerrancy. If somehow the scripture were proven to contain misinformation, or for that matter if we had no Christian scripture, it is a “faulty dilemma” to claim that this would mean there was no Christian God. The existence of the Christian God would not be affected in the slightest by such a fact. Thus, biblical inerrancy has no bearing on the subject of the existence of the Christian God.

Andrew asked if it would be appropriate to narrow the debate to the subject of the resurrection since, as he understands it, the resurrection is central to the claims of Christian belief. I agree with this axiom. It is true that the resurrection is the defining event in Christian history. Nevertheless, the purpose for the C.O.R.E. arguments for theism in general is simply that there is a much greater chance that Christian theism is true if theism is true. In other words, if one understands that God exists then the resurrection is not so hard to swallow. After all if God could create the universe out of nothing, then bringing Jesus back from the dead would be small potatoes. So yes, I believe this is vital to the discussion lest we fall into the trap of philosopher David Hume who claimed that miracles are by definition the least likely thing to have happened. This is only true if one assumes there is no God.

As for your argument against the Cosmological argument, you claimed that the evidence that time, space and matter/energy came into existence simultaneously does not warrant belief in God. You gave, as best I can tell, two lines of argumentation against this and I will answer them both with a single response. You offered that if I could show intentionality in the universe, you would accept theism. First, you requested that theism be able to make certain predictions. Well, I can point to at least the prediction that Christian theism has made for centuries that the universe including all that is in it would have come to exist a finite time ago. This is incredibly predictive considering the fact that even in the 20th century many still believed in the steady-state theory. I can also point to the prediction made by Judeo-Christian theists that the first cause was non-material, spaceless and eternal. I might also add that these were highly unusual concepts to those in the ancient world. You then asked two questions which I think are linked in their answer. 1)Why do we believe there is intentionality in the universe and 2) couldn’t the universe have emerged according to the theory of emergence? The evidence for intentionality and the reason why emergence will not work here is that if we agree (as you seem to) that time space and matter came to exist simultaneously a finite time ago, then it naturally follows that there could have been no simple interactions prior to that moment to cause emergence. In fact, not only was there no interaction before that moment, but there was no moment before that moment because time came to exist at that point. Amazingly, this means that those elements that comprise our universe came to exist as they were. Now naturally, things changed and developed from there, but the design that was present at the initial moment was irreducible. This implies intentionality.

However, it is interesting to point out that even if these issues were not true, your demands for belief would invalidate much of science. For example, physicists at CERN (the massive particle accelerator) and Fermi lab (the smaller one in the states) search constantly for the “Higgs Boson,” which they believe holds matter together. They have yet to find it. Nevertheless, billions of dollars and massive construction projects have gone into the search for the “Higgs” which is a particle that physicists believe must exist based on the evidence, but they can tell you very little about. In fact we have more evidence for the existence and description of God than we do the “Higgs Boson.”

Also it was implied that I inserted God as the answer because I don’t know what caused the universe, and so what Andrew is accusing me of is known to philosophers as the “god of the gaps” fallacy. The problem is that this fallacy is only in play when someone says we don’t know how what is true of that phenomenon so it must be God. This is not the case with the cosmological argument. We know certain things must be true and those things are enough to validate the belief that God was the first cause.

As for probability calculus, you claimed that we cannot determine the probability of life arising from inorganic material. This is only partly true. We cannot determine absolutely what the probability is, but it is simply untrue that we cannot get an idea of what the chances are. All that is needed to start the process, is a knowledge of what components are contained in the amino acid. What we know is enough to determine that the chances of life arising are infinitesimally small. We cannot determine the absolute number because this would require complete knowledge of the universe, but we can determine that the chances are almost non-existent. Furthermore, the idea that we can’t even begin the process flies in the face of the opinions of mathematicians, physicists and philosophers everywhere.

