Exclusive Debate: "There is evidence that God exists" (Elcid vs JuanTamad)
ElCid
Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
Debate
Topic: "There is evidence that God exists"
Participants:
Answering in the Affirmative: ElCid
Answering in the Negative: JuanTamad
Moderator/s: N/A This is a self-moderated debate among the
participants
Format:
I. Introductions:
Affirmative Introduction - (500)
Negative Introduction - (500)
II. Constructives
Affirmative Constructive - (2000)
Negative Constructive - (2000)
III. First Rebuttals
Affirmative First Rebuttal - (1500)
Negative First Rebuttal - (1500)
IV. Cross-Examination
Affirmative's Cross-Examination - (5 questions)(500)
Negative's Replies - (500 each)
Negative's Cross-Examination - (5 questions)(500)
Affirmative's Replies - (500 each)
V. Second Rebuttals
Affirmative's Second Rebuttal - (1000)
Negative's Second Rebuttal - (1000)
VI. Conclusion
Affirmative's Conclusion - (750)
Negative's Conclusion - (750)
Rules:
These rules prevail over any other informal understandings so carefully review
them to make sure that they are clear and understood. Where the rules are
explicit, both parties shall abide by the rules. Where the rules are silent or
implicit, the parties shall behave in the interest of fairness and standard
debate practice pursuant to Robert's Rules and Debate Decorum.
1. Agreed start-date: This debate starts at the moment that the AFFIRMATIVE has
posted his Introduction. The affirmative side is given two (2) weeks to make
the first post from the date of posting of this thread. In the event that
the AFFIRMATIVE fails to post his Introduction within the time period given,
the NEGATIVE shall be declared the winner by default.
2. The cross-examination questions must focus only on what has been covered by
the corresponding constructive of the other side.
3. Even more importantly, the debater being cross-examined is expected to
answer the questions directly.
4. Maximum word count: as stated in the format.
5. Time limit is within 7 days (168 hours) from
the last post by the opponent. Posting shall be made on Saturdays and
Sundays only. Any of the participants may waive this rule and
post on a weekday within the 7 day time limit. However, it shall be
treated as a post at 11:59 PM on the coming Sunday nearest to the weekday. The participant who fails to post
within his allotted time limit shall be declared the loser.
6. Tagalog may be used for posting however, no further editing is allowed after
posting.
7. All standard forum rules on online behavior and debate courtesies are
enforced. This includes the prohibition against plagiarism and the requirement
to cite sources.
8. During the duration of the debate, debaters should not extend their debate
in the peanut gallery or anywhere else in the forum. They are not allowed to
post in the gallery that will further support their argument, rally their
supporters, or criticize the opponent. This does not prevent the debaters from
posting things in the gallery, such as social greetings, etc, that does not
violate the earlier stated rule.
9. No profanity shall be used throughout the debate and proper decorum
shall at all times be observed.
10. Only the AFFIRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE are allowed to post in this
thread. However, comments and reactions by other PEXers may be posted
in the PEANUT GALLERY.
PEXERS may also VOTE UP in favor of the AFFIRMATIVE (ElCid) and may
also VOTE DOWN in favor of the NEGATIVE (JuanTamad) at and for any
posts made by the participants in this debate.
Comments
I. INTRODUCTION (AFFIRMATIVE)
First of all, one doesn’t have to be a Christian to have a conception of God according to ancient catholic doctrine based on St. Augustine. Even Aristotle who was born four centuries before the Lord Jesus Christ finds evidence in the existence of God:
"Aristotle conceives of God as an unmoved mover, the primary cause responsible for the shapeliness of motion in the natural order, and as divine nous, the perfect actuality of thought thinking itself, which, as the epitome of substance, exercises its influence on natural beings as their final cause."[1]
This is in perfect harmony with what St. Paul has said in scripture: "20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Rom 1:20
Secondly, how many kinds of evidence are there? There are plenty, but for the purpose of this discussion, I will just be limiting them to three (3) and will be concentrating on one due to space and time limitations:
1) We have logical evidence - "Logical evidence is used to prove or disprove an idea using logic. Deductive reasoning may be used to come to a conclusion to provide logical evidence." [2]. "That consciousness exists and that reality exists – and that these things didn’t arise from nothing. This has been well known fact since the time of the ancients: "Nothing comes from nothing (Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit) is a philosophical expression of a thesis first argued by Parmenides."[3]
Therefore existence of consciousness and the universe itself comes from something/someone and that someone is God.
2) We have documentary evidence in the form of scripture: "Archaeologists, though, have been able to corroborate elements of the New Testament story of Jesus. While some disputed the existence of ancient Nazareth, his biblical childhood home town, archaeologists have unearthed a rock-hewn courtyard house along with tombs and a cistern. They have also found physical evidence of Roman crucifixions such as that of Jesus described in the New Testament."[4]
3) We have the laws of nature as evidence itself since law posits a law maker: “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man,” Einstein wrote. “In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” [5]
Finally, if a scientist like Albert Einstein is convinced of some SPIRIT manifest in the laws of the universe, who are we to question his judgment? So to the question if there is evidence for God’s existence – the answer is yes and it doesn’t even come from Christians alone – they come from many sources. The Catholic Church does recognize the various conceptions of God and that it is apparent even to non-Catholics.
Word Count: 500
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor
At dahil ang kabilang panig lamang ang may claim, na "may dios at ito'y totoo", samakatuwid siya ang may tungkulin na magbigay ng patunay.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
Panghuli, ukol sa kung anong uri ng patunay ng kabilang panig ang maituturing na katanggap-tanggap, pakatandaan na ang dios na kanyang sinasamba ay hindi isang "isnaberong" dios (Deism) kundi isang dios na "pakialamero" (personal God).
Word count: 420
II. CONSTRUCTIVE (AFFIRMATIVE)
First of all, I would like to demolish the contention of the NEGATIVE that in order for my evidence to be acceptable – it has to conform to my idea of God which to him is a personal God. It is as if there is evidence for the Deist God which he fears and not for the Christian God which I worship. Right from the start, I have already clarified the Catholic belief that ONE DOESN’T HAVE TO BE CHRISTIAN to have a conception of God citing both Aristotle (a pagan) and Saint Paul (a Christian). The only difference between the pagan and the Christian is on how perfect the conception of God is but both is diametrically opposed to the atheist conviction that the NEGATIVE tries to uphold that there is no evidence for God since atheism is defined as the denial of the existence of God or deities[1]. To the atheist – both are without evidence and so as you can see, the distinction made by the NEGATIVE is ludicrous and senseless since any evidence presented proving God’s existence makes his stand invalid and indefensible.
