JimBowie 1958 and Coloradomtman Debate the Existence of God

[Coloradomtnman]

[MENTION=32813]JimBowie1958[/MENTION]

So here's the deal: We put our arguments to the test. If you show that my position as an atheist is flawed, I will pray for guidance from God and ask Jesus to become my savior and I'll do so sincerely. If I show you that your position as a Christian is not based on reason, logic, and evidence, you don't have to do anything.

Ready? Go.

The reason I don't believe in God is that I'm not convinced there is one. What I perceive as a lack of evidence, and the logical inconsistencies andflawed reasoning don't engender in me a need to believe. The first argument I will make is maybe the most fundamental from my perspective:

Belief is not a choice.

Unless the arguments for a particular idea or conviction are convincing I simply remain unmoved.

I think it is a fundamental flaw in Christian doctrine that in order to be saved one must choose to believe in the Christian God and choose to believe in Jesus when one can't simply choose to believe but must be convinced based on the merits of the proposition.

How do you defend that in your belief system?

 

[jwoodie]

I don't understand quantum mechanics, but neither do I deny the possibility of its existence.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I don't understand quantum mechanics, but neither do I deny the possibility of its existence.

Not fully understanding something is irrelevant to my first argument above. According to Christian doctrine, one must accept Jesus as one's savior and believe in one God, the God of Abraham, Jehovah, Yahweh, the Trinity, etc. one cannot do those things based simply on choice alone. For example, if I were to convert to Christianity simply because I figured it was better to cover all my bases just in case Hell was possibility, would that be true Christianity or just fire insurance? Instead one must or should be convinced on the merits of the proposition which would include evidence that only supports the proposition and does not disprove it, logical consistency, sound reasoning, and explanatory robustness and scope. No religion has all or even any of those things.

That said, neither do I deny the possibility of God's existence and that Jesus died for all our sins - I'm just not convinced by the merits of that propistion that is indeed the truth.

 

[jwoodie]

I don't understand quantum mechanics, but neither do I deny the possibility of its existence.

Not fully understanding something is irrelevant to my first argument above. According to Christian doctrine, one must accept Jesus as one's savior and believe in one God, the God of Abraham, Jehovah, Yahweh, the Trinity, etc. one cannot do those things based simply on choice alone. For example, if I were to convert to Christianity simply because I figured it was better to cover all my bases just in case Hell was possibility, would that be true Christianity or just fire insurance? Instead one must or should be convinced on the merits of the proposition which would include evidence that only supports the proposition and does not disprove it, logical consistency, sound reasoning, and explanatory robustness and scope. No religion has all or even any of those things.

That said, neither do I deny the possibility of God's existence and that Jesus died for all our sins - I'm just not convinced by the merits of that propistion that is indeed the truth.

Word mincing at its finest. First, there is no single Christian Doctrine beyond the historical existence of Jesus and his teachings. Secondly, do you hold the same contempt for other religions?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I don't understand quantum mechanics, but neither do I deny the possibility of its existence.

Not fully understanding something is irrelevant to my first argument above. According to Christian doctrine, one must accept Jesus as one's savior and believe in one God, the God of Abraham, Jehovah, Yahweh, the Trinity, etc. one cannot do those things based simply on choice alone. For example, if I were to convert to Christianity simply because I figured it was better to cover all my bases just in case Hell was possibility, would that be true Christianity or just fire insurance? Instead one must or should be convinced on the merits of the proposition which would include evidence that only supports the proposition and does not disprove it, logical consistency, sound reasoning, and explanatory robustness and scope. No religion has all or even any of those things.

That said, neither do I deny the possibility of God's existence and that Jesus died for all our sins - I'm just not convinced by the merits of that propistion that is indeed the truth.

Word mincing at its finest. First, there is no single Christian Doctrine beyond the historical existence of Jesus and his teachings. Secondly, do you hold the same contempt for other religions?

I thought I had vey clearly responded so I would like for you to clarify what you mean by word mincing, please.

If I'm wrong about Christian doctine in that one is required to accept Jesus as one's savior in order to be saved, please tell me how I'm wrong so that I can correct the error in my thinking. Thanks.

I tried to be as respectful as I could in my response. If there was a tone of contempt, I apologize. But yes, I feel all dogmatic beliefs, religious or other, are contemptuous. That would include atheism that proposes that there can not be a God.

