How to debate a Christian

[ABierman1986]

I'll respond to every single point you've made if you promise to counter my arguments this time instead of ignoring them...

[solja247]

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 ?

Rational Theists do believe the exitence of God can be proven (on the balance of probability)

I think you need to do more researching and reading.

[Tiberius]

Probability =/= Proof.

Something can be very probable, but still be completely false. Likewise, something can be very improbable, but be completely true.

[NoGodaloud ?]

If Nothing exists without a cause, what caused god then?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god...77.htm#173

God has always existed, independent from anything he created.Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.So, if there were onces absolutely nothing, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be. Why must God be this way?Our universe cannot be explained any other way. It could not have created itself. It has not always existed. And it could not be created by something that itself is created. Why not?It isn't coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, what empirical proof you have of this then?

The claim, our universe came to be out of absolutely nothing, would be a even more extraordinary demand, since nothing has no properties at all, and is in essence a inefficient cause. While God as incredibly powerful being, is a efficient cause. So your hypotheses, absolutely nothing as a better explanation, would need a even more extraordinary evidence. Do you have any ?

How do you know there was no time?

The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted scientific theory. Based on that theory, time, space, and matter were created at the Big Bang.

Yet again, you are repeating yourself... What makes you conclude from timeless, etc, that that is a god, and more precisely, your god?

The alternative of a God , willing to create our universe, would be a mechanical cause. That cause would need to be triggered also by someone. So we would be back at a sentient cause with will. Which decided to create our universe.

I already told you, there is evidence of abiogenesis

please present it then.

you have not yet given me any proof and testable means of mesuring this "fine tuning". (this is called argument from design

that our universe is finely tuned to host life, is a fact, that atheist like Dawkins, Stenger, Rees, Carter, Davies, Hawking, Penrose, and many other astronomers and astrophysicists aknowledge. There are over 120 fine tune constants know to man up to date. YOu can see more about this, here :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronom...se-t31.htm

Astronomer Fred Hoyle reports that his atheism was shaken by his own discovery that in the stars, carbon just manages to form and then just avoids complete conversion into oxygen. If one atomic level had varied half a per cent, life would have been impossible. "Would you not say to yourself . . . 'Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule' ? Of course you would. . . . The carbon atom is a fix.

. . .A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics. . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question" ("The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Engineering and Science, November 1981).

"Somebody had to tune [the universe] very precisely," concludes Marek Demianski, a Polish cosmologist (quoted in Science News, September 3, 1983, p. 152). Stephen Hawking, the Einstein of our time, agrees: "The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" (John Boslough, Stephen Hawking's Universe, p. 121). How the various physical processes are "fine-tuned to such stunning accuracy is surely one of the great mysteries of cosmology," remarks P. C. W. Davies, a physicist. "Had this exceedingly delicate tuning of values been even slightly upset, the subsequent structure of the universe would have been totally different." "Extraordinary physical coincidences and apparently accidental cooperation . . . offer compelling evidence that something is 'going on.' . . . A hidden principle seems to be at work" (The Accidental Universe, p. 90, p. 110).

Those probabilities are wrong.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Probability-of-E...stial-Life

We are not talking about extraterrestrial life here, but about the probability, that our universe came into existence by chance. Only one constant already shows how extremely small the chance is, that our universe would arise by pure chance :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronom...e-t191.htm

Why the Big Bang was the most precisely planned event in all of history
If the universe had expanded a little faster, the matter would have sprayed out into space like fine mist from a water bottle - so fast that a gazillion particles of dust would speed into infinity and never even form a single star.
If the universe had expanded just a little slower, the material would have dribbled out like big drops of water, then collapsed back where it came from by the force of gravity.
A little too fast, and you get a meaningless spray of fine dust. A little too slow, and the whole universe collapses back into one big black hole.
The surprising thing is just how narrow the difference is. To strike the perfect balance between too fast and too slow, the force, something that physicists call “the Dark Energy Term” had to be accurate to one part in ten with 120 zeros.
If you wrote this as a decimal, the number would look like this:
0.000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000001

Sorry, if that offends you, but you have shown you know nothing about Evolution or science

I am here less than two days. A admirable ability you have to evaluate peoples knowledge. But i think, you are not here to make such avaliation, but to debate my arguments, right ?

Jupiter has a great gravitational well, yes, but that does not mean asteroids and comets do not cross earth's Orbit, Example: comet swift-tuttle. See, this is why I say you now nothing about science, you simple make bare assertions to fit your delusion, and ignore evidence of the contrary.

Despite this, life on earth is happening. Without Jupiter, no life would be possible.

That is a blatant argument from ignorance: Just because you can't think of anything better or science cant explain yet, therefore god did it. Its a known logical fallacy.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosop...3.htm#1181

Incredulity is an argument of scepticism about a certain point of view, and the evolutionist and atheist are not innocent of using such an argument. Incredulity, doubt and scepticism about God and special creation, are implicit in every naturalistic explanation they try to concoct about abiogenesis and many other facets of their "theory".Incredulity is based on human experience and on what we actually know. For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be sceptical of it, because it has never been observed. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life. What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer. Atheists imply that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; Considering what atheists are willing to believe, they, can indeed be classed as credulous.

