Does God Exist The Great Debates
(PD) Jan Van Eyck — God Almighty
Copyright ©2013-2021 — updated February 10, 2021
Does God Exist The Great Debates
On occasion I land on a video where the individuals are debating a popular topic, and as I watch the videos I am curious if the speakers sincerely believe what they are saying. I am also curious of why the audience would permit the speakers to so frequently make claims that are obviously false.
The 'Does God Exist' debates are excellent examples of illustrating several features: (1) the current level of science known to the speakers and audience, (2) how well the average speaker can connect thoughts, and (3) the gullibility of we humans.
If you are smart enough to have read this far, then you are smart enough to recognize the fallacies in debates. You are smart enough to know that if a thing is unknown then the thing is unknown, and never can a known thing be explained by claiming that an unknown thing magically created the known thing. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
It is my chosen method of self-therapy to sit at my computer and write my thoughts when I am ill. The act of venting my discontents helps to relieve the discomforts of the illness, and this article began as a rant while I endured a recent flu. Now that the flu has subsided, I have removed the rantings — which unfortunately also removed some of the irreverent humor within the biting sarcasms — and I have condensed the words within a style that strives to retain a positive tone while remaining intolerant of absurdities. Please remember that this article is intended as part humor, part serious, and part just playing around with a topic that can have no solution suitable to all humans.
The debates on God's existence usually begin with opinions of whether or not a god created the universe, and the discussion very quickly jumps to the topic of the big bang.
And where did the debaters acquire their knowledge of the big bang? From books, popular media, and hearsay. It would be extraordinarily rare to find a debater who has firsthand research experience in the topic of a big bang, but still the big bang is discussed as if its knowledge were as common and obvious as the blue sky.
Can you describe — with verbs — three sequential events that occurred during the big bang? If not — and few people can — then why do you assume that the belief in a big bang might be a valid belief? For the greatest percentage of the population, the belief in a big bang is a belief that is founded upon the individuals' submission to authority. Most humans will believe anything that they are told to believe if the belief is said to have been spoken by an individual who claims to be the authority over everyone else (e.g. Milgram's experiment). The authorities do not have to present evidence, nor does the public require that the authorities explain why a belief should be believed; all that is needed for a belief to be believed is for someone with an authoritative occupation to claim the belief true.
Both the theist and the atheist debaters commit the fallacy of an appeal to authority, that is, the debaters claim that their belief is valid because an author or ruler has claimed the belief to be true. The debaters do not themselves present evidence that allegedly exists within the big bang theory, but rather the debaters simply claim that the theory is correct, and the audience leaps to invent its own belief that the audience understands the big bang theory even though the audience has not been told anything that might explain the acts that allegedly occurred in the big bang theory.
From the very beginning, the debates rely on both the debaters as well as the audience to believe in beliefs that have no substantiating evidence nor are derived from any firsthand experience.
Popular scientific opinion claims that all matter — everything in the universe — suddenly came into existence from nothing without cause or reason. If an action occurs that cannot be explained through known natural causes, then the inexplicable act is descriptive of the term "magic". The debaters' opinions are built upon the foundation of hearsay and magic.
There are now a few entertaining mathematical sophisms that claim "nothing" is "something", but an intentional sophism is still an intentional sophism, and an intentional lie.
If science does not know by what process that all matter was created, then all scientific explanations of the origins of the universe must be false. Topic closed; end of discussion.
It is useful to hypothesize and invent experiments that search for more answers, but it is not useful for the mind to base its beliefs on things that have not been seen, heard, smelled, touched, tasted, nor by any means measured. If a thing cannot be sensorially perceived nor abstractly conceived relative to what has been sensorially perceived, then any theory of the thing must be imaginary, imagined, an invention, and untrue.
A noun is a name given to a thing, whereas a verb is an action. A description of a thing requires the use of verbs that describe what the thing is doing. Giving a thing a noun explains nothing. The 'big bang' is a noun, and though there are many descriptive verbs that describe what occurred after the big bang, there are no descriptive verbs of what existed prior to the big bang. The absence of verbs in this topic verifies that the big bang is nonsensical, and no quantity of excuses and boo-hooing will ever make an unknown a known.
Perhaps the only advantage of believing that a god created the universe is that the belief includes the inference that there was a reason or cause that the universe was created, which in this one very small observation is more scientifically logical than what exists in popular science. Nevertheless, similar to the big bang theory, the belief that 'God Dunnit' also attempts to explain a known thing by claiming an unknown thing created the known thing, which nullifies the 'God Dunnit' theory.