 

[DriftingSand]

It makes far more sense to believe that order and reason are the result of an intelligent mind than to believe that they are the result of a chaotic chain of random events or pure happenstance. The universe is ordered. It screams design. It takes every bit as much faith to believe that nothing created everything than it does to believe that something created everything. The living cell screams design. The human eyeball screams design. The information contained in DNA screams intelligent design. Design requires a designer. Random mistakes cannot account for the millions (billions? trillions?) of living designs.

There is no evidence to support the idea that life is the result of some random mistake or series of mistakes. To believe that requires a certain faith in the unknown.

 

[jwoodie]

Not fully understanding something is irrelevant to my first argument above. According to Christian doctrine, one must accept Jesus as one's savior and believe in one God, the God of Abraham, Jehovah, Yahweh, the Trinity, etc. one cannot do those things based simply on choice alone. For example, if I were to convert to Christianity simply because I figured it was better to cover all my bases just in case Hell was possibility, would that be true Christianity or just fire insurance? Instead one must or should be convinced on the merits of the proposition which would include evidence that only supports the proposition and does not disprove it, logical consistency, sound reasoning, and explanatory robustness and scope. No religion has all or even any of those things.

That said, neither do I deny the possibility of God's existence and that Jesus died for all our sins - I'm just not convinced by the merits of that propistion that is indeed the truth.

Word mincing at its finest. First, there is no single Christian Doctrine beyond the historical existence of Jesus and his teachings. Secondly, do you hold the same contempt for other religions?

I thought I had vey clearly responded so I would like for you to clarify what you mean by word mincing, please.

If I'm wrong about Christian doctine in that one is required to accept Jesus as one's savior in order to be saved, please tell me how I'm wrong so that I can correct the error in my thinking. Thanks.

I tried to be as respectful as I could in my response. If there was a tone of contempt, I apologize. But yes, I feel all dogmatic beliefs, religious or other, are contemptuous. That would include atheism that proposes that there can not be a God.[/QUOTE


I apologize also. We probably agree more than disagree on this subject. Other than having an appreciation for the benevolent gift of life, I think that most religious dogma has been created to assuage our fear of the unknown. However, I respect the beliefs of others as long as it doesn't involve beheading or burning at the stake.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

It makes far more sense to believe that order and reason are the result of an intelligent mind than to believe that they are the result of a chaotic chain of random events or pure happenstance. The universe is ordered. It screams design. It takes every bit as much faith to believe that nothing created everything than it does to believe that something created everything. The living cell screams design. The human eyeball screams design. The information contained in DNA screams intelligent design. Design requires a designer. Random mistakes cannot account for the millions (billions? trillions?) of living designs.

There is no evidence to support the idea that life is the result of some random mistake or series of mistakes. To believe that requires a certain faith in the unknown.

I appreciate your opinion, but it is just an opinion. To perceive design is entirely subjective. I don't see the design. You do. Your world view is that there is a creator, therefore it makes sense to you to see design. I don't know if there's a creator, but I don't see design.

I also don't believe the Universe is the end result of random chance. At the same time I don't believe that the Universe isn't random - it could be. No one knows, including me. What seems to be the case is that approximately 14 billion years ago the Universe rapidly expanded from a singularity. There is evidence to support this. A lot of evidence. What was before that? No one knows. Do I believe that the Big Bang theory accurately describes what happened 14 billion years ago? No. And neither should anyone else, including astrophysicists and cosmologists. Its a theory, not a belief.

Neither does anyone know how life came to exist in the first place. There is some evidence, not much, that it started as a chemical reaction. The current theories of evolution only attempt to describe what happened after there was life. And there is so much evidence for those theories that they seem to accurately describe the mechanisms that resulted in the current level of biodiversity. Do I believe these theories? No. And neither should anyone else including biologists, geologists, psychologists, or any other -ologists. They are theories not beliefs.

Science is not the realm of belief. Dogma has no place in the search for knowledge and understanding. Doubt has a role in science. Curiousity, competition, and accepting that as of right now there is a lot that we don't know. And that its okay not to have all the answers.

 

[DriftingSand]

It makes far more sense to believe that order and reason are the result of an intelligent mind than to believe that they are the result of a chaotic chain of random events or pure happenstance. The universe is ordered. It screams design. It takes every bit as much faith to believe that nothing created everything than it does to believe that something created everything. The living cell screams design. The human eyeball screams design. The information contained in DNA screams intelligent design. Design requires a designer. Random mistakes cannot account for the millions (billions? trillions?) of living designs.

