The Big Issues (locked)

This is an index into many of the big issues of this forum, along with summaries of the topic and the major arguments on each side. Click on a link below in order to go to a summary card with details and links to threads.

---

Religion

Existence of God

The Bible as Truth

“Homosexuality as a Sin”

---

Politics

“2008 US Presidential Election”

Banning Homosexual Marriage

“Libertarianism”

“The Green Movement”

“Abortion”

“Russia/Georgia Conflict”

---

Science

Global Warming

Evolution

---

Arts

Video Games as Art

---

Philosophy

“Logic”

Ok, as part of our whole “start new threads vs. resurrect old threads” debate, it was suggested by some (Navarre I remember for sure) that we have some sort of reference page identifying the big, common issues, giving links to some of the pertinent threads, and perhaps even brief summaries of the major arguments for each side.

My idea is to create this sticky to do exactly that: act as an index for new and old users alike to look up issues, check out old posts, see the major arguments, and then decide if they want to pursue adding on to them. I don’t have time to create this whole list right now, so I’m looking for suggestions for what issues to include, links to relevant discussion in those issues, and people who would volunteer to write a summary for one side or the other. I’ll compile the results and put them into the first link above as a main index.

Additionally, any suggestions/comments on this thread in general would be well appreciated. I’m thinking the index above will link to specific posts within this thread. Each of those posts would contain a summary of the issue, pros and cons, and links to specific threads. Sound good?

[spot reserved]

Well, this is a pretty good idea. I agree with your approach and would be willing to be one of those “Volunteers”.

I’m glad we can finally get one of these up. I can help summarize topics.

A great idea, but I’m too lazy to help so good luck.

Don’t Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

legalization of marijuana

I don’t know if this is helpful but I just figured out that you can click on the time above our avatars and it gives you a link to specific posts. I guess there would be multiple threads for a topic like religion but maybe linking specific posts is better for topics that are pretty much confined to one huge thread.

way to triple post

Way to not understand the point of the triple post. :-P

The first one will be the main index of all the topics. The second one was an explanation of the idea. The third was the first sample post, which is linked to in the first post. So it was very intentional and appropriate.

What happened to my sticky? :( I enjoyed having a sticky.

Definitely a good idea. In another community in which I participated, I was a “Director” of a small unit within the game and had our group’s personal discussions referenced by links. The only problem is getting people to actually utilize your list, but it’s definitely a good idea!

My genitalia fits the thread description.

Cough cough

What happened to my sticky? :( I enjoyed having a sticky.

Cough cough

thats what she said.

The Existence of God(s)

In this post I will argue that existence of god is much less likely than her existence, and therefore the logical position for all people is atheism.

First things first, we should clarify some terms.

A god is a supernatural being usually attributed with powers far greater than humans or any known physical entity. Gods are usually believed to be creators or deities of some natural phenomenon, for example the Abrahamic god is credited with being the creator of all things, as are the deities of most monotheistic religions. While there are many definitions of god, I will be basing my arguments mostly against the Abrahamic god, which will I think cover most other gods. If you feel your deity wasn’t included, I’ll try and refine my definition. The most important thing I must mention is that I argue against an interventionist god. If you believe in a god that has never interacted with this universe in any way, then I am not arguing against your god.

Secondly, we must make sure we’re in the same frame of reference. I will be using logic in my argument, as it has been proven to be our greatest tool to revealing truth. If you do not use logic in your belief system, then this will do very little to convince you otherwise. On the same topic, I will not take refutations like “God is beyond logic” or “You can’t understand God with your feeble human mind” seriously unless you can explain exactly what you mean by that series of words. The series of words “Green almost travelled to the bricks” is grammatically correct, but it means nothing. Unless you can explain your argument, it is not an argument, it is just a series of words.

Now, onto business.

There is no evidence for the existence of any god. None. Not a single piece of verifiable evidence has ever been found to support the existence of a being that is supposedly omnipresent. The history of the universe can be explained from a few moments after it’s birth to the present day, without the need for god anywhere. You may disagree, but in order for that to count as a refutation you would have to present a piece of verifiable evidence that suggests the existence of god more than or to the exclusion of anything else. Good luck.

