Which side makes a better case?
avatar
10 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    The five ways can be good examples, anything that involves a necessary infinit regress

    • 2 years ago

      I enjoyed this.

      • 2 years ago

        Thanks for the debate! Your descriptions of morality were interesting. I'll be sure to watch the presuppositionalists' argument as well.

        • 2 years ago

          @kyrothehero would you like another debate?

          • 2 years ago

            @mosheweissman Absolutely! I won't be able to debate for the next few days, but we should be able to figure out a time

            • 2 years ago

              To say "science has explained everything in the past" is absurd and shows ignorance of both theistic argumebts and of science itself, and that it will explain everything in the future is just wishful thinking with no evidence or reason to believe it- very unscientific.
              Francis Bacon said, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion."

              As to the most important things science has never and could never explain are the immaterial:
              From HuffPo article:
              "Scientists throughout history have relied on data and observations to make sense of the world. But there are still some really big questions about the universe that science can't easily explain: Where did matter come from? What is consciousness? And what makes us human?"

              • 2 years ago

                @nellyj_misesian I admit that I phrased that rather poorly; go easy on me here, this was my first debate. I didn't mean that science can explain literally everything. I was simply referring to arguments such as "how could life have grown so complex?". I also didn't mean that science will eventually tell us how matter came to exist in the first place. My statement was meant more as a pre-emptive response to things such as the fine-tuning argument.

              • 2 years ago

                @kyrothehero and I understand you're in HS so very adept for your age
                But science has no way whatsoever of ever or possibly explaining most things given what science actually, Nor can science ever actually tell us anything in the first place, but rather, as dr Turek explains well, scientists interpret whats deemed scientific observations. .

            • 2 years ago

              The apostles were all killed separately in the three known continents. Not in the next town. They couldnt draw strength from one another to ensure that the "tall tale" was adhered to. Even their writings dont match up precisely word for word which also shows they werent writing about the same events at the same time. Jesus had a brother (of Mary) that had become a follower of Christ, So the idea he had a twin isnt correct. Because even his younger brother James wouldnt have acknowledged him as Christ. This was an interesting conversation.