How to debate a Christian

[Eilonnwy]

I think you don't know Goedels incomplete theorem.

I have a personal virtual library, where i collect answers to issues, which i regard relevant, and which makes it easyer for me to find the information i want.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosop...m-t274.htm

Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.

No. Faith is what people resort to when they have no good reason for believing what they do. Science is based on the scientific method, which is the most reliable way of proving what is most likely to be true. It makes claims, it does not assume the outcome, it can tests those claims, those claims are falsifiable, and best of all, if better evidence comes along to disprove a claim, or prove a previously discarded claim, science will change its thinking.

For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time. Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws.

I can prove gravity because if I take a pen and drop it, it will fall. This is testable. It's repeatable. It's falsifiable. If one day I drop a pen and it doesn't fall, I will reconsider gravity. I don't take it on faith, I believe it on the consistent results it provides.

You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.
(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws - and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

Science is based on the scientific method. It may not prove to absolute certainty, but it is the best way of determining what it is most likely true. It is a tool to meet the burden of proof regarding carious hypotheses. You clearly cannot do that.

You might never know in the sense of find absolute proof. These you will find only in mathematical formulas. But you can think , and find out the most rational and reasonable answer to a series of things.
Specially today, where our scientific knowledge is advanced as never before, and alouds us to have a insight of how our universe, and living beings work. This gives us a platform to deductive reasoning, as we never before had. So its really not wrong to believe, to deduce God as being the best answer, because no other answer makes sense to explain things of our natural world. If you say " i don't know " at the beginning of a scientific journey, that makes perfectly sense. To say however still " i don't know", how it might happened, that first life arose on earth, after you have over 50 years of advanced study, is quit a different thing. After you know, that a living eukaryotic cell contains many hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor proteins. These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex ‘machine’ in the universe—far more complex than a Cray supercomputer. You can say, after the question arises, how it could have arised : " i don't know", or you could say : a natural origin is very unlikely, specially because a living cell contains DNA , which is complex and specific encoded information, and information comes always from a mind. Therefore, the most probable explanation, is, that God created life.

I bolded the important bit that basically invalidates your argument as one big argument from personal incredulity. It's a logical fallacy, I've already pointed it out to you.

And once again, irreducible complexity has been thoroughly debunked.

I really don't think so.

And truth is not based on what you think.

Micro-evolution is. Macro-evolution is controversial, So its not a fact.

Macro-evolution is not controversial within established science. Creationists from the discovery institute don't count.

Good that you agree on this. Since the Big Bang is the beginning of our universe, it has a cause. What cause do you suggest ?

I don't need to suggest a cause, I simply reject yours. You have the burden of proof, and you have failed to meet it.

You have far from explained a series of issues, which also demand a explanation :

how was the universe finely tuned to life ? how did life arise on earth ? why is there Sex ? why are we , humans , conscious, and have thoughts, and the ability of speak ? how do you explain the information contained in DNA ? how do you explain the conscience of morality ?

Oh dear. Well I hit finely tuned, abiogenesis, and DNA information above.

There is sex because life evolved from asexual organisms to bisexual organisms.

Consciousness is the product of the brain. Neuroscience is a great new field of study and what it finds consistently reaffirms that everything that makes us who we are is contained entirely within our brain.

Morality is a construct of social animals. It is subjective and has evolved over time. Other animals display morality, not just humans.

If you really want to understand evolution and how it's work, Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth" is pretty good.

You cannot base your world view only os science. Science is very limited to explain our existence. It can explain and explore the natural world, and even this only in a limited degree. But it cannot go further than explore our universe. It can't explain, why and for what reason certain things happen.

You're assuming there is a reason. There doesn't have to be.

We don't know, but we can think about what is the best answer to this question. What was the singularity? It was indeed point zero, from which the Big bang started. Beyond it, there was nothing physical. No time, no matter, no space. So from this starting point, it follows rationally, that the Big Bang most probably must have had a cause. It could not create itself, since it did not exist prior to it.

No. If we do not have the evidence to support a claim, all we're doing is guessing, and one guess is as good as yours. I'm going to guess it was Xenu, how do you know your guess is better than mine?

two reasons ( but there are more, btw.) Second law of thermodynamics. If the universe would be eternal, the universe would already be on a state of heath death. Secondly, because
[/hide]
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5231

Are numbers potentially infinite? Yes, sure they are. They can potentially go on forever and ever. Potentially, the quantity of numbers is infinitely large. There's no end to them. Now, how do you ever get from a potential infinity to an infinity when it comes to numbers? Well, you can start counting--one, two, three, four, five, billion one, billion two, a zillion one, two, a quintillion one, a quintillion two. Keep going. Do you realize that at any particular point in time as you keep adding one number to another--a procedure which potentially could go on forever--that you haven't really accomplished that feat? You haven't really gone on forever, have you? The number gets bigger and bigger, of course. But at every particular point you happen to be counting at, your count describes a finite number. Will you ever get to eternity by counting, adding one number onto another? The answer is no, you won't.

there is no infinite number of events that goes backward from this point in time, only a finite number of events. Here's another way of putting it. If you can't get into the infinite future from a fixed reference point (the present) by adding consecutive events one by one, you cannot get into the infinite past by subtracting consecutive events, one by one, from a fixed reference point (the present). If you can't transverse the distance in one direction (present to infinite past), you can't transverse it in the other direction (infinite past to present). This means that if the universe consisted of an infinite series of events in time, you could never arrive at this present moment.[/hide]

Did this already. The second law of thermodynamics is a failed argument. Entropy is not disorder, it talks about a closed system, the universe is not a closed system. Try again!

[quote='NoGodaloud ?' pid='88097' dateline='1282270466']
To ask proofs of Gods existence is sensless. Gods existence cannot be proven. Thats why the right philosophical question is : how can we best explain our existence ?

No. First you admit that your position is not based on any type of scientific evidence, it is merely a faith based position. Faith is not proof. And you question is flawed, loaded, and oh that pesky argument from personal incredulity. If you are going to try to argue and convince me that god exists, you must meet your burden of proof. If you admit you cannot prove god exists, then you're out of gas.

I don't make simple assertions. I do deductive reasoning, based on scientific knowledge, based on facts, we know through science.

All you've done is make assertions. You admitted you don't have proof. You use failed counter apologetics, and consistently argue from personal incredulity.

Also, if you were that dude in the chat who called me atheist scum....god god god god god god god. If you're not, feel free to ignore.