This takes us to the point of truth, that all that god is without all the faith, religion and tradition, god is just another mythical creature. Existence neither proven or disproved. Hopefully you haven’t fallen into the trap of thinking this makes gods existence a 50/50 chance. Why exactly would it be a 50/50 chance? Just because there are two possible options? There are only two possible outcomes of playing the lottery, you either win or you lose, does that make winning the lottery a 50/50 chance? No. There are many other factors to consider before we conclude the chances of gods existence. Let’s start with an easy one.

God is a form of life. All forms of life are unlikely to exist. Therefore god is unlikely to exist.

The probability of any life existing in any situation is less than 50/50. The probability of life existing is not 50/50 and god must be a type of life, therefore her chance of existing is not 50/50. If the probability of life existing was 50/50, we would reasonably expect to see life on half the planets in the universe. If the chances of all forms of life existing was 50/50, why would we need a god to create us?

Still on sold ground with another one.

All complex life arises from evolution. Evolution requires mating and breeding. The creator must be more complex than the creation. Therefore any god that created complex life must be complex. Therefore either god arose from evolution or she doesn’t exist.

Evolution is fact. I will create a post similar to this one about evolution at a different time and link it to this. The argument for evolution is a lot easier than this one, in fact it’s very easy because there is more evidence to support it than practically any other scientific theory and there is no valid alternative. If you disagree with evolution, I will suppress the instinct that you won’t listen to anything I say anyway and ask for you patience in constructing my argument for evolution. In the meantime, please ignore this particular argument, I have plenty others.

The probability of something being true is based on how many times it has been observed in the past and how plausible it is based on our current knowledge. The following traits are all incredibly improbable in that they have never before been observed and they are not plausible based on current knowledge.

Omnipotence – Omnipotence is impossible, as demonstrated by many examples, such as “Could an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that an omnipotent being couldn’t lift it.” The following question is a simple yes or no question, with both answers creating the scenario of an omnipotent being not being able to do something. Therefore omnipotence is impossibe.

Omniscience – Omniscience is very improbable in itself, also omniscience and ‘free will’ are mutually exclusive, that cannot exist at the same time. Nearly all theists believe in ‘free will’ so they will have to make a choice as to which they prefer.

Not bound by the laws of nature, such as the conservation of energy, entropy, etc… – To not be bound by physical laws, you have to be metaphysical. Fine. The problem occurs when you try to posit a metaphysical being interacting with a physical being or space, which is impossible, by definition. All physical interactions require energy, and metaphysical beings cannot, by definition, contain a physical entitiy like energy. Therefore metaphysical beings cannot interact with physical ones. Either god is physical and bound by physical laws, or god cannot interact with our world, if she exists that is.

So we have many valid arguments why Gods existence as it is commonly conceived is either impossible or extremely improbable. Combine this with the fact that there is no evidence to even suggest that a god does exist leaves it very clear that the logical position is that God’s existence is at least as improbable as the other mythological creatures we do not waste our time discussing, such as unicorns, phoenix or the flying spaghetti monster. In this post I have not gone into the other reasons why gods existence is unlikely, namely because the roots of gods conception by human minds is traceable, mainly because to track each god back through the ages would take to long and I wanted to try and make it general. I will add and refine this post based on feedback. I will also add common arguments for god and my refutations for them as they come up.

There is no evidence for the existence of any god.

there is no evidence of the contrary

So you literally didn’t read my post past that point?

there is no evidence of the contrary
That is the evidence

That is the evidence

correlation is not causation mister atheist

So you literally didn’t read my post past that point?

If I could have done it figuratively I would have, sorry.

Great post, Navarre, but this is the wrong thread for it.
Edit Phoenix00017: Oh, sorry I didn’t realize he was writing a summary for your index.

zmmaji, don’t reply to posts you haven’t read fully. I consider it spam because it doesn’t contribute to the thread and is annoying.

Example

Post 1:

I like Kongregate because it has a lot of great games.

Post 2:

I like Kongregate

Why do you like Kongregate?

hes right

No, Navarre’s post is exactly what should be in this thread – I just need to start doing the indexing I was supposed to do. However, this is not going to be a discussion thread, so please do not reply to Navarre’s post. If you feel it needs an edit, you can point that out, but do not reply. If you would like to represent the other side of the argument, feel free to write a similar essay (free-standing essay – do not reply to or reference his points directly), please feel free and we will use it as the counter-argument.

Anyway, I’m beginning to do the indexing. I’m looking for suggestions of topics I’ve missed, as well as comments about ones I have up there currently (too specific, not important, whatever). Also, suggestions for formatting would also be appreciated if you don’t like the current style.

