The Existence of God

Before I begin I must express a deep gratitude to Managi for participating in this debate. As it was duly noted in the comments, my opponent is starting debate with a series of disadvantages; this debate was started by myself with not only an argument against his side, but it also placed the burden of proof on my opponent (placing the burden of proof on the positive is a matter of logic, not some tool of sophistry). And he has performed most gallantly. This is clearly an important topic, so thank you Managi for participating in this discussion. Perhaps the most striking thing about my opponent's argument is that he is arguing different characteristics for God than I had anticipated. As I had made allowances for such changes with the caveat that it be intriguing, which it definitely was, I have no "moving the goalpost" type complaints to make, but I would certainly like to further engage in this issue with a couple of points. Though the idea of god that we are discussing now is no longer of the Judeo-Christian tradition, there are a few passages from the most common reference about god (at least within the U.S.) that would almost certainly imply absolute, unbounded power and infinite knowledge. ï¿½ Job 37:16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised, those wonders of him who is perfect in knowledge? Psalms 147:5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit. Mathew 19:26 But Jesus looked at them and said, With men this is impossible, but all things are possible with God. For with God nothing is ever impossible and no word from God shall be without power or impossible of fulfillment. These don't say that he is almighty, but say that his knowledge and power are without limit, that they are infinite. However this point is admittedly still moot, and should, regardless, not allow us to become to distracted from what has become the meat of the debate. The first major contention made as a positive proof for the existence of god is that the universe is conscious, that it must be conscious. I see no particular reason for this to be so, and I'm afraid that your support for this idea has left me no more persuaded. "Science observes that atoms at one point became conscious of each other, and formed symbiotic relationships in forming the first single celled organism." This statement, which appears to be the lynchpin of your pantheistic (if I may call it that) view of god, seems to be a flawed perspective on the theory of abiogenesis. The way I see it is that this could be one of two fallacies. If framed as "many actions are the result of conscious decision making ergo this action is also the result of a conscious decision", then it is an instance of proof by example. If I don't try to read into it, I can only describe it as begging the question. Regardless, there are numerous explanations for abiogenesis, none of which call upon the proteins that formed the first organisms to be aware of each other. If we regress down to the formation of simple molecules, there is no need called upon for the atoms to be conscious of each other. Also, planets, stars, asteroids, and other such artifacts of the universe are extremely complex, involving numbers of atoms interacting together on scales that are unimaginably large, but most will never support anything that is self-aware. Where do they fit in? Why is it that such a tiny fraction will ever lead up to the phenomenon of life? It seems to work much more nicely to attribute life and the forces that lead up to it to undirected natural causes. The phenomenon of sentience is merely the result of the increased survival rates and progeny that it allows the species that attains both it, and the parts that lead up to it. At this point I believe that we are in agreement that the attributes that most people in our society hold to be true about God are illogical, and you have presented a new view of God in its place. I await further reasoning as to why belief in this God is preferable to a more naturalist view of the world. From what in nature does it make most sense to infer that he or she or it exists? Thank you again very much for participating in this debate.