Debating with Christians

[Mike D]

Every once in awhile I enjoy a good debate with a Christian, and typically these debates revolve around the problems with Christianity or the existence of God himself. Someone with just a basic understanding of the Bible, philosophy, logic and science can usually give them a pretty good run for their money. However, every once in a great while I will run across a Christian who appears to be very well educated in physics, biology, and/or cosmology. In these debates I sometimes run into problems. I would say I have a basic high level understanding in these areas, however I am far from knowing intimate details of quantum mechanics, relativity or biology. I usually shy away from debates about evolution once details of dna, chemicals, etc. enter into the discussion because I really can't refute any scientific argument made by a Christian.

 

So my question for some of the more experienced debaters here is this: how does a person who isn't a scientist by profession and doesn't have alot of time to study on these subjects deal with situations of knowledge gaps between debaters? Usually once this weakness is discovered, it most often results in one debater attacking the other debater as uneducated, an idiot, or worse. As an example, recently, I was debating someone about the origination of the universe, and this person made the claim that prior to the big bang, there was no matter only energy, and divine intervention was needed to convert that energy into the matter which now makes up our universe. Since I wanted to avoid drilling down into the details of matter and energy (because I don't know them enough to argue them) I pretty much just told the person that divine intervention couldn't be tested and so it is only a wild guess and doesn't prove anything. At which point the person told me I was in denial and delusional if I thought that energy became matter on it's own. And that pretty much ended the debate.

 

So.....any advice anyone can give me when I run up against something like this in the future? How does a non-scientist argue with a christian who claims to have advanced scientific knowledge which supports their belief?

[Ouroboros]

That's why forums like these are a better place to debate in, because you can take your time to study, read, research etc before you give an answer.

 

To do it RealTime debate, you have to have the answers ready, otherwise you end up with more "I don't know" or "I don't remember" answers.

 

When it comes to Big Bang, there are many approaches, first is that not all scientists say it was nothing before Big Bang, and the ones using the word "Nothing" don't mean an empty void of nothing, they talk about the singularity where No Time or No Space existed. What they mean is a nothing of the known matter and properties of space as we know it here, but not necessarely nothing of something else.

 

The argument your friend used is called Kalam Cosmological Argument, and was invented by a Muslim long time ago, and was to prove Islam. So maybe your friend should become a Muslim instead?

 

Here's my litte Reverse Kalam Cosm. Arg:

1. Before the Universe was Nothing

2. Nothing can not be Something

3. So God must be Nothing

 

Can he argue that?

[Mike D]

I like the reverse Kalam argument, and you are correct there isn't much they can say about that. It's definitely easier to argue at a higher level, and I don't seem to have a huge problem with that. It's when you get a christian who claims to be an actual physicist or biologist or something, then it gets difficult. Although i've noticed that with most of these people it seems their strategy is to purposely argue details, because they want to expose the fact that you can't refute them and effectively "win" the argument. It seems a little dishonest to me because they still don't work at a high level, but I guess if it makes them feel better....

[Ouroboros]

The problem with arguments like Kalam or Reversed Kalam is that it starts with posits like: Before the Univers Was Nothing.

 

Since we don't know what was before the Big Bing, we can't say if it was nothing or something, so with the Reversed Kalam they have to admit that God is Something, and then you can say that something could have been something else than God! So they have to admit that we just frigging don't know what was before Big Bang. Even Big Bang is under big scrutiny right now. There are evidence in the universe that points away from the Big Bang theory unless they can explain the new findings.

 

Alternative explanations to Cosmos are:

Inflation theory (M-Theory)

Ekpyrotic theory

White Hole

and other that I don't remember at the moment.

 

I've noticed the best way to argue is to turn their arguments around, like Evolution, have them prove Creationism, or Intelligent Design.

 

Creationism has to prove Instanteneous Appearance of New Species to be possible. Can matter just be created in front of your eyes? Their counter argument is of course, "It happened only one time", but then it can't be proven, so they shouldn't argue science about it then. Science requires evidence and proof by testing, not proof by "I feel like it". Never let them argue evidence from emotional basis.

 

Intelligent Design has to prove that the Design was for real Intelligent, which it isn't. They might argue the Irreversible Complexity of the Eye, but that is only an argument that they don't understand the complexity.

[Mike D]

I was recently reading something about a theory called plasma universe, not sure if that's the one you were talking about, or if that's included in one of those others. But that one definitely does away with the big bang.

 

Intelligent design....heh. In my opinion that doesn't say anything other than let's presuppose there is design in the universe and lets presuppose a designer. End of argument.

 

Also, I always wondered if it is logical to even refer to nothing. If nothing is no thing, how can it be referred to? In that respect, if god is all things how can god be referred to? There doesn't, by definition, seem to be much difference between god and nothing....

[Ouroboros]

I was recently reading something about a theory called plasma universe, not sure if that's the one you were talking about, or if that's included in one of those others.  But that one definitely does away with the big bang. 

I haven't heard of that one. I'm going to look into it and see where it's in the whole scale of things...

 

Intelligent design....heh.  In my opinion that doesn't say anything other than let's presuppose there is design in the universe and lets presuppose a designer.  End of argument. 

Right. ID in my opinion is just a neat way of saying:

 

"I don't understand things because I'm so stupid,

so I explain everything with this Magical Black Box that did it all instead!"

