Renowned Apologist and Atheist Debate 'Does God Exist?'

[traveller]

I think that I would jump at the chance to debate an atheist.

You better hurry, there are not many left. I think three have been banned in the last three days from Worthy.

Two of those 3 were actually one. You've always been polite and respectful Hitchey. debate away.

[Guest HIS girl]

Hitchey - the authorities of the time started the "rumour" of the disciples taking the body -

pretty ridiculous rumour considering armed Roman soldiers were gaurding the tomb...

[WolfBitn]

In one sense I find discussions on the "existance of God" pointless when it involves an atheist. That's MY opinion. Nothing will be resolved or even satisfactorily reached.

I have been in discussions with atheists on the existence of God, but we all agreed with one another. The discussion, I will call it that because when everyone is in agreement you don't have a debate, quicly becomes rather predictable. Not until a believer comes into the mix do you get any serious criticism that requires a higher level of thought. So if you want pat answers and predictable responses all round, when discussing the existence of God, then by all means exclude atheists from the discussion. The Inner Court would be a good place for that. However, if you want a challenging debate then you need contrary opinions thrown into the mix.

What is generally "agreed" upon is that there was a Man called Jesus and He DID walk the Earth - atheist historians even accept this - so why not discuss the "ressurrection" aspect and the impact of Christianity and could the Christian movement have "held up" for this long if in fact there was a body found or the disciples hid the body?

I think that a discussion along these lines would be more fruitful.

I believe one of the Gospels says not to believe the rumours that the disciples hid the body. Do you believe those rumours? No? But apparently enough people did that the author tried to counter them. So whether or not the disciples actually did so is irrelevant now because you wouldn't believe the rumour anyway, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Maybe the rumour isn't a rumour at all.

Hitchey

You seem both intelligent and reasonable. I'm one who doesnt mind valid questions and critical thought, or challenges to the scriptures or my faith. I notice there is a forum for one on one discussion. I'm not sure of the rules to enter there, i am new really, but if you and i are able, and if you would like, I would be happy to meet you there for a one on one.

If you arent able, i would extend the invitation to anyone

Edited July 25, 2009 by WolfBitn

[MorningGlory]

Hitchey - the authorities of the time started the "rumour" of the disciples taking the body -

pretty ridiculous rumour considering armed Roman soldiers were gaurding the tomb...

That is what happens when a little bit of knowledge gets loose. Statement's like maybe it WAS a rumor.

[Guest shiloh357]

Evolution is not considered to be completely random. It is a mixture of random mutation and natural selection. While the mutations which occur are random, selective pressures are not. If you made that argument, an atheist would simply point out that as someone who makes such a gross mistake regarding the basic principles of evolution, you are obviously unqualified to comment on it.

Actually, evolution is based on a random, unguided, unplanned process. That is not something I made up. That is a core defining element of evolution.

In fact, the complexity of lifeforms suggests jury-rigging rather than any intelligent design. A competent engineer would attempt to make a design as simple as possible while achieving the chosen design goals. If life was engineered you'd expect to see superior design features (such as squid eyes) to be transferred across multiple product lines. You would also expect glaring weaknesses (such as the inability to synthesise vitamin C) to be repaired in later models of the same product set. While it may be "complexity" that you can get scurvy if you don't eat enough citrus fruits or rickets if you don't get enough sunlight, it's also bad engineering, and while it's not 100% conclusive evidence against a designer per se, it does negate the possibility of said designer being intelligent.

Entirely wrong. Just because a particular design is good for cars, does not mean it should be employed on oceanliners, cargo planes, passenger trains, etc.

Some animals do have better eyesight or hearing than other others, but then every species has its own defense mechanisms and strengths that help it to survive in various climates and hostile enviroments. Those show evidence of a very intelligent designer.

By your logic (or lack thereof) a hammer is poorly designed because it can't cut down a tree like an axe.

In addition, our susceptibility to disease does not indicate poor engineering on the part of the designer. Any product that is poorly maintained or used improperly will be subject to damage. The fact that the manufacturer did not create a product that was impervious to neglect and improper handling, it does not reflect poorly on the designer or the manufacturer.

