The Proof that God exists IS Mans unique existence.

To conclude I shall try to bring the various elements of this debate together. First the formal part. Pros debate topic was "The Proof that God exists IS Mans unique existence". My summary is that: 1) Pro has failed to demonstrate that man's existence is unique. We can agree that man possesses unique abilities. But I would drive a wedge in there. Any other species could also be said to demonstrate a unique ability if you select for the right ability. No objective reason was offered as to why we should believe Pros arbitrary standards. 2) Pro has used logically fallacious methods in his attempt to prove god (see below). He defeats himself straight out of the gate and his conclusions are therefore unsound. 3) All the evidence is that we are looking at natural phenomena. Pro would need to overturn science to support his belief that we are looking only or even just mainly at supernatural intervention. Even then his conclusion would be inductive, which is not strong enough to use the word "proof" (as in Pros argument). According to the generally accepted terms of Occams Razor, the natural explanation is always to be preferred over the supernatural. It is clear from the debate the Pro has failed to meet the necessary standards required for his high burden of proof. He has failed to demonstrate his contention and therefore the motion that "The Proof that God exists IS Mans unique existence" falls. I would like to offer some further commentary on this debate which is not relevant to the conclusion. It is clear that my opponent is passionate about his faith and has expended considerable energy responding. It is equally clear we have very different views about the nature of reality, the purpose of a debate and conduct within it. Whilst we have different views it should still be possible for us to come together and discuss matters, the principles of which were laid out by Socrates (the so called Socratic method). Important to debates are some common ground that we can both share to enable us to move forward a discussion: 1) That the primary purpose of debate is to reach a better understanding and learn from each other (not to win or lose). If we both learn something then we are both winners 2) That whatever your view, reason and logic are main tools in guiding us through a discussion 3) That a debate is an exchange of ideas, not of dogma That is not to say I wish to pull my punches. If I see a bad argument I will attack it with as much rhetorical flourish as I can muster. But then I expect my opponent to do the same. I have been involved in debates with Christians before and whether or not I "won" that debate, or not, I have come away with a new learning. I am thankful for that, that is a good thing. I am not so sure this debate afforded me this opportunity. My opponent has a different idea of debating to the one I espouse above. His view appears to be: 1) The most important thing is to declare yourself a winner, notwithstanding the quality of your arguments 2) That logically fallacious reasoning is to be embraced if it supports the conclusions you want 3) That a debate is a platform for preaching dogma In general I do wonder about apologetics like this. It seems to me that the approach is indicative of a deeply held insecurity in ones own belief system. Rather like Dorothy closing her eyes, screwing her face up, tapping her shoes together, then repeating the mantra "there is no place like home". The apologist will screw their face up, repeat bible passages and ignore logic and reason, then repeat "god is real" in the desperate hope that wish thinking will transport them and their opponent to the "reality" of their Christian supernatural "Oz". It does not! In this situation the failure of the Christian apologist to reason bravely, clearly and honestly is precisely because he is so utterly confused, broken and demoralised by his own religious beliefs. Their ego and self-confidence have been systematically removed by having to surrender their mind to dogma and literalism. The apologist is therefore desperate to shore themselves up, and make themselves feel better about believing a delusion by imagining that they have defeated whatever out-group they have conjured for themselves be it Atheists, Catholics, Scientologists or whomever. The corollary of this for them, is that when under attack they stick their fingers in their ears, and hope no-one notices when they realise their arguments are exposed for poverty of intellectual rigour and bravery. This was perhaps why Ayn Rand said the "religion attacks man's reason", she was indeed right and insightful on this point. It is an irony that Christian debaters in this position think their opponents are spawning hope. Infact the opposite is true there is little hope for their own individuality, freedom of thought, expression and self-confidence by submitting in such an abject way to something so obviously man made, that children see through it. They already assume themselves to be a worthless pawn, of an ultimate power, who they must worship whether they like it or not. They are not free men standing on their own two feet, but slaves to a literary tradition (of dubious heritage) and of course slaves to earthly demagogues, who unsurprisingly collect money from them and reinforce their minds with outrageous nonsense. In this debate, to me, my opponent has shown this side of himself. He would do better to listen and reflect on some of the observations made on his arguments, and why they do not work, instead of shutting them out trying to claim he was right, because he was right because he was right etc etc. And if that wasn't enough to prove his point, here are a few bible passages that really prove it! Just look at his confused and dishonest representation of science. My opponent thinks he has a really powerful general argument against naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and its diversity. His "how come all the babies survived despite having no adults hypothesis" is a prime example of this confusion and dishonesty. Of course that is not the scientific hypothesis at all, and I do not wish to get dragged down into this nonsense. I will however given him a ladder to drag himself up and away from this embarrassing argument. Even a cursory examination of the subject will inform him the the so called R-strategy of raising infants (many offspring, with no parental care) is prevalent in a wide range of animals even today, for example the vast majority of fish (which are extremely complex compared to the first life forms on earth) and their populations manage just fine. The so called K-strategy (few offspring, but with parental care) is shared by a relatively small number of species. Of course there are intermediate strategies. My opponent will need to do the rest of the research for himself. Worse than this though is his total failure to grasp the flaws in his reasoning. Just a sample of the lack of rigour proudly on display by Pro has been: 1) Bare assertions about the supernatural origin of humans. The explicit and implicit assumption that humans have souls etc with no support at all, and all the evidence against. The ad-hoc nature of the filtering of abilities he thinks support his intended conclusion. 2) Question begging by assuming his conclusions in his arguments, and by applying a human standard to the general animal kingdom. 3) Engaging in arguments by weight of numbers (ad populum). 2bn Christians can't be wrong! We should all pack up and go home then and not think anymore if 2bn Christians can't be wrong. But apparently this is true only when it suits his argument. 4) When it does not suit his argument he engages in a "No True Scotsman" fallacy to cover his tracks. 1.2bn evolution believing Catholics do not count as they apparently are not real Christians when it comes to this question. Infact worse still most of the 0.8bn remaining Christian denominations also accept evolution. But again I doubt they meet Pros arbitrary definition of "real Christian". 5) Arguments from false authority, the bible says it. .. it is therefore true as if we are to regard the bible as the authority on all matters relating to biology 6) Arguments from ignorance (I can"t imagine how X about humanity is true by natural means, therefore the Christian god is true) These are issues of standards in a debate, even before we can debate the evidence. Is their any evidence Pro would accept as denying his proposition? What evidence can be shown to someone, who does not respect evidence? He says I could have defeated his argument by pointing out an animal with human like qualities "to a human standard". I have already showed him why this is terrible reasoning, and a non-starter of a question. However, his view of what would defeat his position isn't even a good defeater in my opinion. If I did give him the example of say a "poetry writing owl", he could equally marvel at that and add that to his claim of evidences for a god. He could (and maybe should) have argued that all animals were created by supernatural agency, and therefore all have unique qualities (which is true at least on some level). This at least is safer ground. But of course that argument was tried before in the 18th and 19th centuries, and it lost the battle for ideas with the acceptance of Evolution by means of Natural Selection. This means he doesn't only make a bad argument, but he also willing to accept bad reasons for accepting his own arguments invalidity. I have given him much better reasons why the argument is already dead-on-arrival and why his argument can equally justify believing the absurd (as in my parallel spider analogy). Just because I find his arguments terrible should not take away from the fact Pro has shown the courage of his convictions and has had the initiative to start a debate.