Secondly, allow me to proceed with the logical evidence as implied by St. Paul in Romans 1:20 that we can draw from what can be seen that there is a creative force beyond space and time responsible for all that there is since “nothing comes from nothing”[2]. There was nothing before the universe came into existence is an accepted scientific fact, since as Stephen Hawking said, before the Big Bang, “there existed simply nothing.”[3] But that was before the universe came into existence but now we know that things does exist. We know that we exist and that existence is an indisputable reality. It is an axiom – the very basic element for logical reasoning: “Existence exists is an axiom which states that there is something, as opposed to nothing. At the core of every thought is the observation that "I am aware of something". The very fact that one is aware of something is the proof that something in some form exists -- that existence exists -- existence being all that which exists.”[4]
We also know that everything that exists had a beginning since even the universe had a beginning: “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.”[5] Time itself had a beginning in the Big Bang. What does this mean? That there was an instance when there was nothing before the universe began – not even time. Not only do we know that what exists has a beginning, we also know that everything that exists has a cause: “In classical physics, an effect cannot occur before its cause.[6] In other words: “Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is efficacy, by which one process or state, a cause, contributes to the production of another process or state, an effect, where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes, which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future.”[7]
So everything that began to exist has a CAUSE including the universe which is caused by a ‘creative force’ that came before it since things are caused by something else. This ‘creative force’ is POWERFUL since it is able to create existence itself out of nothing. What we can also deduce from these facts is that this ‘creative force’ which is the cause of all things is ETERNAL since it is outside TIME and SPACE being its creator. That it is also SPIRITUAL in nature since it created MATTER since nothing existed before HIS creation. We can also infer that since it caused all of creation into being it is therefore an UNCAUSED CAUSE – at least, not by anything in the universe that we know of. So this ‘creative force’ which has CAUSED the universe and everything in it to exist we call GOD. How else could you call an all powerful/eternal/spiritual creative force? This is probably what Albert Einstein had in mind when he said that there is some spirit manifest in the laws of the universe: “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man,” Einstein wrote. “In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.”[8]
Law posits a law giver and scientific laws are not an exception. The forces of nature function with such regularity and inevitability that our scientists are able to formulate mathematical equations on how to predict it. Who guarantees such behavior in nature? Why aren’t we in a world like that of Baron Munchausen? Since there is an INTELLIGENCE behind all these things which is powerful enough to enforce the laws of physics itself.
This is not far from the classical logical evidences provided by the great doctor of the church St. Thomas Aquinas. How many arguments and evidence do we have in favor of God’s existence? In classical theology we have at least five:
The First Way: Argument from Motion
The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
There is therefore no dearth of logical evidence in favor of God’s existence.
Thirdly, it’s through revelation in scripture that we understand that this creative force behind all creation is GOD who created the universe out of nothing:
2 Maccabees 7:28 (DRA)
28 I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also:
And in Romans 4:17 (NLT)
17 That is what the Scriptures mean when God told him, "I have made you the father of many nations." This happened because Abraham believed in the God who brings the dead back to life and who creates new things out of nothing.
This is completely in harmony with what science, logic and common sense has explained to us which are not readily apparent to atheists like the NEGATIVE.
Finally, it is true that to the claimant belong the burden of proof as mentioned by the NEGATIVE and I have presented reasonable evidences thus far for my claim. Now how could the NEGATIVE assert that there are no evidences when I have presented plenty? By taking the weak atheist position he actually misses an opportunity to present an alternative which is equally probable in his point of view. In reality, he took this position because he has nothing to offer since he admits having no assertion that there is no GOD even on the possibility of his existence. How can he now claim that I don’t have evidence when I have presented a lot? It is therefore false on the part of the NEGATIVE to claim that there are no evidences for the existence of God.
The problem lies probably in his expectation that the evidence should be falsifiable. But how can God be falsifiable when he is outside natural phenomena being the creator of the material universe? He is beyond the ambit of science since it can only deal with observable phenomena. But can we only understand the reality of what is observable? Of course not! We know that even in math numbers extend from positive to negative infinity and we know that as a certainty even though we never have experienced nor observed infinity. Why do we object then to the reality of God – the creator of the universe? St. Paul is correct, although we cannot see God since he is spirit, we can see his power immanent through his creation: "20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Rom 1:20
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing
[3] https://www.ibtimes.com/big-bang-stephen-hawking-says-nothing-existed-singularity-2659757
[4] http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_ExistenceExists.html
[5]http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
[8] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/albert-einstein-on-god-and-science_n_56e6f491e4b065e2e3d6a9d9?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALhQNsc-hlTEzanApk5VjoH6RrsjaKM-9kcnjJcnk_UMLIeGiQ65tD2O96U1k75pvq78GxkWoyy27ZpOtwtRhCD9kr5d92YIZNFUCi6RuG1JprGNA4mtEgoPqvf58HRhhjJHso2mnXpbrn0jVCiNc-JHa8kzIEAw6ERl-fdzrAUq
[9] http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm
Word Count: 2000
Ang aking katunggali ay isang Kristiyano. Siya'y hindi Deist at hindi rin Pantheist. Hindi Hindu, hindi Jewish, hindi Muslim, hindi Sikh at lalong hindi isang Buddhist. Ang dios niya ay si Yahweh at si Hesukristo. At ang basehan ng kanyang paniniwala ay ang Biblia.
Ngunit bakit ko nga ba kailangang ipagdiinan kung sino ang dios na sinasamba ng kabilang panig?
Malamang ay sasang-ayon siya kung sabihin kong ang dios niya ay hindi tulad ng dios ni Einstein (for obvious reason) o ng Deist god na "isnabero" na matapos likhain ang lahat ay wala nang pakialam sa mga ito.