In the same way, our bodies are fragile and require care and maintenance. Not taking in vitamins, eating fatty foods, never excercising result in bad consequences for one's health. Those bad consequences resutling from negligence and improper self-care, cannnot be considered a design flaw. This is just another lame example of trying to shift blame for one's bad behavior on to God.

Children have to be taught to use a toilet too. In fact, tigers teach their offspring how to hunt. Does that mean that hunting is not a part of a tiger's nature?

Invalid comparison. You cannot compare morality with instinct. Animals left to their own will hunt, with or without a parent to teach them. Morality does not occur naturally or instinctively to humans and must be trained and disciplined into a child. Sorry, but you cannot argue against what is readily observed as pasrddt of the human experience.

In the criminal justice system, eyewitness accounts of events, while being the most persuasive evidence, are actually considered to be the least reliable. Given the (un)reliability of standard eyewitness accounts, it is actually up to you to prove that these men are more reliable than your average eyewitness.

I am not required to prove anything. If you cannot show Peter, John, Paul and the other aposltes who saw and spoke with Jesus after his resurrection have no credibility, then you have no good reason to disbelieve them. It is up to you tear apart their testimony and demonstrate why as Christians are misguided in believing men can be shown to have no credibility. Absent that, you have nothing to say against them, really.

By plenty of definitions, basing your entire life around something that there is no solid proof for is irrational.

No. Basing one's life on what is irrational, is what makes for irrationality.

If you go to a resturaunt, do you have to have "solid proof" that the cook did not spit on your food before you eat it? Do you have to have "solid proof" that your car's brakes will work 100% of the time before you drive it? We live by faith in almost everything we do. We put faith in lots of things for which we have no solid proof. We have no solid proof that our plane will not crash or that a roller coaster will not derail, or that no one has poisoned the food we buy at the supermarket. If we had to have "solid proof" of everything in our life, we would be paralyzed as it simply doesn't exist.

The lack of rationality in your response is that you equate believing in God with believing in what is known to be a fictitious character like Godzilla, and then project the foolishness of believing in Godzilla on to believing in God, but you have yet to demonstrate that God is just as fictitious as Godzilla. So it really makes for an irrational and rather silly comparison on your part.

Atheists view it the same way, though usually they accept that the hardliners aren't going to be influenced. Part of it is to expose the dishonesty in their opponents tactics so that the middle is less likely to acquiesce to their wishes such as prayer in school/the bible in science class, etc. You couldn't even manage one forum post without completely misrepresenting the theory of evolution. Imagine how many more examples of either dishonesty or profound ignorance would come from a longer debate.

There is no dishonesty in how I have represented evolution. In fact, I get my information from evolutionists I have come in contact with and have read. The dishonesty comes from people like you who prefer to muddy the waters and confuse the issue so to avoid having honest and open discussions.

[MorningGlory]

The fact that bodies (human and likewise) are difficult to care for is a design flaw. Competent engineers don't design things that require ridiculously high maintenance. Competent engineers design things that can survive being mishandled in as many ways as possible. That's why Nintendo designers are considered to be more competent than Microsoft designers: Nintendo systems can just about survive being roasted in an oven, while an X-box overheats and destroys your games if you so much as look at it funny.

I guess now I've seen and heard it all. Are you really so ridiculously arrogant and full of yourself that you claim you could design life better than the Creator???? No...you're beyond ridiculous; you've strayed into Looneyville, my friend. Is your frame of reference really no bigger than X-box or Nintendo???? There's a cure for that; it's called 'getting right with God before it's too late'. I will pray for you to come to the Truth.

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes, it is unplanned and unguided, but it is not random.

Randomness is the result of a lack of plan or design. In fact, it is a hallmark of a lack of design. The fact the universe is so well constructed and our planet is able sustain life consistently, and because the universe is ordered, speaks to creator and not an unplanned proces bereft of design or purpose.

Please, do one of the following: take some biology classes and actually pay attention in them; stop talking about things that you have no idea about; or stop dishonestly misrepresenting scientific theories.

I am not the one being dishonest.