Now I'm not saying that a god didn't create the universe, but rather what I am saying is that the topic cannot be rationally debated because there is no debatable evidence presented of the unknown god, and since there are no verbs describing how God created the universe, then all debates must be fueled with nouns that have no meaning.
Some debaters attempt to describe gods as having various attributes, as if the debaters are somehow omniscient themselves and can psychically read the hearts and minds of gods (trust me, a lot of people sincerely do believe that they know how God thinks: darn humans).
If a man's soul were to enter into the 3D while observing how the soul came into the 3D, and the soul were somehow able to pass the memory to the human mind, perhaps the man could then describe the flowing multi-dimensional octaves of fractals that create the illusion of light and matter, but still, even if the man were to describe the verbs and do so accurately, would he still claim that a god did it? Or might the man say that conscious souls were the ones who chose to create a restriction within the 'all' so that the souls could experience 3D as 3D itself? An open palm has unlimited three-dimensional space around it, but a clinched fist restricts the space between the fingers, and yet the hand itself remains the hand. Likewise, the 3D is of the all, but restricted, and for a restriction to exist, there must also be a reason (or at least that is the consensus from a 3D point of view).
Within this point of view of the soul's, the human life is a means of the soul to learn and experience new things, and the anthropomorphic / anthropocentric view of the universe vanishes. No longer is it man reaching towards the sky with the aim of touching God, but rather it is the soul's use of the human life with a hope of discovering answers that might lead the souls to understand and return to a God that they too do not understand.
The claims of 'big bang' and 'god dunnit' are from the post-birth human point of view that is limited to the normal human cognition that cannot think beyond three dimensions — of a mind that is structured upon three-dimensional perceptions — and thus will never recognize what might exist beyond the restriction of three dimensions. Unless gods are all three-dimensional, then the universe cannot have been created by a god that a three-dimensional thinking human can imagine.
Humanity does not have a working definition of what consciousness is. Regardless of what any book's author might claim, there is no coherent explanation of what consciousness might be. Some biologists claim that consciousness is a brain mechanism, some philosophers claim that consciousness is the soul, and on and on the countless different opinions of consciousness claim to be the one true truth, and yet in all publicly available literature, all of the theories of consciousness are easily debunked. The typical biologist knows nothing of electrical physics, and yet the biologist claims that electrical activity in the brain magically creates consciousness. Philosophers know nothing of self-observation, which is proven true by the philosophers believing that the human mind is the soul. There is no rational explanation of consciousness available to the public, and the debaters' opinions about gods and creation must therefore be based upon a belief of consciousness that is imaginary and verifiably false.
Debaters are debating things that are so distant from the debaters' minds that there was never a plausible chance of the debaters ever speaking a coherent thought.
If neither philosophy, nor biology, nor physics, nor any religion knows what consciousness is, then why are the debaters debating the unknown consciousness of an unknown god?
If creation is created by a conscious being, then we must first decide what consciousness is before we start claiming this or that is conscious or not conscious. Grab all the books on consciousness that you dare to read, and in not one of them will you find a rational explanation of what constitutes consciousness. None. Surprising? It shouldn't be. Western philosophy has been debating simple words like virtue for over two-thousand years without yet discovering its definition. The video debaters simply repeat the same errors made by previous debaters.
Is there a plausible explanation for consciousness? Yes, but you will not be finding it on the Internet, and likely nowhere else either. In spite of what the video debaters want you to believe, the debaters are word-memorizers, nothing else, and they must wait for someone else to provide definitions to words before the debaters can memorize and recite the words in a debate.
What is consciousness? If a conscious being created the universe, then what entity is capable of possessing a consciousness? Angels? Gods? Multi-dimensional space dust? What? The debaters should stop assuming that the audience is as clueless as the debaters.
A typical atheist claim is that photons pop into existence spontaneously, randomly, and upon probabilities. The speaker's 'quantum' theory attempts to infer that since photons can allegedly magically occur outside of classical physics, then we should also leap to assume that the universe itself somehow magically popped into existence randomly and without purpose, reason, or cause. The theory would appear very rational to individuals who believe that every word spoken by a physicist or in a science book must be an indisputable truth, but not all of us are so easily convinced.
Probability and randomly are man-made mathematical terms that imply a man-measure of what is observed, and the terms do not under any sane interpretation imply a verb. Measuring a man to be six feet tall is not a full description of the man, nor is a single mathematical measurement of one effect a description of the effect. The popular wording of quantum physics in debates is simply nonsensical and unworthy of consideration.