Word count: 1,851
III. FIRST REBUTTAL (AFFIRMATIVE)
Let me point out the numerous defects in the reasoning of our atheist friend:
Firstly, the NEGATIVE engages in the highest form of double standard in pointing out that there are various shades of theism. He thinks it’s a weakness on our part that we have various conceptions of God - far from it. Like what I have pointed out in my introduction, the Church does recognize the differences in belief since there are kernels of truth even in other religions:
“The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.(CCC 843)”[1]
Here lies the duplicity of the NEGATIVE – his position as an atheist is not monolithic like what he is implying since there are various kinds of atheism as well. He even differentiated his weak form of atheism from the strong kind of atheism: “Magkaiba ang "may patunay na walang dios (there's evidence that no god exists)" at ang "walang patunay na may dios (there's no evidence that god exists)". Tinitindigan ko ang huli.” Therefore, the NEGATIVE cannot use the various kinds theism to invalidate our stand that evidence exists for God’s existence without doing violence to his own stand since in reality there are at least 17 kinds of atheism[2]. As such, he can’t possibly score points in the fact that theists view the reality of God in various different ways since there are various shades of atheism as well:
“Atheism is a big umbrella. There are about as many ways to disbelieve as there are ways to believe — different degrees, different emphases, and different expressions. It covers anyone who doesn’t believe in a supernatural god or gods. But under that umbrella are many shades and grades of disbelief and many people with different ways of approaching and expressing it.”[3]
Secondly, as I have already pointed out earlier, so what if my arguments can also be used by other theists? Doesn’t that support our position that even though we do not all belong to the same religion, we arrive at the same conclusion using logical reasoning that there is a God as pointed out by St. Paul – the reality of which is apparent to everyone since his power is manifest in creation and therefore no one has the excuse for not believing in his existence? This only proves that we are exercising correct reasoning since other people of other faiths arrive at the same conclusion.
Thirdly, the NEGATIVE is dead wrong in assuming that I have not differentiated my belief as a Christian from other faiths. Despite our similarities, I was also able to point out our glaring differences i.e. that our CREATOR GOD creates from NOTHING (Ex Nihilo) unlike HINDUS who believe that their god[s] create from existing matter: “Most philosophical schools in Hinduism maintain that material creation started with some minute particle (or seed) which had to be co-eternal or a part of ultimate reality (Brahman).”[4] Unlike this point of view, ours is consistent with modern science and I even pointed out the verses in scripture thousands of years before our scientists today discovered the same fact that there was nothing before the universe came into existence!
Fourthly, contrary to what the NEGATIVE is trying to imply, I used primarily Catholic teaching to prove my argument[s]:
Fifth, that the NEGATIVE is already going beyond the scope of this debate by demanding that: God’s name should be known; the number of god’s there are should be determined; or if it is the will of God to have humans on earth and if he really wanted to be worshipped. Such is obviously beyond the scope of this debate which the NEGATIVE seem to be oblivious to.
Sixth, contrary to the claim of the NEGATIVE, I was able to show the ‘finger print’ of the God of Catholics in the universe since he created it out of nothing (Ex Nihilo) which is contrary to ancient near eastern mythologies and classical creation myths that the universe was created from already-existing primeval matter known as chaos[Ibid]:
Irenaeus
“Men, indeed, are not able to make something from nothing, but only from existing material. God, however, is greater than men first of all in this: that when nothing existed beforehand, he called into existence the very material for his creation” (Against Heresies 2:10:4 [inter A.D. 180-199]).[5]
Seventh, I find it ludicrous reasoning on the part of the NEGATIVE that he makes an ISSUE about staves transforming into snakes and bread and fish being multiplied in scripture. Isn’t CREATING THE UNIVERSE OUT OF NOTHING THE GREATER IF NOT THE GREATEST MIRACLE as compared to his trivial examples since we were able to prove it using current scientific knowledge, from prophecy of scripture and the teaching of the Catholic Church? The NEGATIVE have obviously lost the bigger picture here.
Eight, the NEGATIVE also has no basis in making an issue out of evolution since the Catholic Church allows belief in a version of theistic evolution and he is therefore making a strawman argument. And for his information, Catholics have contributed to the understanding of evolutionary theory:
Catholics' contributions to the development of evolutionary theory included those of the Jesuit-educated French scientist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) and of the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel (1822-1884). Lamarck developed Lamarckism, the first coherent theory of evolution, proposing in Philosophie Zoologique (1809) and other works his theory of the transmutation of species. He constructed a genealogical tree to show the genetic connection of organisms.[6]
Finally, I would also like to point out that civilization, science, technology and culture grew under the auspices of various religions which reached its pinnacle during the Scientific Revolution which was largely influenced by the Catholic Church:
Historically, the Catholic Church has often been a patron of sciences. It has been prolific in the foundation of schools, universities and hospitals, and many clergy have been active in the sciences. Historians of science such as Pierre Duhem credit medieval Catholic mathematicians and philosophers such as John Buridan, Nicole Oresme, and Roger Bacon as the founders of modern science.[7]
And it is largely through the efforts of Catholics that the scientific method became established:
During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon, and Thomas Aquinas, who helped establish the scientific method.[Ibid]
Even the Big Bang Theory was the work of a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître:
"Monsignor Georges Lemaître was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, physicist and astronomer. He is usually credited with the first definitive formulation of the idea of an expanding universe and what was to become known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which Lemaître himself called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom” or the “Cosmic Egg”.”[8]
I’d like to emphasize that our views have always been consistent with scientific knowledge especially about the creation of time, matter and space even before the discovery of the Theory of Relativity:
Saint Augustine (354-430) put a theological twist on Lucretius' argument for the relational nature of time in his Confessions, emphasizing that "God created the world with time, not in time". Time came into existence along with matter, in other words — a viewpoint that interestingly foreshadows the one held by big-bang cosmologists today.[9]
The NEGATIVE moreover is largely mistaken in making this debate a faith versus science issue with the atheist supposedly “on the side of science”. He offered no scientific view on his side of the proposition – I did. He offered no logical argument – I did. So if there is anyone on the side of science and logic here it would be me, the AFFIRMATIVE. Historically speaking, there is no connection between science and atheistic civilizations since it was under the auspices of religion that culture, philosophy, science and technology flourished.
[1]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/843.htm
[2]http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487
[3]https://www.dummies.com/religion/atheism/different-types-of-atheism/
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
[5]http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_creation_out_of_nothing.htm
[6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church
[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
[8]https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html
[9]https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime1.html
Word Count: 1,500
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
https://www.livescience.com/61914-stephen-hawking-neil-degrasse-tyson-beginning-of-time.html
https://www.livescience.com/65254-what-happened-before-big-big.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[21]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
IV. CROSS-EXAMINATION (AFFIRMATIVE)
1) Would there be a greater miracle as compared to the creation of the universe out of nothing in all of the prophecies and miracles in scripture?
