James Brown: Closing Statement
|James Brown: Closing Statement
A number of important points have been entertained in this debate and, through discussion; one conclusion has been made unanimously.
logically follows that God is unnecessary for the functioning of the
Universe, and he is largely irrelevant with regards to his status as an
only possibility lies, for my opponent, in the beginning. How things
began happening. In order to argue this, my opponent proposes a
necessary being as the solution to the slippery-slope of infinite,
my probing my opponent has provided no reason why his conception of an
arbitrary God (the Christian God) should have any more claim to the
title of Necessary Being than any other possibilities: a Necessary
Universe, a Necessary uncaused disturbance in the space time continuum
or indeed any substance at all.
is there something rather than nothing? To clarify I would like to
might describe "Space" as nothing, but this would be
incorrect. Space is within our framework, we can ascribe to it
measurable qualities (the measure of those qualities is likely to be
zero) and we understand how it works, like a vacuum in some instances.
true definition of nothing is therefore randomness. Randomness cannot be
ascribed a value as it is in and of itself indefinable, a singularity
you might say, like infinity. So it follows that if before there was
something there must have been nothing then, before there was anything
unified, there must have been randomness.
randomness, if it is truly random, can produce something non-random, in
fact on an infinite timeline (and I am using the word "time"
very loosely) non-randomness is inevitable. A simple example is a
self-replicating cell. Put on a long enough timeline of random cell
creation with random properties, a self-replicating cell will inevitably
be produced. Once it exists then it will thrive at a rate that makes all
other cells (which will only last a single generation or will otherwise
be inert) insignificant. This model can be applied at every level.
Modern science can fill in the gaps to the present.
is therefore unremarkable that there is something rather than nothing,
and this is consistent with evolution's growth from simplicity to
complexity. Christianity expects that complexity came first (in the form
of God) and then we started at zero, and over 15billion years
established complexity again (put like this, this sounds a little
far-fetched) and there is of course no evidence for this claim.
shows that not only is God unnecessary for the functioning of the world,
but is unnecessary as a first cause, in fact it makes him a completely
arbitrary possibility among infinite other possibilities.
my opponents argument he has tended to use science much like a drunk
uses a lamppost, to lean on rather than to light the way.
drives religion, in so much as it comes into conflict with religion's
contradictions and breaks through the stubbornness of dogma opening our
eyes to the reality of the world in which we live. Religion is driven to
change in order to continue its existence. Each time science provides us
with an answer; it robs religion of one more appeal to ignorance.
have established that it a necessary truth that in order to know that a
God is good, and wants good from us, we must have a way of calculating
what is "good" independently of his authority. This shows that
God is also unnecessary as a moral authority.
opponent has, after much probing, conceded that in the Christian
tone alone of this statement is one of frustration, frustration that he
has had to admit the darker side of Christianity. But what does this
really mean? Well, firstly, it means that I
am going to hell, and will be keeping company with:
list goes on and on....
just wonder how my opponent will feel sitting in heaven with the
knowledge that not only the "bad" people but also some of the
greatest people, who ever lived, are suffering unimaginable tortures for
eternity. Knowing this, is not Heaven likely to be an uneasy place for
anyone with compassion?
seems to me that we have a bleak future with Christianity, for the
"good" and the "bad." However, there is nothing to
fear in reality, because this story is not true.
opponent has failed to show that the any God is necessary for our
existence. Nor has he shown that a specifically Christian God, that we
cannot perceive, is more likely to exist than not. He has placed heavy
emphasis on aspects of the universe that are outside our epistemic
access, on inaccurate and agenda-filled texts (including the Bible) and
on stalemating questions about our cognitive faculties which only serve
to undermine his position.
one of us, at one stage in our lives asks what am I here for? People
from the beginning of time have invented Gods to give them purpose, and
reasons for the unexplainable. So, what is my purpose? I would propose
that the reason we exist is to continue existing, the rest is up to us.
Pascal's wager says that it is in your best interest to believe in God because without belief you would, at best only push up daisies and at worst miss out on your afterlife bliss, and be condemned to fiery hell. But Pascal's wagering on death serves to make earthly life irrelevant. To this, Nietzsche would propose that this is the nihilism of life, and leads one to make a choice (an investment in Pascal's wager) in the words of Tim Robbins (from The Shawshank Redemption):
should stop looking for reasons to void reality of the wonder it
deserves. It is an understatement to say that we are lucky to be here.
We, as humans, are the recipients of millions of years of successful
genetic history, and the inhabitants of a planet that has by fortune had
the rare life supporting properties that millions of other planets lack.
I see no miracle in God parting the waters, turning water to wine or resurrecting his holy son. These are stories told to explain away the wondrous conditions of life. It is chance that has brought us to this point and to this level of existence but this does not mean to say that it is a coincidence that we can now question that existence.
go to previous Back to Latar vs. Brown Debate
Back to Philosophy Articles
Back to Home Page
About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links