Existence of God

Perhaps the single most debated topic on the internet, the existence of a supreme being is a question that has become an obsession for mankind. The question is not necessarily as simple as it first appears. What is meant by “God”? Can there be multiple Gods? Is this a “Creator”, or just a supreme being? Is it sentient, or just an eternal force? In general though, the question refers to a single God as a Creator, most famously the Christian God, but not unlike many other monotheistic versions of a supreme being. For this debate, we primarily discuss the Christian God, though it can be abstracted a bit beyond that.

---

Affirmative Opinion, not yet written:

---

Negative Opinion, written by Navarre:

The Existence of God(s)

In this post I will argue that existence of god is much less likely than her existence, and therefore the logical position for all people is atheism.

First things first, we should clarify some terms.

A god is a supernatural being usually attributed with powers far greater than humans or any known physical entity. Gods are usually believed to be creators or deities of some natural phenomenon, for example the Abrahamic god is credited with being the creator of all things, as are the deities of most monotheistic religions. While there are many definitions of god, I will be basing my arguments mostly against the Abrahamic god, which will I think cover most other gods. If you feel your deity wasn’t included, I’ll try and refine my definition. The most important thing I must mention is that I argue against an interventionist god. If you believe in a god that has never interacted with this universe in any way, then I am not arguing against your god.

Secondly, we must make sure we’re in the same frame of reference. I will be using logic in my argument, as it has been proven to be our greatest tool to revealing truth. If you do not use logic in your belief system, then this will do very little to convince you otherwise. On the same topic, I will not take refutations like “God is beyond logic” or “You can’t understand God with your feeble human mind” seriously unless you can explain exactly what you mean by that series of words. The series of words “Green almost travelled to the bricks” is grammatically correct, but it means nothing. Unless you can explain your argument, it is not an argument, it is just a series of words.

Now, onto business.

There is no evidence for the existence of any god. None. Not a single piece of verifiable evidence has ever been found to support the existence of a being that is supposedly omnipresent. The history of the universe can be explained from a few moments after it’s birth to the present day, without the need for god anywhere. You may disagree, but in order for that to count as a refutation you would have to present a piece of verifiable evidence that suggests the existence of god more than or to the exclusion of anything else. Good luck.

This takes us to the point of truth, that all that god is without all the faith, religion and tradition, god is just another mythical creature. Existence neither proven or disproved. Hopefully you haven’t fallen into the trap of thinking this makes gods existence a 50/50 chance. Why exactly would it be a 50/50 chance? Just because there are two possible options? There are only two possible outcomes of playing the lottery, you either win or you lose, does that make winning the lottery a 50/50 chance? No. There are many other factors to consider before we conclude the chances of gods existence. Let’s start with an easy one.

God is a form of life. All forms of life are unlikely to exist. Therefore god is unlikely to exist.

The probability of any life existing in any situation is less than 50/50. The probability of life existing is not 50/50 and god must be a type of life, therefore her chance of existing is not 50/50. If the probability of life existing was 50/50, we would reasonably expect to see life on half the planets in the universe. If the chances of all forms of life existing was 50/50, why would we need a god to create us?

Still on sold ground with another one.

All complex life arises from evolution. Evolution requires mating and breeding. The creator must be more complex than the creation. Therefore any god that created complex life must be complex. Therefore either god arose from evolution or she doesn’t exist.

Evolution is fact. I will create a post similar to this one about evolution at a different time and link it to this. The argument for evolution is a lot easier than this one, in fact it’s very easy because there is more evidence to support it than practically any other scientific theory and there is no valid alternative. If you disagree with evolution, I will suppress the instinct that you won’t listen to anything I say anyway and ask for you patience in constructing my argument for evolution. In the meantime, please ignore this particular argument, I have plenty others.

The probability of something being true is based on how many times it has been observed in the past and how plausible it is based on our current knowledge. The following traits are all incredibly improbable in that they have never before been observed and they are not plausible based on current knowledge.

Omnipotence – Omnipotence is impossible, as demonstrated by many examples, such as “Could an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that an omnipotent being couldn’t lift it.” The following question is a simple yes or no question, with both answers creating the scenario of an omnipotent being not being able to do something. Therefore omnipotence is impossibe.