2) Isn’t it presumptuous on your part to assume that there is ‘something’ before the Big Bang since the word doesn’t even occur in any of the references you used? That the events before the Big Bang are unobservable and therefore you aren’t warranted in your assumption that there is “something” before the Big Bang?
In a lecture on the no-boundary proposal, Hawking wrote: "Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang."[1]
Moreso, there was really “nothing” before the big bang according to Stephen Hawking. That it is therefore unjustified on your part to insert the word “something”?:
“British physicist Stephen Hawking has said that there was nothing around before the big bang that created our universe. “There was nothing around before the Big, Big Bang,” he said during a television talk show aired Sunday on National Geographic Channel, propounding his theory on what happened before the universe came into existence.[2]
3) Unlike atheists, Einstein believed in a God/Spirit that permeates the laws of the universe as evidenced by these statements:
“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist,” he once said when asked to define God. “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” he told Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogues of New York, “who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.” All the finer speculations in the realm of science “spring from a deep religious feeling,” he remarked in 1930. In the order, beauty and intelligibility of creation, he found signs of the ‘God’ he also heard throughout his life in music."[3]
Doesn’t this prove that one doesn’t have to be a Christian to know that God exists since it is understood by observation by an inquiring mind on what has been created like what St. Paul implied in Romans 1:20?
4) If the Universe had a beginning according to science and therefore there was a time that the Universe did not exist, why would you assume that there was ‘something’ before the Big Bang? Is matter eternal? Can anyone see beyond the Big Bang which is unobservable based on aforementioned scientific knowledge?
5) If you are therefore wrong in the assumption that there is something before the Big Bang since you can’t prove it and there is nothing in science which can observe what went on before the Big Bang, Aquinas is therefore well justified in his reasoning that there is a prime mover, first cause and uncaused cause who created the universe out of nothing based on the law of cause and effect?
[1]https://www.livescience.com/61914-stephen-hawking-neil-degrasse-tyson-beginning-of-time.html
[2]https://tribune.com.pk/story/1651558/3-stephen-hawking-says-nothing-around-origin-universe/
[3] https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/philosophy/did-albert-einstein-believe-in-god
Word Count: 500
IV. Cross-Examination Replies (Negative)
Kung ang usapan ay kung alin ang greater na miracle, aba'y panalo na ang creation of the Universe. Ang problema, pagpapatunay ang pinag-uusapan natin. At kung hindi magagawang mapatunayan ang lesser miracles na gaya ng tungkod na nagiging black mamba, ang dumadaming tuna't pandesal o maging ang amputee na parang butiki sa pagpapagaling, paano pa kaya ang greater miracle?
Word count: 60
Ang akala ko'y magmumula lamang sa constructive ang tanong?
Anyway, hindi ako kundi ang mga siyentipiko ang siyang nagbigay ng mga hypothesis at theory sa kung ano ba ang mayroon before Big Bang.
Ngunit ano ba ang ibig sabihin ni Hawking sa "there was nothing around before the Big, Big Bang"? Gamitin natin ang mismong reference mo:
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1651558/3-stephen-hawking-says-nothing-around-origin-universe/
At kung ating babalikan ang sinabi niya sa reference ko,
https://www.livescience.com/61914-stephen-hawking-neil-degrasse-tyson-beginning-of-time.html
So, "there is nothing around the Big Bang" dahil "events before the Big Bang are simply not defined". Sa madaling salita, HINDI ALAM.
Ngunit ang mahalaga sa mga sinabi ni Hawking (mula uli sa reference mo):
“It was always reaching closer to nothing but didn’t become nothing.”
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1651558/3-stephen-hawking-says-nothing-around-origin-universe/
“It just seemed that way from mankind’s perspective,” Hawking noted, hinting that a lot of what we believe is derived from a human-centric perspective, which might limit the scope of human knowledge of the world.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1651558/3-stephen-hawking-says-nothing-around-origin-universe/
Parang nothing, ngunit hindi talaga nothing.
At bakit nakatuon lang ang tanong mo sa hypothesis ni Hawking gayung 4 ang reference na ibinigay ko? Hindi mo ba nabasa ang ukol sa Big Bounce at sa Multiverse?
Word count: 402
Sinabi rin ni Einstein na siya ay agnostic, at kung ang kahulugan ng salitang agnostic ay hindi pa rin nagbabago, then, ano ba ang pinatutunayan ni Einstein ukol sa existence ng dios?
Word count: 32
Ikalawang beses na hindi nagmula sa constructive ang paksa ng tanong.
Mga siyentipiko ang siyang nagbigay ng mga hypothesis at theory, so hindi ako nag-assume. Siyensiya ang nagbigay ng paliwanag:
While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined. The Big Bang theory, built upon the equations of classical general relativity, indicates a singularity at the origin of cosmic time; this infinite energy density is regarded as impossible in physics. Still, it is known that the equations are not applicable before the time when the universe cooled down to the Planck temperature, and this conclusion depends on various assumptions, of which some could never be experimentally verified. (Also see Planck epoch
One proposed refinement to avoid this would-be singularity is to develop a correct treatment of quantum gravity.[132]
It is not known what could have preceded the hot dense state of the early universe or how and why it originated, though speculation abounds in the field of cosmogony.
Some proposals, each of which entails untested hypotheses, are:
Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in either a much larger and older universe or in a multiverse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
At tama, wala pang katiyakan kung ano ang mayroon before Big Bang, kaya nga naging taguan ito ng "puganteng isnabero", di ba? Ang kaso, hanggang kailan?
Word count: 424
Ikatlong beses na wala sa constructive ang paksa ng tanong.
Again, siyensiya ang nagbigay ng paliwanag. Mga paliwanag na mathematics ang basehan.
At kung sakali man na ang lahat ng kasalukuyang hypothesis at theory ay mapatunayang mali, hindi ito mangangahulugan na "kulog-kidlat-kasi-galit-dios". Hindi ibig sabihin ay ang 5 Ways ni Aquinas na ang tamang paliwanag. Kung magiging mali ang kasalukuyang hypothesis at theory, maghahanap at mag-iisip ang mga siyentipiko ng panibago.
Ngayon, kung tunay ngang sa siyensya ay hindi ka allergic, bakit mo ipagpipilitan ang logical arguments kung may ibang paliwanag ang siyensya?