Spontaneous implies a thing that nascents of its own internal cause while having no external influence. Again, this is magic for a thing to pop into existence 'spontaneously' without a cause. If a photon — or anything else — periodically comes into existence without our understanding the reasons why, then fine, we don't know why, and let's leave it at that. Let's create more experiments with the hopeful aim of better understanding the reasons why some things behave differently than what we might expect, but until we know the answers we should not claim that an unknown explains the known.
Morality of God or By Man
It is rather depressing to see two grown men debating a topic that neither man has the slightest inkling of what the topic entails.
The theist tries to claim that without a god there could be no morality, and the atheist tries to claim that morality is a social construct created by evolution to enable the survival of the species. Lots of nouns, and no verbs.
Western philosophy has hotly debated the topic of morality for over two-thousand years, and yet here we find video debaters reciting the same failed words over and over and over while believing that somehow not knowing something over and over will magically result in a knowing of the thing. It's pathetic, really, pathetic that the speakers repeatedly validate that their education and experiences in life are meaningless for the topic being debated.
Evolution Biological and Cosmological
Some people believe in the Darwinian view of evolution, which at times seems rational enough from a very narrow and less than brilliant human point of view, but for me I want verbs, not nouns. Evolution is supposed to be a gradual development, and I can see from my point of view that some forms of 'gradual change' do occur, but I do not see the magical 'natural selection' god flying around making evolutionary changes, nor do I recognize how chance mutations could develop millions of highly complex biological life-forms within such a short period of time — and remember that "chance" is a man-made mathematical term; I seriously do not believe that man invented nor guides evolution; there is no such thing as a "chance" mutation.
Charles Darwin, to state it as politely as I can without omitting even his name, was a less than delightful human. Debaters frequently raise Darwin's name as if he were a decent man worthy of an honorable mention, which immediately identifies the debater as being of a poor intelligence and education himself for valuing Darwin's name.
If a person wants to believe in gradual development or instant creation, either one is fine and good if the person has the firsthand evidence of why the belief appears valid. If the belief is grounded on what was learned in school, then the belief is invalid and almost certain to be false regardless of what might be claimed. If the belief is grounded upon a holy book, again the belief is based upon assumptions and nouns, with no descriptive verbs to base reason.
From my earliest observations I saw what I interpreted to be a form of development that is guided by numerous simultaneous influences of which I will not list here. Darwinian evolution assumes a mechanical development that is singular — as if anything in the universe could exist alone by itself without being influenced by all other things — and Darwinian evolution does not take into account the countless other influences occurring simultaneously within all matter. Without knowing the verbs of what existed before the big bang, and not knowing if Edgar Cayce might have been correct in his belief that earthly life is created by souls, then there is no reason to assume anything beyond "I don't know". Yes I am repeatedly told by the biology experts that evolution has been proven true by an allegedly insurmountable quantity of evidence, but I myself have not seen nor heard what the evidence might be, nor have I yet discovered a writing that details the information. If biologists have manipulated genes to cause a form of 'evolution', then I must more closely investigate Cayce's claim, because the biologists just proved that genetic evolution is caused by intelligent intervention.
I will let the reader extrapolate these thoughts into the quantum theories of how the observer influences the observed. If a person believes in both physics and biology, then that person has some difficult choices to make, plus more than a few excuses to invent.
A common argument is that since there might be many parallel universes, then therefore the universe that we live in is not unique, and if there is a very large number of universes then there is a high chance of life existing in at least one universe. The claim of parallel universes is somehow supposed to convince us that this universe that we live in could magically pop into existence because the other universes also exist, and therefore there is no need for a god-creator. Yeah, we follow that line of reasoning don't we?
That word "chance" again. Chance is a man-made mathematical term that does not relate to reality. Okay? Do you contract a disease by chance, or is the disease caused by bacteria, a virus, or some other cause? Just because a debater or a mathematician says something, his having spoken the words does not make the words true.
If the parallel universes cannot be intricately described with verbs, then there is no evidence of their existence, and all of the debaters' theories are simply made-up. I personally have held an interpretation of multi-dimensional octave-fractal parallel universes since I was five years old — 'old hat' stuff — but in no stretch of the imagination would I accept a claim that the existence of parallel universes infers that there is no need of a cause; quite the opposite. Creating a theory of parallel universes is child's play — literally — but finding and using the proper verbs is darn difficult.