As for objective moral values. Andrew expressed desire to sidestep this issue because he wanted to avoid some aspects of his personal philosophy. That’s fine, but it must be noted that philosophers have long agreed that objective moral values and theism are inseparably tied together. If moral values developed as a result of societal evolution, group think or any other means then they are subjective and would be classified as preferences. They are only objective as mathematics and logic are objective if they are given by a lawgiver. Also, some indication was made that these objective moral values are dependent upon scripture, but that is a misunderstanding of what objective moral values are. They are not the specifics old testament law for example, but rather the almost universal understanding that certain things are really wrong, such as murder, rape, child abuse and the like. No scripture is needed for this.

Let me just point out lastly, that Andrew has not replied to the problem of objective moral values, he has not replied to the arguments for the divinity of Christ and the resurrection and he has attempted to hold me to the view that scriptural inerrancy is necessary for Christian theism to be true. I do not subscribe to this view so I won’t defend it.

Now in fairness, my opponent has asked if we can narrow the debate to the resurrection and that may be why he has not responded to those arguments yet. Rather than restate them I will simply wait to hear how he responds to them as they are written. However, I am willing to narrow the debate to the resurrection so long as it is understood that the attempt to argue against the cosmological argument, teleological argument and the argument from objective moral values is being abandoned by my opponent.

I said:

There is an implicit problem with not taking the Bible literally, and it is that we then must have some external standard for determining what is true. If the Bible is the source of truth, then clearly it must be taken at its word. However, if we are to say that the Bible is not the source of our understanding of the truth, even not the final word on our understanding of God, then how can we have any clear understanding of the nature of God? It’s a very clear conundrum because if we use logic and science to determine which passages of the Bible to take literally, then we must apply logical and scientific scrutiny to all passages. Science and reason are not the Christian God’s friend, certainly they are his undoing, as it makes it impossible to determine what the nature of the Christian God would be if he existed, by refuting the Bible as a valid source.

As to the resurrection, I feel that it is important for one clear reason, the idea of an interfering God. Now supposing that there is a God (I am not saying that there is, but rather am making an argument) a question then arises, did God just make the universe, or is God actively involved in the continued on goings of it as well? And also because if one can show that there is a supernatural force (by supernatural, I mean clearly outside of what physics can hope to describe) altering the course of events, this clear points to something not bound by the rules of the universe, and clearly involved in it. So to be quite plain, if my opponent were to prove the fact of the resurrection I would be thoroughly beaten, and so I offered this as to make clear that there are criteria by which I would accept defeat, but as it were, nothing short of a miracle would serve as definitive proof.

I shall quote a section of your last response here, as it directly relates to our discussion in a very pressing way, “The evidence for intentionality and the reason why emergence will not work here is that if we agree (as you seem to) that time space and matter came to exist simultaneously a finite time ago, then it naturally follows that there could have been no simple interactions prior to that moment to cause emergence. In fact, not only was there no interaction before that moment, but there was no moment before that moment because time came to exist at that point. Amazingly, this means that those elements that comprise our universe came to exist as they were. Now naturally, things changed and developed from there, but the design that was present at the initial moment was irreducible. This implies intentionality.”

Now the response given to this by most atheists is the Anthropic Principle coupled with Multiverse Theory. The Anthropic Principle is essentially saying that even rare events are sure to happen if you attempt it enough times (specifically with respect to life.) The idea being that there could be countless universes, all with different rules and laws, and it just so happens that we exist in one that allows for life. This isn’t as improbable as it first appears because by virtue of our being alive we must be in a universe that allows for life.

One of the main reasons that I consider myself an agnostic and not an atheist is because I then asked what evidence there was for there being multiple universes. There simply is none. It’s just a possible theory for how the universe could have come about. It even assumes that there are fundamental forces beyond our own laws of physics. To be blunt, this seems just as made up and arbitrary as saying “God did it.” The only real difference is that under theism the source of the universe in conscious and sentient, and under (that particular brand of ) atheism it is not. However, if we are not bound to the laws of physics, then why not simply postulate that the universe began just because it began? There are potentially an infinite number of claims that could be made about how the universe began, and there’s evidence for any of them. And so rather than assert that there is or is not a God, I simply would prefer to admit that I can not know for sure. I would rather be honest about my uncertainty than pretend to know truths that I do not.