Sa iyong palagay ba, superior bilang paraan ng pagpapatunay ang philosophy kumpara sa mathematics?
Word count: 111
IV. Cross-Examination (Negative)
1. Sa mga argumentong nakapaloob sa 5 Ways ni Aquinas, alin rito, kung mayroon man, ang hindi nagpapahintulot para magamit rin ang 5 Ways bilang patunay na totoo ang ibang dios tulad, halimbawa, ng dios na si Ngai?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngai
2. Bilang Kristiyano, alin ang MAS mahalagang patunay na ang dios ay totoo, logical arguments o Biblia?
3. Malinaw ba at hindi subject sa ibang interpretasyon ang sinasabi ng Biblia patungkol sa creatio ex nihilo? Na imbes na creatio ex nihilo, "creation from chaos" ang isa pang posible at maaaring tamang interpretasyon?
Although the opening phrase of Genesis 1:1 is commonly translated in English as above, the Hebrew is ambiguous, and can be translated at least three ways:
The second seems to be the meaning intended by the original Priestly author: the verb bara is used only of God (people do not engage in bara), and it concerns the assignment of roles, as in the creation of the first people as "male and female" (i.e., it allocates them sexes): in other words, the power of God is being shown not by the creation of matter but by the fixing of destinies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth#Creation_from_chaos
4. Isa sa argumento ng kabilang panig ay ukol sa "law giver":
So, kung ang dios ang siyang nagtakda at nagpapatupad sa laws of physics, maaari rin ba niya itong baguhin ayon sa kanyang ninanais at kung maari niyang baguhin, makatwiran ba at hindi maituturing na katawa-tawa para sa mga Kristiyano na mangamba sa posibilidad na ang tungkod na ginagamit nila ay gawing ahas ng inyong dios o ng ibang dios?
5. Kung ang kabilang panig ay hindi allergic sa siyensya at kung sabihin ng siyensya na, imbes na nothing, may something before Big Bang, ano ang implikasyon nito para sa kanyang logical arguments?
Word count: 500
IV. REPLIES (AFFIRMATIVE) PAGE 1/2
I have already answered this in my first rebuttal that our logical conclusions can also be reached by other theists and other unbiased minds. Why? Since there is a kernel of truth in other religions as well and that a person need not be a Christian to know that God exists as pointed out by St. Paul in Romans 1:20 since his power is manifest in all of creation and therefore no one has the excuse in not believing in his existence. This further supports our argument that there is a God since other cultures arrive at the same conclusion.
The weakness in the NEGATIVE’S position is that he strains himself too much to discredit the existence of the Christian conception of God ALONE and not the concept of God altogether. He obviously misses the entire point of the debate. Since there are many other conceptions of God as consistently being pointed out by the NEGATIVE, he has inadvertently given himself the impossible task of negating EACH AND ALL OTHER specific conceptions of God not only that of Christianity but those of other religions as well by brushing aside the general concept.
And the strength of the argument of Aquinas for the existence of God is that it is equally valid in proving that God exists – even to those belonging to other cultures proving St. Paul correct that:
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
This is perfectly in harmony with church doctrine:
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.[1]
And based on our theology, pagans too have the ability to discern God's existence through reason alone:
Lombard was an important precursor to Aquinas. Following Augustine, he argued that pagans can know about much about truths of the one God simply by their possession of reason (e.g. that spirit is better than body, the mutable can exists only from a immutable principle, all beauty points to a beauty beyond compare).[2]
However, we must underscore that that is why there is a need for revelation to arrive at a more perfect knowledge about God which we Catholics possess since faith complements reason.
Word Count: 463
We aren’t Protestants and we don’t subscribe to the doctrine of SOLA SCRIPTURA. For the Catholic authentic teaching proceeds from the Magisterium: “The magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church is the church's authority or office to give authentic interpretation of the Word of God, "whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition." According to the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the task of interpretation is vested uniquely in the Pope and the bishops, though the concept has a complex history of development. Scripture and church tradition "make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church", and the magisterium is not independent of this, since "all that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is derived from this single deposit of faith."[3]
Logical arguments of course form part of Catholic faith since faith and reason goes hand in hand:
“Aquinas believed that one could conclude that God exists using reason alone. Reason is necessary to decide which authority ought to be believed. Like Augustine, he believed that reason alone was incomplete. Faith comes after reason and then faith allows reason to grow. Faith enables a believer to understand further truths that could not be discovered through reason alone. Reason may enable all humans to know science, but only faith informs us of the ultimate end, goal, purpose, and plan for science.”[4]
Our faith therefore as Catholics is not blind faith – it is guided by reason.
Word Count: 247
Of course some people may interpret the verses in scripture in many different ways. But the best possible interpretation is the one held by the Catholic Church and it is what has been maintained by the Early Church Fathers - that God created the universe out of nothing despite the fact that other faiths and religions believed otherwise that the universe was created out of something which was termed as chaos as you pointed out. This is what sets us apart:
Hermas
God created all things from nothing–not from plasmic matter, or empty space, or anything else.
Irenaeus
“Men, indeed, are not able to make something from nothing, but only from existing material. God, however, is greater than men first of all in this: that when nothing existed beforehand, he called into existence the very material for his creation” (Against Heresies 2:10:4 [inter A.D. 180-199]).
Tertullian
“The object of our worship is the one God, who, by the Word of his command, by the reason of his plan, and by the strength of his power, has brought forth from nothing for the glory of his majesty this whole construction of elements, bodies, and spirits; whence also the Greeks have bestowed upon the world the name Cosmos” (Apology 17:1 [A.D. 197]).
Theophilus
“Furthermore, inasmuch as God is uncreated, he is also unchangeable; so also, if matter were uncreated, it would be unchangeable and equal to God. That which is created is alterable and changeable, while that which is uncreated is unalterable and unchangeable. What great thing were it, if God made the world out of existing matter? Even a human artist, when he obtains material from someone, makes of it whatever he pleases. But the power of God is made evident in this, that he makes out of what does not exist whatever he pleases, and the giving of life and movement belongs to none other but to God alone” (To Autolycus 2:4 [A.D. 181]).[5]
This is clear from scripture and clear as well from the teachings of the early church fathers and of the magisterium as well:
293 Scripture and Tradition never cease to teach and celebrate this fundamental truth: "The world was made for the glory of God."134 St. Bonaventure explains that God created all things "not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it",135 for God has no other reason for creating than his love and goodness: "Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened his hand."136 The First Vatican Council explains:
This one, true God, of his own goodness and "almighty power", not for increasing his own beatitude, nor for attaining his perfection, but in order to manifest this perfection through the benefits which he bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel "and from the beginning of time, made out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal. . .”[6]
Current scientific knowledge proves our ancient teaching correct!
