Theism Vs Atheism

[Caroline H]

I have to participate in a debate for my philosophy class this week. I am on the Theist's side, debating an Atheist and an Agnostic team. My topic is on truth claims....I have never done this before and I was wondering if any of you had suggestions that might help. So far I have this...

* We feel morally guilty because we are morally guilty
*We seek to lead a purposeful life because life is purposeful and has meaning
*We use words like "Mother Nature" that suggest design because the universe was designed
*We recognize the different obligations to animals because humans do have value above that of animals

Am I on the wrong track?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions

 

[animal]

* We feel morally guilty because we are morally guilty

If the people you are debating have any knowledge of the evolutionary understanding of altruism and it's link to modern morality you're going to have trouble with this one. They'll also say something about the secular cherry picking and bending of biblical interpretation to fit society's current idea of what is "moral".

*We seek to lead a purposeful life because life is purposeful and has meaning

What does this have to do with the existence of anything supernatural? Buddhists for example don't feel they lead a purposeful life?

*We use words like "Mother Nature" that suggest design because the universe was designed

This might sound convincing to theists but you're going to have to prove that. Even if that were possible it's not going to happen during a debate.

*We recognize the different obligations to animals because humans do have value above that of animals

Not sure what this has to with with theism or atheism. Atheists understand this, many just don't feel they have God-given dominion over all other animals. And I would argue against the values thing also.. My black lab has much better "values" than MANY humans.

 

[Caroline H]

Thank you Animal.

As far as altruism... I doubt it

*We seek to lead a purposeful life because life is purposeful and has meaning

What does this have to do with the existence of anything supernatural? Buddhists for example don't feel they lead a purposeful life?

My thinking here was along the lines of evolution or spontaneous existence. If the Universe just happened what is the purpose in life. But if there was a God who created us then we have a purpose.

*We recognize the different obligations to animals because humans do have value above that of animals

Not sure what this has to with with theism or atheism. Atheists understand this, many just don't feel they have God-given dominion over all other animals. And I would argue against the values thing also.. My black lab has much better "values" than MANY humans.

 

[animal]

Purpose or not I don't see how it's going to keep anyone from living their lives to the best of their abilities. And you're trying to prove that theism is I guess.. "correct" or at least better right? Telling an atheist that their life is meaningless just isn't going to cut the mustard. Not in their eyes. That's assuming they're happy healthy people.

 

[Caroline H]

Purpose or not I don't see how it's going to keep anyone from living their lives to the best of their abilities. And you're trying to prove that theism is I guess.. "correct" or at least better right? Telling an atheist that their life is meaningless just isn't going to cut the mustard. Not in their eyes. That's assuming they're happy healthy people.

I'm not saying their lives are meaningless at all. What I'm after is that if we have purpose, that means that "someone" wanted us here...it ties in with the idea of design.

 

[animal]

I believe you're assuming there is more purpose to our lives than what we make of it.

 

[Veritas]

That is a good juxtaposition

Is there a greater purpose for our lives?

or

Is the only purpose for our lives what we make of it?

I would explore how the second option is livable as compared to the first.

 

[Veritas]

Also, explore the question of morality.

Is there an absolute moral law to follow?

or

Do we make up a moral law? Is it all relative?

Again, if we draw out the second question to its reasonable conclusions, is that really livable?

 

[Veritas]

Another compelling argument is the existence of reason and logic itself.

 

[JoJo]

I would like to pray for your debate, if you don't mind.

Lord, please guide Caroline as she puts her notes and thoughts together for this debate. This is more than a simple philosophy class debate. It is Your holy name and the Truth that's up for debate. Lord, guide her as she speaks and let the only Truth that matters shine through her words and let her arguments be compelling and lead people to think on this Truth. In Jesus' name, Amen.

 

[Caroline H]

Thank you everyone for your help!

I should say that this debate is held in a class of mostly Christians. I think there are a couple of people unsure or silent on the matter, but for the most part we are all Christians. I think that gives my team the edge because we actually believe what we are defending

 

[mondar]

I have to participate in a debate for my philosophy class this week. I am on the Theist's side, debating an Atheist and an Agnostic team. My topic is on truth claims....I have never done this before and I was wondering if any of you had suggestions that might help. So far I have this...