 

Also, I always wondered if it is logical to even refer to nothing.  If nothing is no thing, how can it be referred to?  In that respect, if god is all things how can god be referred to?  There doesn't, by definition, seem to be much difference between god and nothing....

True. How can we make a reference to before Time and Space, when the word "Before" is a word depending on Space and Time.

 

It's like asking "What kind of Orange was the Orange before it became an Orange?"

[Mike D]

I wish I could remember the particular website where I was reading about plasma universe, but now I can't find it, although there are several that come up when googled. The one I was reading went into a bunch of details to refute some of Stephen Hawking's work, which is what caught my attention since Hawking is pretty much da man when it comes to cosmology. That's the great thing about science vs. religion is that it is fluid and allows for revision based on new evidence.....

[Ouroboros]

I wish I could remember the particular website where I was reading about plasma universe, but now I can't find it, although there are several that come up when googled.  The one I was reading went into a bunch of details to refute some of Stephen Hawking's work, which is what caught my attention since Hawking is pretty much da man when it comes to cosmology.    That's the great thing about science vs. religion is that it is fluid and allows for revision based on new evidence.....

Just with any great scientist in history, some of what Hawking has said might be wrong, but it doesn't mean all of it. Most is probably right, but there's still a lot to know, and when it comes to Big Bang, there's still a lot of speculations.

 

And I agree, Science is a method or process that evolves with time, knowledge and experience, while Religion mandates you to follow the explanations some dude wrote down thousands of years ago, nothing can change there.

[Ouroboros]

I see the difference between Science and Religion like this

 

Two men out hiking, one has a really old map (2000 years old), and the other follows the trails that has been marked by the rangers.

 

Which one of them are more likely to walk through the park, unharmed and actually find their way out?

 

The one with an old and faulty map? He will ignore the trails and walk into the bushes, and ignore newly created creeks and ignore the moved bridges.

 

Or the one that follows the evidence? What he see and can explore in front of him?

[Ouroboros]

I found an article of Plasma theory in New Scientist.

 

It's pretty recent, from this month!

[Mike D]

Just with any great scientist in history, some of what Hawking has said might be wrong, but it doesn't mean all of it. Most is probably right, but there's still a lot to know, and when it comes to Big Bang, there's still a lot of speculations.

 

And I agree, Science is a method or process that evolves with time, knowledge and experience, while Religion mandates you to follow the explanations some dude wrote down thousands of years ago, nothing can change there.

I think the problem that some scientists have with big bang theory is that some of it is based on theoretical or hypothetical entities, which confict with empirical observations made in other models. They argue that if you introduce the actual observations into the model then big bang theory falls apart. At last that's what some of these plasma universe theorists say. I am not sure if it falls apart entirely or only partially, but I guess it opens up a can of worms. Scientists must use lots of aspirin, that's all I can say

[Ouroboros]

I think the problem that some scientists have with big bang theory is that some of it is  based on theoretical or hypothetical entities, which confict with empirical observations made in other models.  They argue that if you introduce the actual observations into the model then big bang theory falls apart.  At last that's what some of these plasma universe theorists say.  I am not sure if it falls apart entirely or only partially, but I guess it opens up a can of worms.  Scientists must use lots of aspirin, that's all I can say 

The Big Bang was made up as a hypothasis, then it was proven with many tests and observations and was accepted as a theory. Now when new tests disprove some fundamentals in the BBT, scientist are trying to explain in within BBT with additional elements like dark matter and dark energy, while some claim BBT is flat out wrong and has to be replaced. This is exactly why the scientific method is great, which I know you agree with me on.

 

In a few years, we will know if the string and/or super-string ideas are wrong or not. And hopefully they will test some of the Roger Penrose's theories about gravity as the common force between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. If that's true, then we'll have a huge breakthrough in all science. But if he's wrong, then Quantum Gravity has to be figured out somehow.

[Guest AllSeeingI]

I see the difference between Science and Religion like this

 

Two men out hiking, one has a really old map (2000 years old), and the other follows the trails that has been marked by the rangers.

 

Which one of them are more likely to walk through the park, unharmed and actually find their way out?

 

The one with an old and faulty map? He will ignore the trails and walk into the bushes, and ignore newly created creeks and ignore the moved bridges.

 

Or the one that follows the evidence? What he see and can explore in front of him?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's great! You mind if I use that next time a Christian starts battering me about not believing in God?

[Ouroboros]

That's great! You mind if I use that next time a Christian starts battering me about not believing in God?

No problem.

[whatifidontwantausername?]

Any idea's on what to say to the old cop out, "God hates the sin but loves the sinner?"

 

I honestly have no clue how to respond to this other than tell them it is a cop out.

 

-Jake

[Poonis]

So my question for some of the more experienced debaters here is this:  how does a person who isn't a scientist by profession and doesn't have alot of time to study on these subjects deal with situations of knowledge gaps between debaters? 

 

When you encounter such a situation, it is best to adhere to the Socratic Method, and say the magic words:

 

"Show me"

 

Debate from the 'awareness of ignorance' standpoint.

 

Appropriate Socrates quote:

 

Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is; for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him.

 

Always question their foundation; if it is true, it will hold true through any onslaught of questioning from a mere human's intellect.

[♦ ficino ♦]

There were some threads about the Kalam argument on this site a while ago, but I don't remember when right now. You might find them by fishing around. Then try Secular Web, which has a lot of philosophy and existence of God threads. The on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has quite a thorough discussion on it within its Cosmological Argument article:

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#4