Word Count: 493
4) Isa sa argumento ng kabilang panig ay ukol sa "law giver": So, kung ang dios ang siyang nagtakda at nagpapatupad sa laws of physics, maaari rin ba niya itong baguhin ayon sa kanyang ninanais at kung maari niyang baguhin, makatwiran ba at hindi maituturing na katawa-tawa para sa mga Kristiyano na mangamba sa posibilidad na ang tungkod na ginagamit nila ay gawing ahas ng inyong dios o ng ibang dios?
God is immaterial and spiritual in nature since he is the creator of the material world and outside of it and is not within the scope affected by the laws of physics. He is the being who created the universe that operates the continuous action of the laws of physics since the time of creation (Big Bang). It is his power and energy which sustains and holds the universe together. The predictability of the laws of physics underscores intelligence behind it. Our scientists only discover them – they don’t invent/discern them into existence. These laws are already there operating even before they were discovered. If there is a law therefore it stands to reason that we can posit a law giver:
We have been able to take advantage of the regularity of the laws of nature in the form of technology. Since He made the rules – He can also suspend/alter them which is reasonable to assume according to his divine purpose. This is what people call a miracle. This may also be explained as the unfolding of physical laws in ways that we have not yet discovered. Therefore the course of the universe and everything that’s in it is subject to this power of God and his will.
How we experience the laws of nature right now is how God’s power operates through the universe and through nature. This is already expressed in St. Paul’s words and Einstein’s as previously mentioned.
And our God is not malevolent and we are confident that he wouldn’t turn a staff into a snake to indiscriminately harm people but instead he has offered himself as a sacrifice that people may be saved:
Isaiah 53:3-5 New International Version (NIV)
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
Word Count: 439
If you only knew what science means, you wouldn’t be asking me this question:
What is science?
Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding1. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions. (There are, of course, more definitions of science.)[7]
So science deals with OBSERVABLE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE – AND IT HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED BY SCIENTISTS THAT WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE BIG BANG IS UNOBSERVABLE. So if science suddenly says that there is SOMETHING instead of NOTHING before the Big Bang therefore it is not SCIENCE but conjecture since nobody could provide OBSERVABLE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of what happened before the Big Bang. It would just be a proposition without physical evidence. There would be no implication since there is NOTHING before the Big Bang – no matter, space and time and no laws of physics. Observation happens within a time element – how can you observe anything before the Big Bang when there is no time yet? The best possible explanation for reality as of now is the Bing Bang theory:
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law (the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth).[8]
Since it is an established fact that NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING, AND THAT THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ETERNAL SINCE IT HAS A BEGINNING, IT STANDS TO REASON THAT THERE IS A FIRST CAUSE WHICH IS UNCAUSED BY ANYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE that caused the universe to exists. We therefore go back to my constructive:
So everything that began to exist has a CAUSE including the universe which is caused by a ‘creative force’ that came before it since things are caused by something else. This ‘creative force’ is POWERFUL since it is able to create existence itself out of nothing. What we can also deduce from these facts is that this ‘creative force’ which is the cause of all things is ETERNAL since it is outside TIME and SPACE being its creator. That it is also SPIRITUAL in nature since it created MATTER since nothing existed before HIS creation. We can also infer that since it caused all of creation into being it is therefore an UNCAUSED CAUSE – at least, not by anything in the universe that we know of. So this ‘creative force’ which has CAUSED the universe and everything in it to exist we call GOD.
The evidence that I have laid out so far is therefore logical, theological, biblical and scientific.
Word Count: 499
[1] http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
[2] https://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/#SH4e
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium
[4] https://www.biography.com/religious-figure/saint-thomas-aquinas
[5] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/creation-ex-nihilo
[6] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm
[7] http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
V. SECOND REBUTTALS (AFFIRMATIVE)
This is a strawman argument on the part of the NEGATIVE. As I have previously explained, our God is not the God of the Gaps: his power and energy is what sustains the operation of the universe since the Big Bang. This is consistent with what St. Paul was talking about and this is what Einstein sees as well - that there is a SPIRIT in the very fabric of nature. He is therefore not a "puganteng isnabero". Our God therefore is very hands-on and is in total command of the entire universe after creation as I have pointed out.
He shoots himself in the foot by NEGATING his own claim. The NEGATIVE'S reasoning is therefore not sound, illogical and doesn't hold water. He has contradicted himself in the same post and has consistently changed his stand.
If scientists already admit that whatever happened before the Big Bang is undefined – HINDI ALAM in your own words – how can this possibly be considered as a definitive answer? Much of this is conjecture and postulates and not even a hypothesis. Based on your own link:
The brane multiverse version postulates that our entire universe exists on a membrane (brane) which floats in a higher dimension or "bulk".
First, we are dealing with things which are metaphysical - matters beyond the physical while science deals largely with observable phenomena. Is God observable? Certainly not, but what we can measure with science is CREATION and I have proven that it is not eternal and that it had a beginning and everything that has a beginning has a cause since nothing comes from nothing. And if the universe had a beginning, then there was a time that it didn't exist and that there was NOTHING before the creation of the universe which is consistent with both logical, theological, scientific and biblical teaching.
Finally, I have used the Bing Bang theory to support my argument - isn't that scientific? I have used the statement and observation of a scientist in the person of Albert Einstein - isn't that scientific? I have used the findings of Stephen Hawking proving that there was NOTHING instead of SOMETHING before Big Bang - isn't that scientific? I have used logic to prove that there was nothing before the Big Bang. I have used theology to prove that it is consistent with Catholic Christian teaching and it is. And finally, I have used scripture as well to prove that this is consistent with Biblical teaching proving that the Lord our God is the creator of the universe and he created it out of nothing which is consistent with the best scientific explanation since there was NOTHING before the Big Bang. This has been foretold thousands of years even before science discovered that this is so.
Ikalawang beses na hindi nagmula sa constructive ang paksa ng tanong.
Ikatlong beses na wala sa constructive ang paksa ng tanong.