If you ever wonder why atheists often come across as upset and annoyed when dealing with creationists, it is because there has not ever been a single creationist argument against evolution that properly represents evolution.

No, I never wonder; because, I don't really care. I don't lose any sleep over people like you.

Actually requiring those things in the first place. If someone tried to sell you a car that required petrol 3 times a day, needed to be washed every day, leaked toxic fluids regularly and started getting erratic if you used it for more than about 14 hours straight, you wouldn't buy it. The fact that bodies (human and likewise) are difficult to care for is a design flaw. Competent engineers don't design things that require ridiculously high maintenance. Competent engineers design things that can survive being mishandled in as many ways as possible. That's why Nintendo designers are considered to be more competent than Microsoft designers: Nintendo systems can just about survive being roasted in an oven, while an X-box overheats and destroys your games if you so much as look at it funny.

You really work hard at being irrational and conjuring up silly comparisons don't you???

For one thing, the need for care and maintenance is not a design flaw. No intelligent person accepts that kind of irrational supposition. To use your silly auto comparison, it would be like saying that cars are poorly designed for needing regular oil changes, and filter replacements and new tires and and brake pad replacements. No one would offer the need to maintain and care for a product as a "design flaw." That logic doesn't work in other contexts, and it does not work where the human body is concerned. You really should be embarrassed for offer up such ignorant drivel as an argument.

And look at it this way: if I wanted to design something that lived in the water 100% of the time, I might decide to design it so that it could breathe water, cause you know, living where you could drown if you ever properly fall asleep is a bit of a bad thing. But we get whales and dolphins. Of course, if I were really keen on having air-breathing creatures, then maybe I wouldn't make them live under pack ice where they would be unable to reach the surface like the poor narwhals in this article: http://arcticfocus.com/2008/12/05/harsh-wo...-in-the-arctic/

I'm not claiming that lifeforms are bad at performing jobs that they can't do. I'm claiming that they're inefficient at performing what would seem to be be basic "design features". Like, you know, living.

So far, all you have demonstrated is your inability to make, like you know, an intelligent, substantive or rational argument.

You still cannot provide evidence of a genuine design flaw. You are trying to manufacture issues out of nonissues just to have something to respond with. Whales and dolphins have been doing just fine for a very long time, which is itself evidence of a very well designed world and very well designed animals who live in it.

I never said that those men had no credibility. For all I know, they could be perfectly honest, upright citizens with nothing against their name (though Paul never actually claimed to be an eyewitness to the resurrection, so I don't know why you're including him there).

I didn't say they were witnesses to the resurrection. None of them were. What I said was that they were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ. They all, including Paul spoke to Jesus after His resurrection. Actually, according to Paul, over 500 people saw Jesus after his resurrection.

I am quite happy to accept that those men believed everything they wrote down. I'm also quite sure, however that the people who put Patrick Waller in prison believed everything they told the jury as well when their eyewitness accounts were the crucial testimony in his wrongful conviction. I'm certain that the eyewitnesses who put [url=http://www.texasmonthly.com/2008-11-01/feature2.php]these men in prison believed that they were telling the truth as well.

The difference is that the apostles were not dying for what they believed in. They were not dying for a faith. Their claim was that for 40 days after his resurrection, they saw Him, talked to Him, touched Him, ate with Him, and saw Him ascend into heaven. They were suffering for their testimony, not for a faith or a belief.

No one would die for a lie they manufactured. The gospel accounts are actually quite reliable. The discrepencies between them make them more reliable, not less reliable.

You know, even poorly raised people usually end up being reasonably moral.

In fact, more atheistic countries tend to have lower crime rates than more religious countries, and in the US, atheists have lower divorce rates than religious couples, and also make up a far lower portion of the prison population than the religious (about 98% lower than their prevalence in the general population!) - how do you incorporate these facts into your "theory" that god is necessary for morality. Or do divorce rates and crime rates have nothing to do with the average morality or a group? Did you know that the world's most generous philanthropist is an atheist?

I did not say anything about "poorly raised people." You are changing the framework of my position. I was talking about withholding ALL moral training from a child. Give a child no moral direction whatsoever, and he will grow up living like beast with no self-control caring only for himself and satisfying his baser desires.