Show us a photograph of a parallel universe, or a rock from a parallel planet, or a bone from a parallel mammal, something, anything. The parallel universe excuse for life is not distant from the beliefs that UFO space aliens created life; the beliefs require an active imagination while there is zero evidence and zero reason for plausibility. If the science-book-thumping skeptics insist that UFOs cannot exist because there are no authentic photos of UFOs, then why should we believe the claim of parallel universes? I want to see a photograph! If a debater cannot produce a photograph of a parallel universe, then why should the audience believe the debaters' claims to be true? Yes I am being grumpy, but I am very tired of debaters standing up and claiming that their unfounded fantasies should be believed as true fact. Show us some evidence, or sit down and shut up.
We all hold crazy beliefs — we are, after all, humans — but intelligent humans do still have the ability to choose a few correct choices, and one of those choices is politeness.
It is disturbing that the theist debaters so seldom exhibit the love and gentleness that is supposed to signify a religion's ideals. If the theist does not himself practice what he teaches, then why should the audience believe anything that the theist claims?
A delight to me is to observe an atheist speaker who is gentle, kind, thoughtful, and loving: the greater percentage of the joy may simply be because most atheist speakers are hateful and crude. Psychology is a science, psychology has concluded that negativity is harmful for the mind and body for both the speaker as well as the listener, and yet the atheists who claim that science is the one and only source of true knowledge do not themselves live by the teachings of science.
More often than not I had to stop watching a video debate because of the atheist speaker having become violent and irrationally hateful.
The hateful atheist proves of himself to be no less a hypocrite as the unloving theist.
If both speakers in a debate are hypocrites, then the audience ought to get out of their seats and leave the auditorium.
The reason why the audiences rarely leave their seats is because the average human has been hoodwinked into believing that any person who claims of themselves to be an expert must therefore be an expert. Does the speaker have a Ph.D. in physics? Then he must be an expert in theology! Does the speaker have a Ph.D. in biology? Then he must be an expert in theology! Does the speaker have a Ph.D. in home-making? Then he must be an expert in theology!
Why is a biologist debating a topic about gods? Not only does the academic title not qualify the individual for the debate, the mere presence of the individual in a debate about a topic that he knows nothing of also disqualifies the education itself. If a man has a Ph.D., and yet is not intelligent enough to recognize that his knowledge is not applicable to the topic of discussion, then not only is the man's intelligence defective, but so is his education, and his Ph.D. is open for ridicule.
And who is so gullible as to believe that a Ph.D. in theology would qualify a person to debate the topic of God's existence? Seriously, think about it. Do you really believe that memorizing another person's words can make you an expert of any topic? Anyone gullible enough to believe that must also believe that reading a book about football will make the reader an expert football player even if the person has never held a ball. Never driven a car, but you want to be the world's top expert driver? Then read a book. Never played the violin, but want to be the world's greatest violinist? Then read a book; no violin needed. Want to debate the existence of God without your first knowing what God is? Then read a book, lots of books; no knowledge of God is needed.
The general uneducated public believes that if a person is smart enough to earn a college degree, then surely the person must be smart enough to know everything about everything. Yes there are smart humans with Ph.D.s — and a fair guess is that most individuals with a Ph.D. are intelligent because they do not get involved in video debates — but there are also a lot of dumb humans with Ph.D.s too, and a college degree by itself means nothing.
If we want to debate football, then I vote that we find some football players to debate. Do we want to debate music? Then is it asking too much to invite musicians to the debate? But when we come to the debates about God we throw all sanity out the window and ask a biologist and a physicist to debate a televangelist. Yeah, that's smart.
Perhaps the first disqualifier of the theist and atheist speakers is that they sincerely have no clue of what the topic is. Science and common sense demand firsthand observation, and yet the typical atheist speaker's knowledge is limited to perhaps having seen a short news clip on television about a Roman Catholic ceremony, or perhaps a few minutes of watching a money-begging televangelist yell nonsense, or even some years of sitting in a church pew memorizing words. Twenty-thousand to thirty-thousand hours of study are required to memorize enough words to be given a Ph.D., and yet the atheist claims that s/he can know everything about gods by sitting in a pew an hour a week.
Has the atheist speaker learned love? No, obviously. What about piety, virtue, humility, compassion, and forgiveness? No, the atheist is cousin to the gnostic belief that memorizing words is all that a person needs to attain enlightenment. And the atheist speaker has his mirrored twin in the theist speaker who himself believes that memorizing words from a holy book somehow raises the person's soul into a paradise heaven.
Where is the science? Where is the theist knowledge of God? Where is the firsthand observation that is mandated by science and religion?