* We feel morally guilty because we are morally guilty
*We seek to lead a purposeful life because life is purposeful and has meaning
*We use words like "Mother Nature" that suggest design because the universe was designed
*We recognize the different obligations to animals because humans do have value above that of animals

Am I on the wrong track?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions

I do not want to make an issue out of evidential apologetics, but I lean more to the side that evidentialist apologetics is "the wrong track" for a debate. The only problem is that when anyone enters the field of presuppositional apologetics you need nearly a bloody entire minor in Philosophy to understand how presupp apologetics works. So then, while I am convinced of presupp apologetics, I am not the philosophy student that can actually use the method. (I know---Duh---that does not really make sense. Nevertheless, indulge me in more babbling).

I think Veritas came closest to the issue when he said...

Another compelling argument is the existence of reason and logic itself.

If an atheistic, naturalistic world view is correct, knowledge is nothing more then the mere firing of certain neurons in the brain. Knowledge is a mere chemical/electrical action in the brain. The Christian points to miracles, scripture, the resurrection of Christ, and all sorts of evidences. Why does the atheist reject all such arguments? Roman 1:18 says "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness." Truth about God is suppressed by men who begin their world view with the axiom that God does not exist and there is nothing beyond the laws of physics and nature. So then, the atheists already assumes the very issue you are trying to demonstrate.

How can the atheist know there is a God? What will the atheist accept as proof that there is a God?

 

[Silver Bullet]

Caromurp,

So how did the debate go?

Your preparation raised some interesting questions and issues in my mind. If the debate is not over yet, I would be glad to act as resident atheist for you to run your debate points by.

How can the atheist know there is a God? What will the atheist accept as proof that there is a God?

If there was a single sentence in the Bible that could not possibly have been written by a human alive at the time of the writing, that would constitute some pretty amazing evidence for the authenticity of the Bible as the Word of God.

For instance, if the Bible informed us of the speed of light, or if it indicated the precise date of a future solar or lunar eclipse.

Or if perhaps it wrote: "All careful and objective observations and experiments performed in the future will make it appear as though all life on the planet evolved from common ancestors by natural means."

God could do things like part seas on a regular basis, or just once in front of multiple independent news crews. He could depart from his tendency to be an intermittent author or inspirer of books, and appear at hospitals for sick children where entire wards of patients with terminal cancer could be cured time after time. He could announce (with a global, clear, language appropriate, enduring message in the sky made out of clouds) and ensure that he would never let another child be abducted or molested by a Priest, Pastor, or anybody. He could make all military weapons in the middle east instantly disappear and persuade the inhabitants to unite under his love and forge peace. He could certainly come up with much more intelligent ways of proving His existence than I have just come up with in 10 seconds.

There really are countless ways that an omnipotent God could convince atheists of his existence.

A more interesting question I think is: what would a theist accept as proof that there is no God? This may be a point that the other side in the debate will raise. You should be aware of Bertrand Russell's teapot argument . . .

Best,
SB

 

[Sinthesis]

God could do things like part seas on a regular basis, or just once in front of multiple independent news crews. He could depart from his tendency to be an intermittent author or inspirer of books, and appear at hospitals for sick children where entire wards of patients with terminal cancer could be cured time after time. He could announce (with a global, clear, language appropriate, enduring message in the sky made out of clouds) and ensure that he would never let another child be abducted or molested by a Priest, Pastor, or anybody. He could make all military weapons in the middle east instantly disappear and persuade the inhabitants to unite under his love and forge peace. He could certainly come up with much more intelligent ways of proving His existence than I have just come up with in 10 seconds.

There really are countless ways that an omnipotent God could convince atheists of his existence.

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[Free]

There really are countless ways that an omnipotent God could convince atheists of his existence.

He has done enough already, as Sinthesis pointed out.

A more interesting question I think is: what would a theist accept as proof that there is no God? This may be a point that the other side in the debate will raise. You should be aware of Bertrand Russell's teapot argument . . .

There are problems with Russell's teapot argument, as I pointed out in another thread in "Christianity & Other Religions". It really isn't a good argument at all and as such I'm not so sure he meant it as an argument.

 

[Caroline H]

Actually, the debate will be over with tomorrow.

Silver Bullet, you gave a list of things that God could do to prove that he exists. It is interesting that some of those things are predicted to occur in the book of Revelation You say that you would believe that he exists if you saw miracles occur in front of news crews, but who's to say that in 2000 years people will take that as evidence? 2000 years ago people took eyewitness accounts as evidence, especially when things occurred in front of thousands of people who said they saw the same thing, but nowadays the Bible is brought into question on those matters.