The rest of what you said has nothing to do with what I said about the need for moral training. You are trying to refute an argument I did not raise.

The fact is, eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence out there. Ask a trial judge. Or a legal scholar.

Which does not mean it is "unreliable." In fact, it is highly reliable. Sure, it is possible to have other types of more convincing evidence, but that does not mean that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. In fact, eyewitness testimony is often tested for its credibility. There are parameters of set for it used to determine the usefulness of what the eyewitness offers in order to avoid any testimony that is the product of coaching.

There was a Buddhist monk once in China who had the spirit of Guan Yu come and learn the teachings of Buddhism from him and then attain enlightenment. Does this mean that Daoism and Buddhism are true. After all, there's eyewitness testimony!

Except that I did not claim that eyewitness testimony proves that Christianity is true. So, the answer to your question is no, Daosim and Buddhism are not true simply because of an eyewitness accounts. You really need to read what I am saying instead of reacting to what you think I am saying.

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear MorningGlory,

You said:

I guess now I've seen and heard it all. Are you really so ridiculously arrogant and full of yourself that you claim you could design life better than the Creator???? No...you're beyond ridiculous; you've strayed into Looneyville, my friend. Is your frame of reference really no bigger than X-box or Nintendo???? There's a cure for that; it's called 'getting right with God before it's too late'. I will pray for you to come to the Truth.

I think Lusankya was being metaphorical. I doubt she/he wants anyone to design humans like electronic gaming systems are designed, except, probably, in the case of general ruggedness and survivability in hard environments. I doubt very much s/he believes that any god created or designed humans.

FYI, I think the human body is a wonderous thing. However, I do see many problems associated with how it is "designed" if it was "designed". I would never have the respiratory system share a common conduit with the digestive system. I would never have the waste outlet so close to the reproductive system either. This is not arrogance, but common sense.

Regards,

UF

[Guest shiloh357]

But look at all the evidence for Godzilla: 30 different audiovisual records! And we know that Japan exists. Tokyo too. And the mythos is quite firmly grounded in history. Why, I can even talk to people who survived the atomic blasts in WWII, so we can firmly place the events that occurred there in a historical context.

Again, it is a stupid example. You are trying to make an argument against the existence of God based off of a creature known to be fictitious and created for entertainment purposes as if the two are the same, and they are clearly not.

Then there's really no point in talking to you, because you don't listen properly. I bet you're one of those people who stops listening after "random mutation" and then doesn't hear or understand "plus natural selection".

No, you will keep talking and talking and talking...

If you don't mind, I'd like you to stop projecting your own insecurities on me.

I am projecting anything on you. The entire design flaw thing is just another lame attempt at blaming everything that goes wrong on God. Man demands that God stay out of his life and man wants nothing to do with God, but if there are wars, crime, murder, oppression poverty, sickness, disease, etc. Well then "the man upstairs" has obviously fallen down on the job, and if God were doing things right, and he had made the universe the way it shoud have been made, then we would not have this mess. Man creates the problem and uses God as a scapegoat to avoid taking responsibility for the mess man creates.

[MorningGlory]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear MorningGlory,

You said:

I guess now I've seen and heard it all. Are you really so ridiculously arrogant and full of yourself that you claim you could design life better than the Creator???? No...you're beyond ridiculous; you've strayed into Looneyville, my friend. Is your frame of reference really no bigger than X-box or Nintendo???? There's a cure for that; it's called 'getting right with God before it's too late'. I will pray for you to come to the Truth.

I think Lusankya was being metaphorical. I doubt she/he wants anyone to design humans like electronic gaming systems are designed, except, probably, in the case of general ruggedness and survivability in hard environments. I doubt very much s/he believes that any god created or designed humans.

FYI, I think the human body is a wonderous thing. However, I do see many problems associated with how it is "designed" if it was "designed". I would never have the respiratory system share a common conduit with the digestive system. I would never have the waste outlet so close to the reproductive system either. This is not arrogance, but common sense.

Regards,

UF

It is what it is....anyway, you don't know what she meant by her comments really, do you?