There is no evidence to support the idea that life is the result of some random mistake or series of mistakes. To believe that requires a certain faith in the unknown.

I appreciate your opinion, but it is just an opinion. To perceive design is entirely subjective. I don't see the design. You do. Your world view is that there is a creator, therefore it makes sense to you to see design. I don't know if there's a creator, but I don't see design.

I also don't believe the Universe is the end result of random chance. At the same time I don't believe that the Universe isn't random - it could be. No one knows, including me. What seems to be the case is that approximately 14 billion years ago the Universe rapidly expanded from a singularity. There is evidence to support this. A lot of evidence. What was before that? No one knows. Do I believe that the Big Bang theory accurately describes what happened 14 billion years ago? No. And neither should anyone else, including astrophysicists and cosmologists. Its a theory, not a belief.

Neither does anyone know how life came to exist in the first place. There is some evidence, not much, that it started as a chemical reaction. The current theories of evolution only attempt to describe what happened after there was life. And there is so much evidence for those theories that they seem to accurately describe the mechanisms that resulted in the current level of biodiversity. Do I believe these theories? No. And neither should anyone else including biologists, geologists, psychologists, or any other -ologists. They are theories not beliefs.

Science is not the realm of belief. Dogma has no place in the search for knowledge and understanding. Doubt has a role in science. Curiousity, competition, and accepting that as of right now there is a lot that we don't know. And that its okay not to have all the answers.

You leave much room for doubt concerning God's existence or lack thereof. Therefore, I don't accept your self-description to be very accurate. You can't be a true "atheist" when you've presented such a blank canvas where our origins are concerned. Logic dictates that you must be more agnostic than atheist. Am I wrong?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

It makes far more sense to believe that order and reason are the result of an intelligent mind than to believe that they are the result of a chaotic chain of random events or pure happenstance. The universe is ordered. It screams design. It takes every bit as much faith to believe that nothing created everything than it does to believe that something created everything. The living cell screams design. The human eyeball screams design. The information contained in DNA screams intelligent design. Design requires a designer. Random mistakes cannot account for the millions (billions? trillions?) of living designs.

There is no evidence to support the idea that life is the result of some random mistake or series of mistakes. To believe that requires a certain faith in the unknown.

I appreciate your opinion, but it is just an opinion. To perceive design is entirely subjective. I don't see the design. You do. Your world view is that there is a creator, therefore it makes sense to you to see design. I don't know if there's a creator, but I don't see design.

I also don't believe the Universe is the end result of random chance. At the same time I don't believe that the Universe isn't random - it could be. No one knows, including me. What seems to be the case is that approximately 14 billion years ago the Universe rapidly expanded from a singularity. There is evidence to support this. A lot of evidence. What was before that? No one knows. Do I believe that the Big Bang theory accurately describes what happened 14 billion years ago? No. And neither should anyone else, including astrophysicists and cosmologists. Its a theory, not a belief.

Neither does anyone know how life came to exist in the first place. There is some evidence, not much, that it started as a chemical reaction. The current theories of evolution only attempt to describe what happened after there was life. And there is so much evidence for those theories that they seem to accurately describe the mechanisms that resulted in the current level of biodiversity. Do I believe these theories? No. And neither should anyone else including biologists, geologists, psychologists, or any other -ologists. They are theories not beliefs.

Science is not the realm of belief. Dogma has no place in the search for knowledge and understanding. Doubt has a role in science. Curiousity, competition, and accepting that as of right now there is a lot that we don't know. And that its okay not to have all the answers.

You leave much room for doubt concerning God's existence or lack thereof. Therefore, I don't accept your self-description to be very accurate. You can't be a true "atheist" when you've presented such a blank canvas where our origins are concerned. Logic dictates that you must be more agnostic than atheist. Am I wrong?

Well, I've seen a lot of these debates derail on the "what-is-the-definition-of-atheist" argument.

Here's the mainstream fundamental basic among atheists definition of atheist: one who does not believe in god or gods. It doesn't mean to believe there can not be a god or gods - though there are some atheists who do believe that way.

You would label me agnostic. Its the only rational position. I find apologists don't want to argue with agnostics. Its too hard. They want to argue with people they would comfortably categorize as atheists. Its easy. And it is. I'll debate people who believe there can be no god or who believe anything dogmatically.