As to this uncertainty invalidating science, I would hold that science isn’t so the means by which we know things, it’s the means by which we test things. I have a hypothesis, and then it is tested using science. It is much more the realms of logic and math that we use in forming our hypothesis. The bitter sweet truth of science is that it cannot really tell us anything we don’t already know unless it tells us that we’re wrong. It is to us to form the hypotheses; science can not ask the questions for us.

Also, there is a clarification I would like to make, and it is exemplified in your statement, “As for probability calculus, you claimed that we cannot determine the probability of life arising from inorganic material.” What I claimed was that we have insufficient knowledge at this time to make a feasible prediction. I am not some postmodernist shill who claims that all things are unknowable or that reality is just a matter of perception. Let me be perfectly clear on that. When you say, “the idea that we can’t even begin the process (of determining what the probability of life arising elsewhere is) flies in the face of the opinions of mathematicians, physicists and philosophers everywhere.” I can only respond that these people want funding, and when they can get tax payer funded handouts for simply writing speculative papers and predictions (no tangible results required) they’ve jump at the chance.

The last subject that you have called me to respond to is that of moral objectivity. Let me begin by begging your patience as I shall now endeavor to condense the whole of the philosophy that I ascribe to in the span of a page (and hopefully not distort it completely in the summarization there of.)

In order to have standards for morality, in order for morality to be objective in any way, it must have a source. Not only must it have a source, but that source must be unchanging, unalterable, and consistent. An argument can only be as true as its premises and likewise morality can only be justified by a solid foundation.

Now let me say that many of religious and pious natures have come to the say the phrase, “God is the truth.” This is certainly not heresy to Christians or in fact to any monotheistic religion. However, when we must scrutinize the texts of faith, and use reasonable understandings of history and reality to determine the truth of any given passage, then it can be said that we are attempting to determine the nature of God. However, the procedure described here is not that from God we know truth, but that from truth we know God. And so it follows that even if God does exist, that the only honest means of attempting to know or discover anything about God would be through an honest pursuit of the truth. Therefore, any and everything we could claim to know about the universe, God, or anything else would invariably fall upon the discovery of the truth.

In case it is not clear, I am attempting to show that regardless of whether one is a believer or not, the truth is the standard by which we must base morality. And from this there are certain obvious implications. The most glaring being that of the importance of integrity. For if one is to revere the truth, one must not simply actively pursue it, but also live by it. And so integrity between one’s actions and words becomes paramount to morality.

But the conclusions that clearly follow do not stop here. Surely if truth is the standard by which we hold ourselves and integrity the basis of morality, then this implies that hypocrisy is by its very nature a sin. And further the denial of the existence of truth, the assertion that truth in fact does not exist, is the core of evil.

I think it should be clear that there is within the secular community something of a divide, and several more than one divide at that. There are those who claim that God is dead, and therefore in his absence all things are permissible. There are those who would hold that the standards for morality are subjective, and merely whatever ‘work’ at a given moment, but when questioned they can not or will not define what they mean by ‘work’ as such claims can only ever appear to if one does not look too deeply into their obscurity and vagueness. There are still others who hold that their own subjective feelings are all that they need to determine the morality of something, that law or logic have no place in such things, and the foulness of the things they endorse in their anger speaks clearly as to the perversion of their vision of morality.

But I come from a place that holds that though God may not exist, the truth must be revered as a god. The truth is not a subjective thing; the universe will not bend to your wills or desires. You must face it honestly for what it is. And an honest adherence to the truth (both the pursuit of it and the living of it) are the foundation of no contradictory terms of integrity. There is no greater law giver than the truth, and if there is a God, then certainly an honest line of inquiry will someday reveal that. But to say that we cannot know is not an insult to the truth; it is honesty at its most glaring to admit when one is unsure or uncertain. And if there is a God I would hope that God would want us to seek the truth honestly rather than live under the pretense of assumption, no matter how comforting it might be.