Word Count: 1,000
Ukol sa "nothing":
Ang "puganteng isnabero", pilit na nagsusumiksik sa kanyang "NOTHING" na lungga.
Habang ang kabilang panig, patuloy na pinaninindigan ang "NOTHING before Big Bang". Tila hindi siya sang-ayon sa "NOT KNOWN", at lalong ayaw niya sa "SOMETHING".
At wag nating kalilimutan na nais palitawin ng kabilang panig na siya at ang "puganteng isnabero" ay HINDI ALLERGIC sa siyensiya.
Ngunit ano ba ang TINITIYAK ng siyensiya ukol sa kung ano ang mayroon o wala "before Big Bang"? Ayon na rin sa sinabi ng kabilang panig:
WALANG TINITIYAK sapagkat WALA pang PATUNAY ang siyensya. At kabilang sa wala pa ring patunay ay si Stephen Hawking, na patuloy na ginagamit ng kabilang panig bilang suporta sa kanyang "nothing" na argumento.
Patuloy sa paggamit habang tuloy rin ang PAGBALEWALA niya sa tinuran ni Hawking ukol sa "nothing":
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1651558/3-stephen-hawking-says-nothing-around-origin-universe/
“It just seemed that way from mankind’s perspective,” Hawking noted,
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1651558/3-stephen-hawking-says-nothing-around-origin-universe/
Ang no-boundary condition hypothesis ni Stephen Hawking ay ISA LAMANG SA MARAMING PALIWANAG ng siyensya sa kung ano ang mga posibleng naganap before Big Bang.
So, saan NAKABASE ang patunay ng kabilang panig? Sa PAGBABAKA-SAKALI na totoo ang "nothing before Big Bang".
Ukol sa "various conceptions of God":
Ang pagkakaroon ng samu't saring bersyon ng paniniwala ay hindi nangangahulugan na totoo ang paniniwala. Likewise, ang pagkakaroon ng iba't ibang kwento ukol sa UFO sightings ay hindi rin nangangahulugang totoo ito.
Kung patutunayan ng isang tao na totoo ang dios, gaano kalaki ang posibilidad na ang patutunayan niya ay ang dios na kanyang sinasamba? Sasang-ayon malamang ang kabilang panig na 100% ang posibilidad. Bakit nga naman patutunayang totoo kung hindi naman pinaniniwalaang totoo? At kung ang dios na nais patunayan ay mayroong batayan, ang tanong, bakit kailangan pang lumayo't gumamit ng ibang basehan?
Dahil ba sa nababatid ng aking katunggali na MAY KAKULANGAN, na HINDI SAPAT, na HINDI MATIBAY na patunay ang Biblia?
Ukol sa "creatio ex nihilo":
Ginamit ng kabilang panig ang 2 Maccabees 7:28 at ang Romans 4:17 upang ipakita na "creatio ex nihilo" ang paglikha na pinaniniwalaan sa Biblia. Ngunit, ayon sa mga dalubhada, "creation from chaos" ang ORIHINAL na interpretasyon at paniniwala. Nagkaroon lamang ng pagbabago dahil sa impluwensya ng Greek philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
Noon pa man, ang "puganteng isnabero" pala, bihasa na sa pagpapalit-palit ng taguan.
So, nagbago ang interpretasyon sa Biblia kasabay ng pagbabago sa karunungang taglay ng bumabasa. At kung ang interpretasyon ay nag-iiba, ibig bang sabihin, ang katotohanan na pinaniniwalaang taglay ng Biblia ay SUBJECTIVE?
Nakanino nga ba ang problema, sa NAGBABASA o sa BINABASA?
Ukol sa "theistic evolution":
Binanggit ng kabilang panig ang theistic evolution sa kanyang 1st rebuttal bilang sagot sa aking punto na ang Evolution at ang kanyang dios ay hindi compatible para sa isa't isa.
Ang problema, bagamat nais ipakita ng kabilang panig na siya'y hindi allergic sa siyensya, ang theistic evolution ay hindi isang scientific theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Walang ibinigay na paliwanag ang kabilang panig sa kung paano pagtutugmain ang sinasabi sa "Evolution na hindi sadya ang pagsulpot ng tao sa mundo" at ang paniniwala na "sinadya ng dios ang paglikha nito sa tao". O, kung sa kanyang paniniwala ay walang kontradiksyon, wala rin siyang paglilinaw na ibinigay hinggil dito.
So, kung tunay ngang hindi allergic sa siyensya ang aking katunggali, paano niya ito pagkakasunduin? O kailangan niyang pumili kung alin ba ang totoo, ang dios o ang Evolution? Ayon na rin sa kanya,
Word count: 1000
VI. CONCLUSION (AFFIRMATIVE)
In conclusion, we have seen how the NEGATIVE'S stand, DISINTEGRATED before our very eyes: from a definite SOMETHING existing before the Big Bang to UNKNOWN (hindi alam) to an UNCERTAINTY (wala pang katiyakan). It’s unbelievable how supposedly a definite SOMETHING become suddenly equivalent to AN UNCERTAINTY AND SOMETHING WHICH IS UNKNOWN. We have seen how the NEGATIVE recycled the same refuted arguments in his Second Rebuttal since using his own reference; this is what Stephen Hawking said in no uncertain terms:
NEW YORK: British physicist Stephen Hawking has said that there was nothing around before the big bang that created our universe. “There was nothing around before the Big, Big Bang,” he said during a television talk show aired Sunday on National Geographic Channel, propounding his theory on what happened before the universe came into existence.[1]
The mere fact that the entire universe came from a SINGULARITY means that there was nothing else in existence before it based on what we know since whatever happened before the Big Bang is unobservable and undefined. Therefore, much of what is said that supposedly came before it is mere conjecture/postulates which can never be falsified or proven by observation. And if the universe and time itself had a beginning in this singularity then it stands to reason that there was a time that there was NOTHING before the singularity since the Big Bang is the beginning of Matter, Space-Time in the universe: In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago.[2]
What is also ludicruous here is that the NEGATIVE also failed in refuting my biblical evidence in Maccabees and Romans. What he did instead is to refute his own strawman in GENESIS which I never used as evidence for CREATIO EX NIHILO (CREATION OUT OF NOTHING) as proof text. Unknown to the NEGATIVE, Maccabees DOES NOT BELONG to the Hebrew Bible, therefore, his refutation and reference serves no purpose but to refute HIS OWN ARGUMENT about Genesis. These books do not belong to the Hebrew canon but to the Catholic: The Books of the Maccabees, Maccabees also spelled Machabees, four books, none of which is in the Hebrew Bible but all of which appear in some manuscripts of the Septuagint. The first two books only are part of canonical scripture in the Septuagint and the Vulgate (hence are canonical to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) and are included in the Protestant Apocrypha.[3]
We also saw how the NEGATIVE knocks down another of his own strawman arguments that THEISTIC EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE since I never made that claim because the topic of evolution has no relation to nor is it relevant to the debate.