Omniscience – Omniscience is very improbable in itself, also omniscience and ‘free will’ are mutually exclusive, that cannot exist at the same time. Nearly all theists believe in ‘free will’ so they will have to make a choice as to which they prefer.

Not bound by the laws of nature, such as the conservation of energy, entropy, etc… – To not be bound by physical laws, you have to be metaphysical. Fine. The problem occurs when you try to posit a metaphysical being interacting with a physical being or space, which is impossible, by definition. All physical interactions require energy, and metaphysical beings cannot, by definition, contain a physical entitiy like energy. Therefore metaphysical beings cannot interact with physical ones. Either god is physical and bound by physical laws, or god cannot interact with our world, if she exists that is.

So we have many valid arguments why Gods existence as it is commonly conceived is either impossible or extremely improbable. Combine this with the fact that there is no evidence to even suggest that a god does exist leaves it very clear that the logical position is that God’s existence is at least as improbable as the other mythological creatures we do not waste our time discussing, such as unicorns, phoenix or the flying spaghetti monster. In this post I have not gone into the other reasons why gods existence is unlikely, namely because the roots of gods conception by human minds is traceable, mainly because to track each god back through the ages would take to long and I wanted to try and make it general. I will add and refine this post based on feedback. I will also add common arguments for god and my refutations for them as they come up.

---

Relative Forum Links:

Is God Real…Is Heaven and Hell Real?

God, The Bible, and Religion: A Kong Search for Truth

The Bible as Truth

Even if we agree that there is a God (which of course we don’t), the questions “Who is God?” and “What does he want?” immediately arise. The most popular answer on the planet (supported by roughly 1/3 of the world’s population) is given by The Bible. So, is the Bible “The Truth”? Is it the holy, unerring Word of God? Is it superior to other religious texts? It is infallible? These are all big questions that get raised, and that not even Christians themselves agree upon. However, all Christians do agree that the Bible contains primarily Truth and that it is in the inspired Word of God at the very least. So, is this true?

---

Affirmative Opinion, not yet written:

---

Negative Opinion, not yet written:

---

Relevant Forum Links:

God, The Bible, and Religion: A Kong Search for Truth

YOUR Religion (I included this because it seemed relevant, though not directly on-topic)

*Evolution* The debate on Evolution has become the symbol of the ever-present Science vs. Religion battle. Science has found evidence to support one theory, while the Bible has clear statements that say the scientific theory cannot be correct. Is the scientific evidence strong enough to be truly compelling? Is it possible to accept the Bible as a metaphor and let the two work together? Or is the scientific evidence being played up by scientists hoping to shut down Christians? Note that there are a couple of different interpretations of the word "Evolution" that will come up. You'll see the phrases "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" thrown around. While technically inaccurate (since there is no real difference scientifically speaking), micro-evolution refers to small adjustments made within animals, while macro-evolution generally refers to anything cross-species or larger. Chirstians do not (and can not) deny micro-evolution, but most deny macro-evolution. Additionally, Evolution is sometimes used to refer to Cosmic Origins. While this is again an inaccurate use of the word, the debate is similar and is primarily on-topic.