David Bohm was one of the few publicly known physicists who appeared to exert the effort to learn more than what classical physics permits, and he took upon himself his own personal responsibility to go in search of more answers. If a physicist speaker does not have a similar or greater background as Bohm's, then the speaker is not qualified to speak on the topic.
The Purpose of the Debates
To make money, okay? Charge admission, promote book sales, sell DVDs of the debates, and further pump-up one's self-inflated ego. Buddhists would flock by the millions to watch a debate if Buddha were a speaker, and Christians would rush to watch Jesus in a debate. Likewise, atheists press into auditoriums to watch their messiahs preach the faith, and it's all about money. Deal with it; it's the way of the world now. There are no waves of social interest in self-betterment, no social yearning for quality traits, and no self-demands for intelligent thought and behavior, but rather it's all about money and material possessions, nothing else. Do you think otherwise? Why then is there no known television program that speaks of quality self-betterment? If television broadcasters will not share an hour to give value to the viewer, without the television program begging for money, then money is the only god of man. Even the religious websites have pay-per-click ads; pathetic. It's there, it's observable, and cry and whine all people might want, but it's still there.
And then we come to that strange genre of people — me included — who somehow find an interest in studying the universe's nuttiest known animal; the human. For me, I am fascinated by debates because I want to learn how other people view life, and that is what the debates provide; objective evidence of how debaters think and reason.
A relatively large number of individuals enjoy continuing the debates by creating their own videos — or articles like this one — where the debaters' debaters choose sides and hoot for their favorite team, which is fine and good because the individuals are enjoying what they enjoy — floats their boat, flies their kite, whatever — and too, the debaters' debaters give individuals like me more stuff to watch and ponder.
Some of the debaters' debaters are colorful individuals with tattoos and freaky quirks, while some debaters' debaters like myself are rather blah and unremarkable — or at least I seem blah to me — but that too is okay, it just means that we now have a wider selection of nutty humans to observe and wonder why on earth anyone would care about any debate.
Why should we care? For myself, I attended public school, and if that reason is not sufficiently descriptive in itself — perhaps you were fortunate to have attended private school and you are unaware of what a public school is — then I will explain. Public schools teach children outrageously asinine lies, okay? Garbage in, garbage out.
In my public school — which was the best in a city that was among the best of the country, believe it or not (yeah, scares me too) — a science teacher taught that moon phases were caused by the earth's shadow on the moon. Apparently the teacher thought that we were too stupid to look up into the sky and recognize that the 'shadow' could not be from the earth if the sun and a half-moon were both visible in the sky simultaneously. (Surely then it is the invisible Niburu causing the shadow? Oh my gosh it's so close and we didn't even know it! We're all going to die!)
Science teachers taught that oil was created by dinosaurs getting trapped in tar pits — and again we students were allegedly too stupid to know that the teacher's description of tar was oil-based. The biology teacher taught that no one could have a memory prior to the age of five years old, and it was spoken to a stunned class of ten-year-old kids whose pre-five-year-old memories were still fresh. Science teachers claimed that electricity was the effect of little electron balls rolling around inside of copper wire, and on and on and on we were told nonsense that was so childish that not even the children believed the claims were possible. Santa Claus? Nah. Tooth fairy? Only until the money stops. Science? Ha no way!
Year after year we were subjected to an intense indoctrination of popular science that could only have two feasible results; (1) either you realized that the college-educated teachers were complete morons, or else (2) you yourself became a moron that was too stupid to know that your teachers were complete morons. Okay? I may not be the brightest bulb in the universe, but I did recognize that most of my teachers had no filaments.
And don't get me started with the college graduate battery-wire-bulb test...
But you're thinking that your public school was much better aren't you? Aren't you? Does the school have computers? Fail. Does the school teach evolution without verbs? Fail. Does the school have any philosophy classes whatsoever? Fail. Is physics taught without verbs? Fail. Don't get me started on this one, it is darn-near infinite. Yes my city's schools failed to teach accurate knowledge, but the only difference between mine and the schools of today is that the latest nonsense is just packaged and sold differently. And no this is not a USA-only phenomenon, it is worldwide, it encompasses all education up through the highest universities, and growing worse.
