Pro
#1
hello I'm rushing so I'm sorry if the argument is bad, thank you for accepting the debate and in the next round I will explain myself better I promise.
Briefly, the Christian's assumption of the incarnation of God in a human being, logically means that exists only one real Christian, the so called "child of God"- Jesus.
This can be logically proven that it actually only involves the one, if it isn't happened subsequently to other people.
With this assumption we can trace it until the Pantheist assumption: Deus Sive Natura (God is nature).
This assumption even though it is reasoned and also it has a large impact on the science progress and also for materialism, it is an empirical assumption, we can't logically prove it.
Obviously there are the proof in nature of this godly perfection, the silver ratio, the golden ratio, evolution and also the primal morality of human beings, we have the primal instinct to understand that killing the other is evil, is bad, or better, is anti-moral.
Although these manifestations of nature perfection, the simply assumption that God coexist in nature not as trascendent but as something that exists, is real, is purely empirical, unproven, therefore, from the ration vision, we either don't need God to morality, but also, we don't even need God anymore, we should just accept that nature during time evolved and perfectioned itself through various factors.
Hope this shor argument is enough for the moment. Let me know!