---

*Affirmative Opinion, written by Navarre:* There is no confusion, controversy or debate in the scientific or educated community as to whether Evolution Theory is true or not. It is true. The only things debated are the specifics of evolution, the paths it took and the details of why, when and where. The only 'debate' is the one put forward by people who gain there knowledge about the workings of biological diversity from a 6000 year old book written by people who thought that rabbits chew cud and had no idea that DNA existed. I will prove in this post that evolution is scientific fact. Firstly, a definition. *"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time."* says Talk.Origins. Evolution does not talk about how all of life started, it is not concerned with how it started, only how it changed and diversified. Evolution is not the big bang, abiogenesis, panspermia or any theory of beginning, it is a theory of change. While we're on the subject of theories, a misconception should be cleared up. In the common lexicon, a theory is something that is untested, an uncertainty, an opinion. In scientific terminology, a 'theory' is a hypothesis that has been tested by experimentation and peer review and been found valid. It is possible, in the scientific terminology, for something to be both theory and fact, just like evolution. Evolution isn't a hypothesis, evolution is a theory. It has more evidence supporting it than any other theory to date. As far as the scientific community is concerned, it is fact. Natural selection is the selection process that shapes evolution. There is no will to evolution, by definition. If any being, man or god, where to try and shape evolution, it would cease to be evolution and would become selective breeding because it would be replacing natural selection with unnatural selection. *Natural selection dictates that any variation that enables it's bearer a greater chance at passing on it's own genes will be more likely to reappear in the gene pool.* That's it. Simple. If what you were born with will get you laid, it's more likely that kids of the next generation will have what you have, because you're more likely to have passed on your genes to them. It's this simplicity that is evolutions greatest strength. Trying to deny that this is true is like trying to deny that healthier people are more likely to live longer. Now you might be thinking "I'm not denying microevolution, but macroevolution is different!", let me tell you, there is no microevolution and macroevolution, just evolution. There is no difference between changing within a species and changing to another species. Also, we have observed speciation. "This":http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html site goes into the details but we have observed many species being created by evolution. Next, a quick sample of some of the evidence for evolution. Believe me, this is a very small sample. Much of the evidence for evolution wouldn't be convincing to anyone without a decent knowledge of biology, so only certain images and facts are easily translatable to laypersons like me and probably you. This leaves an abundance of fossil evidence, which leads people to mistakenly believe that fossils are the only evidence for evolution. !http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg! This shows the similarities in skulls of humans and our ancestors. * (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern * (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My * (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My * (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My * (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My * (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My * (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My * (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My * (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y * (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y * (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y * (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y * (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y * (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern The following is some genetic evidence. Some explanation is required for it to properly impact. One implication of evolution theory is that all life on earth is related, we are distant relatives of every single form of life on earth. DNA and chromosomes can let us know just how similar we are to other forms of life, the point to knowing is to show a progression from species to species, and find evidence for supposed deviations in the 'tree of life'. !http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/images/chr.all+.jpeg! This shows, in portions, schematic representation of chromosomes. Each numbered group shows from left to right the same sample from man, chimpanzee, gorilla and orang-utan. As you can see, the genetic evidence clearly shows that we are incredibly similar to all the other apes. Indeed, there isn't a great deviation between much life on earth. If you think about how many possible configurations of life there could be, all the different shapes and systems (play Spore for half an hour), then think about how many species on our planet have basically the same body in different variations. The genetic evidence has let us start to map the entire evolutionary history of earth. !http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/figure08.jpg! This shows the similarities in developing foetus's spanning the species. !http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif! Again, from talk.origins, "Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry." I have more images if people want me to post them. Not only that, but there are many things that would instantly disprove the theory of common descent, and have never been found despite many people looking. Quote:talkorigins.org - "It would be highly inconsistent if the chronological order were reversed in the reptile-bird and reptile-mammal example. Even the finding that there was no overall correlation between stratigraphy and the consensus phylogeny of the major taxa would be very problematic for the theory of common descent. In addition, the observed correlation could decrease over longer time frames or as we acquire more paleontological data�but neither is the case Based on the high confidence in certain branches of phylogenetic trees, some temporal constraints are extremely rigid. For example, we should never find mammalian or avian fossils in or before Devonian deposits, before reptiles had diverged from the amphibian tetrapod line. This excludes Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, and Silurian deposits, encompassing 92% of the earth's geological history and 65% of the biological history of multicellular organisms. Even one incontrovertible find of any pre-Devonian mammal, bird, or flower would shatter the theory of common descent" There is plenty of proof of evolution and no proof for any of the supposed alternatives. That is the truth. Before you ask "What about the missing link?"/"If we evolved from Chimps, why do chimps still exist? Let me tell you both these misconceptions are born from a misunderstanding of evolution. Many people thought that evolution from ape to human was a linear progression, where it's actually a branching tree. There never was a missing link. We didn't evolve from chimpanzee's or any current living animal, all of the ape family descended from a common ancestor, as my images showed. Also, transitional species wouldn't be alive today, they are transitional. Most of the creatures alive today have changed immensely. The reason that they have changed is that their old forms wouldn't be able to survive today, so why would the transitional forms still be alive? The strongest argument for evolution that I can make in this form is and always has been logic. If a variation gives you a better chance of breeding, that variation has a greater chance of reappearing. Evolution is scientific fact. If you disagree, you either don't understand it or you have been misinformed.

---

*Negative Opinion, not yet written:*

---

*Relevant Forum Links:* "Evolution; Scientific fact or believed by faith?":http://www.kongregate.com/forums/9/topics/12264 "Theories of Evolution can never be right":http://www.kongregate.com/forums/9/topics/16960