I must include one brief example that is currently heavy on my thoughts. I recently purchased an inexpensive used copy of a book by an author who is very well known for his beliefs and numerous book titles. The fellow is a university professor and researcher, but I will refrain from listing his occupational specializations so that my words will not so easily identify who he is (his books' information might be of little value, but he is a human with feelings, and I will not commit an act of atheist hate on anyone even if his views are opposite of mine). The important item here is that his books are written from the point of view of an individual who has firsthand experience at the upper levels of academia, and so his ideas are illustrative of what is being taught in universities throughout the world. In the fellow's book he claims that science knows enough about olfaction to create a machine that can perceive scents as well or better than man. The book's claim is outrageously false — as are the many dozens of other claims that I have so far read in the book, and I am only on page 44 — which in itself is relatively unimportant, but the problem here is that education — regardless of which prestigious establishment that the education might be taught — is garbage. The book's author is an excellent writer, and the manner of which he strings his words together illustrates that he is sufficiently intelligent, but his education is impoverished, and if his education is severely wanting, then so must be the education given to his students. I may interpret the man himself as interesting and of a quality that I might enjoy discussing topics with, but the book's base of knowledge warranted my committing a sin that I had never before performed: I am using a pen to underline sentences and mark paragraphs as I read. Book lovers shriek at the thought of defacing any book, as do I, but the beliefs within this particular book have rendered the book itself as mere blank paper, of no redeemable value beyond that of doodling one's thoughts.
The debaters themselves further verify the failings of education. All of the topics discussed by the video debaters are spoken by individuals who have no clue of what they are talking about, which simply illustrates that their education did not include a knowledge of the topics.
There is no suitable English word for the frustrations that I feel about modern education, but I am confident that if I were to vocalize the emotions with a howl you would clearly sense my agonies.
My personal aim is to satisfy my curiosity about life by using the only means that I know to work; firsthand observation. Textbooks are unacceptable — it is, after all, where the video debaters and teachers memorized their knowledge — and so if there are no answers available anywhere, then if we want to learn anything at all, then we must learn it on our own.
And too, if the debaters' debater relies on popular science, textbooks, or any other form of popular opinion, then the debaters' debater is as daffy as the debaters.
The quantity of books in my shelves is not as many as in previous years, now less than five-hundred, and except for the chess books, most all of the books are only of value for illustrating humanity's absurdities and sparking within me an urge to write about the endless nonsense of man's sciences and religions. Come to think of it, if humans were sane, we would not have the need for many books or websites like this one would we? Life would be far less colorful, so yes, nutty humans do have value.
How to Debate the Debaters
Firsthand observation is first. Observe the topic yourself, first learn what the topic is before you leap into a debate that you know nothing about.
Master the topic, become so well acquainted with the topic that you can endlessly discuss the fine points that are never written of in books. If you do not know what the fine points are, then you are not ready for a debate. A popular idea in chess is to master one opening so well that you instill fear in every opponent who sits down, and the idea also applies to any topic that is worthy of debate; learn it so well that you can instantly and methodologically counter all attempts to refute your theories.
Think for yourself. Regardless of what the debaters may claim, you do have a mind, and you are free to use your mind to determine for yourself what is true and what is false.
Become a master critic, not a critic of other people, but a critic of yourself, sharply critiquing your own thoughts. Never doubt yourself — doubt destroys the mind's ability to think coherently — but rather earnestly search for correctness of thought before choosing yes or no conclusions.
You are you, you are not the possession nor the property of any ideology, you are you, your mind and heart are yours, no one else's. Be you, not a theist, not an atheist, not anything but you. Your thoughts are yours, and if your thoughts are yours, then your thoughts cannot be tied and restricted to conform to someone else's classification. Believing in a god, or believing in a humanist evolution, it is okay, cool, no problem. If your mind has the firsthand experience of knowing why the belief exists, and if your mind knows what the evidence is, then you are you, and you are not a classification.
All philosophies have failed. All sciences have failed. All religions have failed. The professional debaters cannot debate coherently because the debaters rely on a knowledge of the failed ideologies, and since the ideologies failed, then so must the debaters' logic fail. If all has failed, then don't be stupid and believe that joining a different ideology will somehow be the right choice. Be your own person, use your own mind, choose your own choices, form your own conclusions, and yes you will make mistakes, but at least the mistakes will be yours and not someone else's. It is embarrassing to make a mistake, but it is disgraceful and reason for ridicule to be the puppet of another man's mistakes.
Never ever under any circumstances make an appeal to authority. When a debater states something like 'so-and-so author says this and that' we immediately recognize that the speaker him/herself has no clue of the topic. All authors make mistakes — including me (surprising but true! No, actually, I just said that so that you won't feel bad... yeah...) — and if you repeat an author's error, then your education will immediately be graded as inferior if not fully repulsive.