What is glaring here is that NOT ONLY DID HE FAIL TO REFUTE THE EVIDENCE I LAID DOWN, HE ALSO FAILED TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE. If there was something before the Big Bang then the UNIVERSE would be ETERNAL – pre-existing in some other form. But HAWKING STATES that the universe had a beginning and therefore it isn't eternal: The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever.[4] It stands to reason therefore that there was NOTHING before the universe came to be since everything is in the universe and if there was a time that it didn't exist, it stands to reason that there was NOTHING before the universe came into existence. This corresponds to what was foretold in SCRIPTURE IN MACABEES AND ROMANS WHICH THE NEGATIVE FAILED TO REFUTE. Since NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING, it would be reasonable to assume that there was a CAUSE for the existence of the universe and that this CAUSE IS UNCAUSED by anything in the universe since it came before it. We Christians call this UNCAUSED CAUSE as GOD.
I have therefore laid down EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS that the NEGATIVE FAILED TO REFUTE – CREATIO EX NIHILO or the creation out of nothing which is biblical, logical, theological and scientific:
2 Maccabees 7:28 (DRA)
28 I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also:
And in Romans 4:17 (NLT)
17 …This happened because Abraham believed in the God who brings the dead back to
life and who creates new things out of nothing.
Reference:
[1]https://tribune.com.pk/story/1651558/3-stephen-hawking-says-nothing-around-origin-universe/
[2] https://www.universetoday.com/54756/what-is-the-big-bang-theory/
[3]https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Books-of-the-Maccabees
[4]http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
Word Count: 750
Siya raw ang nasa panig ng siyensya at lohika. Ngunit kung sa usapin ukol sa "nothing", mismong si Hawking na ang nagsabi na,
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1651558/3-stephen-hawking-says-nothing-around-origin-universe/?amp=1
“It just seemed that way from mankind’s perspective,” Hawking noted
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1651558/3-stephen-hawking-says-nothing-around-origin-universe/?amp=1
Kung ang no-boundary condition (Hartle–Hawking state) hypothesis ay isa lamang sa maraming proposal ng siyensya sa posibleng naganap before Big Bang, kung may iba pang mga teorya ang siyensya na tulad ng String Theory na ipinapakita na may "something" before Big Bang, bakit nagsusumiksik pa rin ang kabilang panig sa "nothing"?
Kung wala pang patunay ang siyensya sa kung ano ang naganap before Big Bang, kung hindi pa batid at lalong hindi tinitiyak ng siyensya kung alin nga ba sa marami nitong teorya ang tama at totoo, at kung kabilang ang "nothing" sa sinasabi ng aking katunggali na,
Dahil ba tanging sa "nothing" lamang maaaring isalpak at itago ang "puganteng isnabero"?
Nasa panig nga ba siya ng siyensya at lohika? O nasa panig siya ng PANANAMPALATAYA na ang "nothing" ay totoo SANA?
Siya raw ang nasa panig ng siyensya at lohika. Ngunit tila yata nakalimutan na ng kabilang panig ang "Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being" at ang "Fifth Way: Argument from Design" ni Aquinas nang sabihin ng aking katunggali na,
Nawaglit ba sa kanyang isipan na Evolution ang counterargument na aking ginamit? O sadya ba niyang iniiwasan na pag-usapan ang Evolution? Tanggap niya marahil na hindi niya mapagkakasundo ang kanyang relihiyon at ang Evolution?
Sumasang-ayon kaya siya na ang katotohanan ay nasa panig ng Evolution at hindi sa kanyang relihiyon? At kung hindi mapagtutugma at kung siya kamo ang nasa panig ng siyensya, hindi nga ba't panahon na para pumili, "BLUE PILL" o "RED PILL"?
Panghuli, hindi tinutulan bagkus ay sinasang-ayunan pa marahil ng kabilang panig na "creation from chaos" ang orihinal na interpretasyon at paniniwala at hindi ang "creatio ex nihilo". Na nagbago ang interpretasyon sa Biblia kasabay ng pagbabago sa karunungang taglay ng bumabasa. Karunungang naimpluwensyahan ng pilosopiyang Griyego. At ang argumentong ito'y sinuportahan pa ng kabilang panig sa pagsasabi nito na,
Ano ngayon ang implikasyon nito sa katotohanan na pinaniniwalaang taglay ng Biblia? Ang katotohanan ba'y nakadepende sa kung sino ang bumabasa? KANINONG INTERPRETASYON ang tama kung ganun, sa naniniwala sa "creation from chaos" o sa nagsusulong ng "creatio ex nihilo"? At SINO ba ang NARARAPAT HUMUSGA kung kaninong interpretasyon ang totoo? At SINO ba ang NARARAPAT PUMILI kung sino ang nararapat humusga?
So, bilang buod, kung ang aking katunggali ay nananalig na SANA ang "nothing" ay MAGING isang KATOTOHANAN, kung ang dios niya ay HINDI TUMUTUGMA sa KATOTOHANAN ng Evolution, at kung ang pinaniniwalaang KATOTOHANAN ng Biblia ay SUBJECTIVE, may totoo ba sa mga patunay ng kabilang panig?
Kung ang unang tatlong argumento ni Aquinas ay umaasa lamang na SANA'Y TOTOO ang "nothing", samantalang ang ika-4 at ika-5 argumento naman ay TINIBAG ng Evolution, ano ang napatunayan ng aking katunggali?
Sa kanyang pag-iwas na patunayan ang "pakikialam" ng "pakialamero", nagbaka sakali ang kabilang panig na magagawa niyang maipakita na totoo ang mga "taguan" ng "puganteng isnabero". Subalit sa huli, PUMALYA ang kanyang patunay mula sa siyensya, SUMABLAY ang kanyang patunay mula sa lohika, at PUMALPAK ang kanyang patunay na Biblia.
Word Count: 676