 

[Paidion]

Here is something which I put together some years ago. It's not a proof of Theism, but it might prove useful:

Scientific Proof of Supernatural Creation
The efficacy of this proof depends upon the following three premises:

1. The Universe is finite. (Note: "Universe" means the total of all matter and energy that exists.)

2. The first law of thermodynamics holds, i.e. , within a closed system matter (and its equivalent, energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

3. The second law of thermodynamics holds, i.e., the total energy within a closed system is continuously decreasing in its level of availability. In other words, entropy is increasing within any closed system. (Or in layman's terms, the system is "running down").

Notes on the premises:

1. The first premise in generally accepted within the scientific community. In fact a finite Universe is implied by the widely accepted "big bang" theory. This theory states that all matter and energy existed within a very small volume of space, smaller than a molecule of water, and since that time has been expanding, resulting in the Universe as we know it.

2. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are considered to be the most widely accepted generalizations known to science.

The Proof:

1. Since the Universe is finite, it is, itself, a closed system. Thus the first and second laws of thermodynamics apply to it.

2. Either the Universe always existed, or else it came into being (either instantaneously or over a period of time), or it is still coming into being.

3. The idea of the Universe always existing contradicts the third premise. For an infinite amount of time would have passed, plenty for plenty for entropy to have increased to the extent of inert uniformity. Thus the Universe did not always exist, but had a beginning, or is still coming into being.

4. If the Universe (total of all matter and energy) had a beginning, then its matter and energy couldn't have come into being within itself. For this would contradict premise 2. The same applies if the Universe is still coming into being.

Conclusion: Since the Universe had a beginning, and its matter and energy could not have arisen within itself, then it must have come into it from outside itself, from outside nature itself. That which is outside nature is the Supernatural. Thus the production of matter and energy within the Universe had a Supernatural Source.

Note: Of course, this conclusion in no way implies the characteristics of the Supernatural Source, whether personal or impersonal, and if personal, whether benign or malignant.

 

[Caroline H]

Thank you Paidion!

 

[Silver Bullet]

Another great read Paidion. Thanks. I am inspired by your depth of thought in these matters.

The Proof:

3. The idea of the Universe always existing contradicts the third premise. For an infinite amount of time would have passed, plenty for plenty for entropy to have increased to the extent of inert uniformity. Thus the Universe did not always exist, but had a beginning, or is still coming into being.

A potential problem here, and I'm no physicist, maybe that time itself is thought to have started at the Big Bang.

Your proof sounds a lot like the "prime mover' argument.

It really doesn't explain anything, because you'd have to explain where the Supernatural Source came from, and that just starts an infinite regress.

If you say that the Supernatural Source always existed (and how could you say that since, as you've pointed out, you can't really say anything about the Supernatural Source because there's no way of knowing anything about it if it is outside our natural world), then all you've done really is said that the problem of existence has no natural explanation, so it must be supernatural. That's no explanation.

Lastly, it is not falsifiable or testable. It doesn't help us to understand anything and we cannot test it in any way, so I don't think its of any use.

Best,
SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

2000 years ago people took eyewitness accounts as evidence, especially when things occurred in front of thousands of people who said they saw the same thing, but nowadays the Bible is brought into question on those matters.

Thousands of people have all at some point in our history come to confident conclusions about the abilities of alchemists and fortune tellers based on what they have witnessed. Who would be surprised to hear that thousands of people came to the same conclusion at the same time while watching a good magic show in 1400 AD?

Today, in India, there are at least hundreds of thousands of people who are followers of Sathya Sai Baba. Many have completed advanced educations in Western Universities. I am aware of one account that one million attended a celebration of his birthday.

Sai Baba claims to be the product of a virgin birth. His believers will tell you all kinds of stories about the healings and other miraculous events he is responsible for. These stories are not 2000 years old: they are going around today and if you are interested, you can go and hear them for yourself. You can even observe these "miracles" with your own eyes.

Of course, neither of us find these claims compelling, and they don't even get one hour's worth of attention on the Discovery Channel, or Fox News. On the other hand, you are suggesting that similar claims made in the first century Roman Empire, when people didn't even know what a germ was, ought not be questioned.

That is the kind of response you might get if you pursue that line of reasoning in your debate.

Good-luck,
SB