The demigods of science and religion are not omniscient, nor infallible, nor even reasonably correct most of the time. Follow you, you are the only master worthy of following. When you have mastered yourself, then you will be in the position to recognize other individuals who mastered themselves also. Have you yet noticed that all of the leading masters followed no other man? Why is that? Maybe there's something there worth thinking about?
No verb to describe how the big bang originated? Then the debate has ended. No firsthand experience? Then the debate should never begin. No self-created thoughts based upon objective observations? Why would anyone want to listen to yet another recitation of what thousands and millions of other people have already said?
If you are truly a living human with a mind, then let's see that mind in action, and let's see if that mind can think a thought without relying on another person's thoughts and without relying on the emotional impulses of defending or attacking beliefs. Forming an opinion based upon valid evidence requires effort and time, and it requires more time and effort to usefully word that opinion in a manner that is of a positive tone that does not stir the negativity of strife, and more time and effort is required to arrange the words sufficiently coherently that another person might comprehend the words' intentions. If it were such an easy thing to do, why then isn't it done more often? Almost no debater can do it, and almost no debaters' debater can do it. Can you do it?
Scary, isn't it? To go out on a limb by yourself, with no book knowledge or popular opinion to support your beliefs, while also insisting to one's self to create a firsthand knowledge that agrees with the existing knowledge that positivity is the desired attribute of all new knowledge. Not many humans will dare such an adventure, but many humans are quick to become debaters of unknown topics that they know nothing of.
The choice, to be one's own master, or to always follow the slobbering herd, is yours, and yours alone. And which will you choose?
Does God Exist
Back to the topic of debate; does God exist? First describe God. No excuses here, if a debater believes that a god exists, then the debater surely has a description of the god. If a theist debater does not have a description of God, then why should any of us believe the theist? If a thing exists, and the mind can fathom the thing, then the thing has a description.
The human mind is not omniscient, nor can the human mind magically know of anything outside of its environment. Since the average human cannot think outside of the 3D, then the average theist must describe God with three-dimensional words, and if God exists outside of the 3D then the theist's description has failed already. Can't describe with verbs the actions of a fourth and fifth dimension? Then the debater's description is invalid. Can't describe with verbs how God created the big bang? Then the debater's description is invalid. Make all the excuses a debater might want, and while the excuses are being voiced we will continue observing that the excuses are being worded with words that are limited to two- and three-dimensional definitions, which nullifies the excuses.
Atheists could easily and effortlessly apply scientifically valid arguments of why the common descriptions of God are ludicrous, but since few or no atheists know anything about science, nor can the atheists apply a simple logic to what is observable in the 3D, then the atheist debaters' arguments are as vacant and useless as the theist debaters'. Let me rephrase that and make it crystal clear that atheism could easily nullify every world religion instantly if atheism could conjure-up an independent thought (Tin-man singing "if I only had a brain"). And what is this thing that could so easily nullify all world religions? Well I'm for sure not going to say what it is, at least not in public, nor for free, and not where an atheist can memorize and then recite the words while believing himself smart for reciting words that he does not understand (atheism is so symptomatic of autism, oh, but so are all the other -isms).
As easy as it is for an atheist to debunk the theist view, so is it easy to debunk the atheist view. The great fallacy of normal human thought is its inability to think outside of two-dimensional limitations. To the average human everything has an either-or, an up or a down, a left or a right, a yes or a no, a yes god or a no god, and the normal average human will never recognize anything that might exist in-between or beyond. If the average human cannot think beyond two dimensions, then upon what wild logic should we assume that the average debater might accurately describe a thing that exists beyond three dimensions? Man's greatest science is two-dimensional, man's languages are two-dimensional with a rare few three-dimensional terms tossed in, and with our possession of irrefutable evidence why are we expected to ignore the obvious while believing the theist and atheist debaters?
Look at this, think about it, okay? The debates over whether God exists are debating two-dimensional thoughts that presuppose that there can only be one of two possible answers, (1) yes a god exists, or (2) no a god does not exist. Two-dimensional; one-two, two, not three, not four, not five, not eleven, two. Okay? The debaters can argue all they want, but the debaters are still arguing a two-dimensional absurdity. College professors with Ph.D.s, and world-renown authors, publicly arguing a two-dimensional absurdity. Yeah, that really raises one's confidence in education, huh?
Is a Belief In God False
Again we return to the two-dimensional mind that believes that there can only be an either-or, yes a god, or no a god. Far worse is that the noun "god" is not first defined. How can anyone form a rational yes-no conclusion about a thing if they do not know what the thing is?