I believe I shall end with your own quote, “… philosophers have long agreed that objective moral values and theism are inseparably tied together. If moral values developed as a result of societal evolution, group think or any other means then they are subjective and would be classified as preferences. They are only objective as mathematics and logic are objective if they are given by a lawgiver. Also, some indication was made that these objective moral values are dependent upon scripture, but that is a misunderstanding of what objective moral values are. They are not the specifics old testament law for example, but rather the almost universal understanding that certain things are really wrong, such as murder, rape, child abuse and the like. No scripture is needed for this.”

He said:

The misunderstanding here with regard to the Bible is not whether or not it should be taken literally, or which parts should be taken literally. The point is precisely that your argument seems to commit a logical fallacy known as the faulty dilemma. That is to say, you seem to be making scripture the test for the existence of the Christian God. By this I mean you imply that either scripture is completely true or God does not exist. This does not follow. Once again, I have my own view of scripture, but it is possible that the Christian God exists whether or not scripture is true. It is also consistent that God could exist whether scripture had ever even been written. Furthermore, the attributes of God that I am arguing for are attributes that we may come to without appealing to Christian scripture. Thus, the infallibility of scripture is an interesting topic, but is not the focus of this debate. The truth seeking device to which I am appealing is logic. Again I am not applying it to scripture in this debate, I am applying it to the question of the existence of God and the Divinity of Christ. If I were attempting to use scripture I may fall into the gap of circular reasoning. It seems that perhaps your argument against the veracity of the Christian God depends on scripture being somehow irreconcilably flawed and so this may make you uncomfortable with my refusal to build my argument upon it.

My opponent has offered the resurrection of Jesus as the point at which his naturalism would be falsified. I appreciate this transparency and as I have set forth arguments in favor of the resurrection I am waiting for a response, but so far we have heard no response to the arguments for the Divinity of Jesus which I argued for by the resurrection.

Regarding cosmology, my opponent admits that modern atheist hypothesis such as the multiverse theory lack any evidence and since he seems to agree that the universe must have begun to exist a finite time ago along with the laws of physics such arguments as the eternal universe are also unfounded. I applaud his grasp of these matters. However, he then goes on to say that agnosticism is the best conclusion, from his vantage point as the assertion that God created the universe is no better than simply claiming that it just happened. Surely not! The cosmological argument gives us incredible reason to believe that the first cause was a non-material, non-spacial, timeless cause. Since there are only two things that fall into this category, namely, propositions such as ideas or mathematical equations and minds. It follows that a mind must have caused the universe to exist.
Honestly, I find myself looking at my opponent who goes with me so far on the road of physics and cosmology, and asking the question “what does he have to be agnostic about?” It seems that with the understanding he has of these things that he is on the verge of an “aha!” moment of clarity in which a paradigm shift takes place.

On morality, I must say that my opponent’s attempt at establishing an objective basis for it without God is as earnest an attempt as I have ever seen. He does a wonderful job of explaining why truth must be objective and I agree completely with that assessment. However, this does not mandate that anyone should care about integrity or be careful of hypocrisy. In a world without God, truth may still be objective but that doesn’t mean that refusing to seek after it is objectively wrong. Indeed without God whether one cares about truth is a matter of personal preference. It would be akin to stating that it is absolutely true that some apples are red which is objectively true, but then asserting that it is objectively true that everyone should like red apples. The difference is that any sensible individual would agree that some apples are red and that this is objectively true, but it does not mean that it is objectively true how individuals “should” feel about this. Whether and individual likes red apples or not is subjective.

In the same way it may be the case that truth itself is objective, but in the absence of God, how individuals “should” behave is entirely subjective. It is a matter of preference. Thus, as Andrew has quoted me claiming that scripture is not necessary in order to have objective morality, I must say God certainly is.