You never read the bible did you? And on your last sentence, you deduce from something unproven(creation), base yourself on a old book of desert scribblings, and trough your wishfull thinking that there is a magical sky-daddy that cares about your sex life. Please man...

all atributes i give to God, are based on what the bible tells us. The bible has over 40 different authors,

a. Moses, political leader trained in the universities of Egypt
b. Peter, fisherman
c. Amos, herdsman
d. Joshua, military general
e. Nehemiah, cup bearer to a king
f. Daniel, prime minister
g. Luke, a physician
h. Solomon, king
i. Matthew, tax collector
j. Paul, tentmaker and rabbi

and is surprisingly correct in how the bible describes our reality. Its perfectly in consensus with modern science.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/Check...uracy.html

I am sorry If I soind condescending, but it is frustrating that you haven't used a single original argument, and all that you used are so over-debunked its not funny anymore.

It not about debunk a argument. Its just about different views of the same issues.

Can't you think for yourself? There are alot of christians around that do a better job in this matter.

and in the end, a adhom again. If this is your motivation, i think a further discussion is worthless.

---

I'll respond to every single point you've made if you promise to counter my arguments this time instead of ignoring them...

which argument of yours have i ignored ?

---

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 ?

Rational Theists do believe the exitence of God can be proven (on the balance of probability)

I think you need to do more researching and reading.

absolute proofs exist only in mathematical formulas. Balance of probability is not proof. Its , as it says, probability.

[Minimalist]

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 ?

Rational Theists do believe the exitence of God can be proven (on the balance of probability)

I think you need to do more researching and reading.

Rational theists = oxymoron.

You are not rational. You are superstitious.

[Edwardo Piet]

I was expecting you to say "irrational".

Since rational and irrational is supposedly a true dichotomy because irrational merely means "not rational".

[Minimalist]

A rational person cannot believe in talking snakes, world-covering floods or dead jews coming back to life.

IT is not my job to make the superstitious feel good about themselves.

[HeyItsZeus]

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.

Something irrational people simply will not do.

[LastPoet]

God has always existed, independent from anything he created.Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.So, if there were onces absolutely nothing, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

That is called Special Pleading. You say nothing exists without a cause, then make a special case of your god, sorry, but this is poor argumentation. Repeating bold assertions afterwards, and citing scripture hardly constitutes evidence.

The claim, our universe came to be out of absolutely nothing, would be a even more extraordinary demand, since nothing has no properties at all, and is in essence a inefficient cause. While God as incredibly powerful being, is a efficient cause. So your hypotheses, absolutely nothing as a better explanation, would need a even more extraordinary evidence. Do you have any ?

And I claimed that? Infact no reputable scientist will make any claim to that, no one knows what happened before the big bang, and saying it was god, its simply an empty assertion. It adds nothing to our knowledge, it answers nothing. It Is my honest to me to simple answer: I don't know what happened, perhaps we should investigate?. Instead you posit that god was there without any real proof, this is not an ad-hom, but I find that a dishonest stand. You didn't answered my question, just moved the goal post to before the big bang, another dishonesty, I'm sorry to say,

I am here less than two days. A admirable ability you have to evaluate peoples knowledge. But i think, you are not here to make such avaliation, but to debate my arguments, right ?

If you stand on ignorance when your arguments are nothing but bullshit... And when you regurgitate things that were fed to you in church or evangelical sites like "Fine Tuning", "Irreducible Complexity", you show you know very little about Evolution and Biology. And when you speak about evidence you disregard the scientific method, that shows you know nothing on how science operates. Science does not fear to say "We don't know yet", while your religion claims absolute truth, with no regard for evidence, ultimately falling to "faith".

Despite this, life on earth is happening. Without Jupiter, no life would be possible.

What? Were is your evidence of this, yet another, bare assertion? Still you answered nothing... Keep running away little rabit...

please present it then.

Sure, here is one of them:
The Miller-Urey Experiment

Incredulity is an argument of scepticism about a certain point of view, and the evolutionist and atheist are not innocent of using such an argument. Incredulity, doubt and scepticism about God and special creation, are implicit in every naturalistic explanation they try to concoct about abiogenesis and many other facets of their "theory".Incredulity is based on human experience and on what we actually know. For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be sceptical of it, because it has never been observed. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life. What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer. Atheists imply that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; Considering what atheists are willing to believe, they, can indeed be classed as credulous.

What the? Atheists are the credulous? You believe in a magical sky-daddy, that was a murderous genocidal maniac, that after sacrificing himself to himself to save us, turn all good with no evidence!! Atheists only say that there is no evidence of god or gods and we are credulous? Are you serious? You surely must be mocking me, because even if all you know from life is the indoctrination you had, no serious person would say that!

It not about debunk a argument. Its just about different views of the same issues.

You are free to believe in whatever you want, but when your view as no evidence, then its wothless, so do not expect others to believe. Subjective views have nothing to do with science.

and in the end, a adhom again. If this is your motivation, i think a further discussion is worthless.

An ad hominem? How is that? I am purely saying to use your mind, your thoughts, not old used arguments, or do you think you are the only apologetic we have debated before? And post links to peer reviewd scientific articles, not evangelical ones please. I know from the beginning this is worthless, because I know I wont deconvert you, you have to do it yourself. I only thought you could bring something original, but no.

[William_Saskibar]

learn the book better than they do. and actually think about what it says because the majority worship what the preacher says more than the bible. "the bible, read correctly, can be the most powerful weapon an atheist can posess"