In the current "New Atheist" movement, there's a lot of talk about "belief" in science or evolution or the big bang theory and that bothers me. It allows for a lot of misunderstanding. Science isn't to be believed. Its to be, as Reagan might've said, trusted but verified. And I would add: revised when there is new information, analysis, and/or synthesis.

 

[Peach]

I appreciate your opinion, but it is just an opinion. To perceive design is entirely subjective. I don't see the design. You do. Your world view is that there is a creator, therefore it makes sense to you to see design. I don't know if there's a creator, but I don't see design.

I also don't believe the Universe is the end result of random chance. At the same time I don't believe that the Universe isn't random - it could be. No one knows, including me. What seems to be the case is that approximately 14 billion years ago the Universe rapidly expanded from a singularity. There is evidence to support this. A lot of evidence. What was before that? No one knows. Do I believe that the Big Bang theory accurately describes what happened 14 billion years ago? No. And neither should anyone else, including astrophysicists and cosmologists. Its a theory, not a belief.

Neither does anyone know how life came to exist in the first place. There is some evidence, not much, that it started as a chemical reaction. The current theories of evolution only attempt to describe what happened after there was life. And there is so much evidence for those theories that they seem to accurately describe the mechanisms that resulted in the current level of biodiversity. Do I believe these theories? No. And neither should anyone else including biologists, geologists, psychologists, or any other -ologists. They are theories not beliefs.

Science is not the realm of belief. Dogma has no place in the search for knowledge and understanding. Doubt has a role in science. Curiousity, competition, and accepting that as of right now there is a lot that we don't know. And that its okay not to have all the answers.

You leave much room for doubt concerning God's existence or lack thereof. Therefore, I don't accept your self-description to be very accurate. You can't be a true "atheist" when you've presented such a blank canvas where our origins are concerned. Logic dictates that you must be more agnostic than atheist. Am I wrong?

Well, I've seen a lot of these debates derail on the "what-is-the-definition-of-atheist" argument.

Here's the mainstream fundamental basic among atheists definition of atheist: one who does not believe in god or gods. It doesn't mean to believe there can not be a god or gods - though there are some atheists who do believe that way.

You would label me agnostic. Its the only rational position. I find apologists don't want to argue with agnostics. Its too hard. They want to argue with people they would comfortably categorize as atheists. Its easy. And it is. I'll debate people who believe there can be no god or who believe anything dogmatically.

In the current "New Atheist" movement, there's a lot of talk about "belief" in science or evolution or the big bang theory and that bothers me. It allows for a lot of misunderstanding. Science isn't to be believed. Its to be, as Reagan might've said, trusted but verified. And I would add: revised when there is new information, analysis, and/or synthesis.

What is beyond the end of the universe, where does it end? The universe has a finite age under the Big Bang theory, thus it began; what was there before it began? Prior to the beginning was ______?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You leave much room for doubt concerning God's existence or lack thereof. Therefore, I don't accept your self-description to be very accurate. You can't be a true "atheist" when you've presented such a blank canvas where our origins are concerned. Logic dictates that you must be more agnostic than atheist. Am I wrong?

Well, I've seen a lot of these debates derail on the "what-is-the-definition-of-atheist" argument.

Here's the mainstream fundamental basic among atheists definition of atheist: one who does not believe in god or gods. It doesn't mean to believe there can not be a god or gods - though there are some atheists who do believe that way.

You would label me agnostic. Its the only rational position. I find apologists don't want to argue with agnostics. Its too hard. They want to argue with people they would comfortably categorize as atheists. Its easy. And it is. I'll debate people who believe there can be no god or who believe anything dogmatically.

In the current "New Atheist" movement, there's a lot of talk about "belief" in science or evolution or the big bang theory and that bothers me. It allows for a lot of misunderstanding. Science isn't to be believed. Its to be, as Reagan might've said, trusted but verified. And I would add: revised when there is new information, analysis, and/or synthesis.

What is beyond the end of the universe, where does it end? The universe has a finite age under the Big Bang theory, thus it began; what was there before it began? Prior to the beginning was ______?

The Universe as we know it has an apparent beginning right before the Big Bang. The Big Bang Theory does not deal with what caused it, or what happened before it, only the sudden expansion of the Universe. So, as of right now no one knows what happened before The Big Bang, what caused it, and anything else about it.

Neither does anyone know what is beyond the Universe - if anything - and no one knows what there was before the Very Beginning whatever that may mean.

