so wait. you're going to challenge me to a debate about that which is inherently unprovable. we'll basically be playing "shade the probability", because anything i say if removed from any earthly description of god can be immediately responded to with "well god did that."
if you remove any established definition of "god" then you allow yourself the opening to accept all scientific theory, but attribute them all to a "cosmic intelligence". you could agree with evolution, the big bang, every known scientific law and theory, but at the end of it simply say that the reason they're all in place is because this cosmic designer did it.
this is an inherently impossible debate from my perspective, in that my only argument (and one you will undoubtedly reject) is that if we can explain absolutely everything in terms of science, what purpose does this "cosmic designer" serve except to sate our curiosity? more than that, wouldn't this god require an explanation in his own right?
by your own framing of the debate, that is my ONLY argument that you can't tap dance around, and that one is getting into philosophy rather than science. you'll obviously be able to agree with any scientific principle i throw your way, and we'll be reduced to ad nauseum arguments of "yeah" and "nuh-uh".
i refuse to allow this kind of intellectual dishonesty. until you give me a better indication of how you define "god" i'm out, it's obviously just your attempt to move the debate somewhere where i literally can't argue against it.
not my intention at all.
my definition of god is that something immaterial, and intelligent was needed to design life and all that exists. who is all that exists, including the universe(he is the universe) both within and without.
your arguments against such a creator and against a cosmic intelligence can be multifarious. i mean, there is the concept of suffering, how can god be omnipotent and all knowing. scientific advancements that have layed ruin to gods grasp on the universe. i use no god of the gaps non-sense. nor am i arguing that god interacts with people.
the debate will boil down to you as an atheist will have to provide the best evidence you can that nothing is needed to create the universe, and that life exhibits no divinity(specifically consciousnous).
we will obviously have to narrow down what is being discussed. im honestly not trying to be intellectually dishonest. fernadez and harding(might be wrong of the name) have had many public debates on the mere existence of a GOD. a deity.
a infinite,all-encompasing, intelligent, rational being. both within and without. who designed life, the mechanisms, the cosmos.
widdle down what you want. i would like it to be fair, honestly.