Now this is interesting to me, and I hope that you will enjoy it too. When a debater attempts to describe God, pay attention to the words given as the description. "Causeless" is based upon a 3D human interpretation of 3D physics. I too use the word "cause" as a means of pointing to an effect that produces another effect (I would use different words if the human language possessed words that were not limited to two and three dimensions), but the debater's words are obviously restricted to the normal human 3D physics of cause and effect, which, of course, is a ridiculous belief because it anthropocentrically attempts to force a human's (the created thing's) view on the non-human act (the creator's).
Pinocchio exclaimed "God is wood!" And you think that's funny? The debaters claim "God is space-less!" and the audience doesn't peep a word.
"God is space-less" is another stab at attempting to force a 3D interpretation on a multi-dimensional field. Flatlanders cannot jump up, Cubelanders cannot jump out, Spherelanders have no straight lines, Fluidlanders have no shape, and Etherlanders have no dichotomies. It is outrageously wrong for a debater to spit-out words like "spacelessness" while not explaining to the audience what spacelessness might imply. Everything outside of the human-interpreted three dimensions is space-less, everything, and therefore it is nonsense to claim that a natural-occurring effect should become a distinguishing feature of God.
If you are into Eastern philosophies and you want to say that God is everything, then cool, that's fine, it is usually spoken as a cop-out without verbs, but all things considered it is a far better description than what the debaters attempt.
"Omnipotent" is again only relative to the 3D human point of view. "All powerful" implies force, energy, pressure, and direction, all of which are terms that are based upon the 3D physics of matter and energy. The energy that humans know of cannot be the energy that created the universe. Okay? Where the heck do the debaters think energy comes from? 3D is a created thing, God is not the created thing, God must be the creator who created 3D, and if energy is based upon the 3D, then God is not energy nor 'all powerful', okay? Semantics? Yes, perhaps yes, but that is what debates are all about, nonsensical verb-less semantics.
All known theist descriptions of God have failed — and failed miserably — and if God has not been described, then neither can there be a two- or three-dimensional argument for the existence of God.
And where do the atheist debaters chime-in here? Skeptics antagonize paranormal enthusiasts by calling the believers in ghosts "Woos" (I had to ask what 'Woo' means, and apparently it has something to do with ghost noises: 'wooo, woooo.') So the skeptic 'Noos' deny the existence of God, not because there is a known logical reason of why gods cannot exist, but because skeptics like to make the skeptic noise of 'nooo, noooo.' Seriously, what other explanation could there be?
A common theist debater's opinion is that the best explanation for the origin of the universe is that the universe was created, and if the universe was created, then it must have been a god that created it. Wow. Are we impressed yet? I'm wondering to myself how a mind can be so profoundly narrow to assemble such a tiny and seemingly sub-two-dimensional thought that creation equals the sole option of a 'god dunnit.'
The 3D is not the whole of everything, okay? The universe might be interpreted by average humans as being all 3D matter and energy, but there is more to Reality than three dimensions, okay? Within the several other dimensions — dimensions that the typical human mind is not capable of discerning — there must be other things occurring that the human mind has not conceived, and therefore the debate is moot already.
Another theist debater's belief is that God is best explained by the fine-tuning of the universe for the existence of life. I have heard of the mathematical evidence, and yes it does look very impressive, until, yes until, we take a step back and recognize that the evidence is a man-measure of three dimensions. Aw, and it was so much fun at first! If the mathematics does not include the effects of all dimensions outside of the 3D — and unfortunately the mathematics indeed do not include the data — then the mathematics is inherently false. The napkin under my glass of grape juice is fine-tuned to absorb condensation as well as cushion the glass and prevent friction that might cause scratches on the desk's glass surface, and yes the napkin's design does illustrate intelligent creation, but I am confident that the napkin arrived on my desk by my having carried it there, and the napkin's origins include those of trees, rain, and birds, but the measurements of the napkin prove nothing of its origin. Yes everything influences everything else, and yes there is a reason why everything appears to be so fine-tuned, but (yes that darn word "but") fine-tuning better illustrates a different attribute of Nature, and not necessarily an attribute of an unknown god. Biologists and psychologists — and even bright philosophers — ought to immediately jump out of their arm-chairs and exclaim what the attribute is, but aw shucks, nope.
Logic and Reasoning
This article's word-count has now exceeded 8,000 words, and so I will pause my rants and comments for now. Perhaps I will get around to the other sub-topics at a later time, but at present my flu symptoms are ending, and so must my writing.