Not knowing is not a reason to substitute belief without evidence, belief with insufficient evidence, or any belief at all. Instead not knowing is a reason to search for the answer and to be okay if one never knows. Its okay not to know. Why make a decision based on not knowing the answer?

 

[Missourian]

Check out the Bull Ring Forum.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

As Inspector Clouseau would say," Bemp."

 

[jwoodie]

Descartes famously "proved" the existence of miracles.

 

[DriftingSand]

Howdy all. I don't expect or suspect that I shall change anyone's preconceived and established beliefs concerning God. It seems to me that some folks are naturally inclined to believe in God while others are naturally inclined to reject Him.

Some see purpose in everything that exists in the universe while others see no purpose at all. I happen to see purpose. I see the purpose for the sun. There's a purpose for the earth. There's a purpose for trees. There's a purpose for water. Etc.! It simply seems logical to me that if everything has a purpose then they were purposed to exist. I see beautiful and intricate design in almost everything I look at. So it seems logical to me that an intelligent Designer would have a purpose for His design.

It doesn't seem logical to me to believe that the existence of matter was a mistake. It doesn't seem logical to me that life was a mistake. It doesn't seem logical to me to believe that reason and purpose were mistakes.

So, for me, my belief in God isn't just based on blind faith but on a sense of logic as well.

 

[Peach]

Howdy all. I don't expect or suspect that I shall change anyone's preconceived and established beliefs concerning God. It seems to me that some folks are naturally inclined to believe in God while others are naturally inclined to reject Him.

Some see purpose in everything that exists in the universe while others see no purpose at all. I happen to see purpose. I see the purpose for the sun. There's a purpose for the earth. There's a purpose for trees. There's a purpose for water. Etc.! It simply seems logical to me that if everything has a purposed then they were purposed to exist. I see beautiful and intricate design in almost everything I look at. So it seems logical to me that an intelligent Designer would have a purpose for His design.

It doesn't seem logical to me to believe that the existence of matter was a mistake. It doesn't seem logical to me that life was a mistake. It doesn't seem logical to me to believe that reason and purpose were mistakes.

So, for me, my belief in God isn't just based on blind faith but on a sense of logic as well.

And for me, the beauty of the universe; just to ponder the symmetry & function is awe inspiring.

 

[Tuatara]

I don't understand quantum mechanics, but neither do I deny the possibility of its existence.

Replace quantum mechanic with evolution and many christians do deny the possibility of it`s existence.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Descartes famously "proved" the existence of miracles.

I can't tell if you are being serious, snarky, or just trying to bait me.

If it's snarkiness or baiting, congratulations!

If you are being serious, then you don't realize the logical flaws in Descartes' Third Meditation.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Howdy all. I don't expect or suspect that I shall change anyone's preconceived and established beliefs concerning God. It seems to me that some folks are naturally inclined to believe in God while others are naturally inclined to reject Him.

Some see purpose in everything that exists in the universe while others see no purpose at all. I happen to see purpose. I see the purpose for the sun. There's a purpose for the earth. There's a purpose for trees. There's a purpose for water. Etc.! It simply seems logical to me that if everything has a purposed then they were purposed to exist. I see beautiful and intricate design in almost everything I look at. So it seems logical to me that an intelligent Designer would have a purpose for His design.

It doesn't seem logical to me to believe that the existence of matter was a mistake. It doesn't seem logical to me that life was a mistake. It doesn't seem logical to me to believe that reason and purpose were mistakes.

So, for me, my belief in God isn't just based on blind faith but on a sense of logic as well.

Why do you see purpose? And I stress the word WHY and don't mean HOW. You believe there's purpose to all this, but you don't KNOW that there is purpose to all this.

By the way, you have proposed a false premise: because you subjectively see purpose does not mean there is purpose. You have a bias that there is purpose to ALL of existence, and you can't but admit that you do and that it could be skewing your observation so that you may see purpose where there is none.

Which leads to an assumption that just because there, hypothetically, is purpose does not necessarily mean there is a creator. It could just be that the Universe through its own nature, such as a natural selective quality, eliminates those things or objects which serve no purpose to any other thing or object. That could be totally wrong, and seems like it would be, but no one knows whether it is wrong or perfectly correct.

Which leads to another assumption: just because there is a creator does not necessarily mean the creator is a personal God. The creator could be a mindless force, or so aloof as not to care, or so alien a mind as to have some other reaction to its own creation that we are unable to understand it.

But, then, again, you may be right! Who knows?