[tattuchu]

Cool. How was this set up? Who is this other fellow, and how and under what capacity were you chosen for the debate as the opposing view? Also, you do realize of course that this is an exercise in futility? It doesn't matter what you say or how reasoned your arguments are, it's still never gonna sink in to his thick skull. I just gave a cursory glance to his first "arguments," and it's the same tired old shit

[tattuchu]

A point I'd like to make is that there seems to be a beginning point for the Universe as we know it. That doesn't mean there was nothing before that, necessarily. It simply means, before that is unknown.
Another comment I'd like to make is that I believe you're in error in assuming Jesus the Christ was an actual person. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of that. It seems far more likely he's a complete work of fiction, in my opinion.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

This statement,

In order to demonstrate that it is more reasonable to believe that God does not exist, my opponent will have to overcome each of the arguments and demonstrate why they are invalid.

tells me all that I need to know. Reading further only affirms that conviction.

Your first action should have been to challenge that glib, seemingly-throwaway claim. All of the rest comes crashing down after that. He is making the claim that god exists, it is therefore incumbent upon him to prove it, not you to disprove it.

Reversing his claim, in order to prove that god exists, he will need to prove all of his arguments beyond any reasonable doubt. He does not do that, he merely puts forward hypotheses for each with the underlying assumption that they are equal to current scientific thinking. They are not. they fail Occam's razor and are tired old canards that have been dismantled many many times.

That said, you argued your corner well, but you shouldn't have let him choose whose ring to fight in in the first place.

[Sma11wood]

Darn you Xamonas, you stole my argument!

In order to demonstrate that it is more reasonable to believe that God does not exist, my opponent will have to overcome each of the arguments and demonstrate why they are invalid.

I was the same reading that statement. Why the onus must fall on the non-believer to disprove somethings existence, i have no idea, but the fact that the position is accepted before starting means you give unnecessary credit to his arguments.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Darn you Xamonas, you stole my argument!

In order to demonstrate that it is more reasonable to believe that God does not exist, my opponent will have to overcome each of the arguments and demonstrate why they are invalid.

I was the same reading that statement. Why the onus must fall on the non-believer to disprove somethings existence, i have no idea, but the fact that the position is accepted before starting means you give unnecessary credit to his arguments.

It is a common theme with theists - the intelligent ones at least - they try to get you to accept certain premises 'before the argument starts' but in fact, those premises are the start of the argument. Refuse to accept them (or at least let them know from the start that you don't accept them and are only playing along for fun) and watch them squirm.

[Trolldor]

Something has to be established before it can be disproved.

[Drewish]

But I'm not writing to convince him. I'm writing to convince his audience.

[Trolldor]

But I'm not writing to convince him. I'm writing to convince his audience.

His audience will either share his views, or they won't. In a debate you address the person challenging you, irrespective of the audience. Otherwise it's not a debate, because there's no challenge between the parties.

[Drewish]

That's very cynical. People do abandon faith you know. People do change their opinions. If they didn't there'd be a lot fewer atheists.

[Joe Bloe]

But I'm not writing to convince him. I'm writing to convince his audience.

That's a good idea. I do the same thing. I know the devoutly religious will remain unconvinced by my arguments, but waverers in the audience may well be impressed.

Sometimes, just for fun, I insist that the theist properly describe god before the debate begins (otherwise we won't know what we are talking about). If I push hard enough I can usually get the theist to declare that god is ineffable...

[Drewish]

But I'm not writing to convince him. I'm writing to convince his audience.

That's a good idea. I do the same thing. I know the devoutly religious will remain unconvinced by my arguments, but waverers in the audience may well be impressed.

Sometimes, just for fun, I insist that the theist properly describe god before the debate begins (otherwise we won't know what we are talking about). If I push hard enough I can usually get the theist to declare that god is ineffable...

I've been trying to get him to define what he means by "the Christian God" this whole debate, and what standards or methods he uses to know that God or its nature. I'm going to be as direct as possible regarding that in my next response, because he keeps trying to side step the question.