The Evidence Favors Theism Over Atheism

Didn’t have space to site many sources. Apologies. My opponents definition of “atheism”: While I accept his definition for purposes of the debate, I still hope he will attempt to offer arguments for atheism. MY ARGUMENTS: I: Origin of the Universe #1 (KCA) 1: Whatever begins to exist has an efficient cause A: Out of nothing, nothing comes. +For something to come into being, it must first have the potential to do so. Since nothingness lacks even potentiality (It has 0 properties), something cannot come from nothing. B: If this were not the case, we should see examples of it in nature. 2: The universe began to exist A: Infinite regress of past events is logically impossible. B: BBT points to a finite beginning of the Universe. C: Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that a Universe in an average state of expansion must have had a finite beginning. 3: Therefore, the universe has an efficient cause 4: A cause of the universe would be immensely powerful, timeless, causeless, immaterial, and personal. A: To cause the Universe requires immense causal power. B: Time came into existence w/ the Universe; therefore its cause would transcend time. C: Same logic as above for space and matter. D: There are only natural and personal causes. A cause of the Universe could not be natural b/c: +Natural cause presupposes the laws of nature, which did not exist before the origin of the Universe. +A timeless, yet natural cause could not bring about a temporal effect. For the effect would be a necessary result of the cause and could not have had a finite beginning. Therefore, God exists. II: Origin of the Universe #2 1: The Universe exists. 2: Out of nothing, nothing comes. 3: Therefore, something must have always existed. 4: This something is either the Universe, or something transcendent of it. 5: The Universe began to exist. 6: Therefore, there is an eternal “something” which exists beyond the Universe. 7: Whether this “something” is one entity, or multiple entities, because it is the only thing apart from the Universe, it can be inferred that it is responsible for the Universe’s existence. 8: Therefore, the Universe has an efficient cause. 9: Any cause of the Universe would be immensely powerful, timeless (Already seen in 6), immaterial, and personal. Therefore, God exists. III: Time and Contingency 1: The Universe is not necessarily existent. 2: Therefore, if no force existed outside of the Universe, it would not exist, for: A: If the Universe began to exist (without an outside force) then there was a time in which there wasnothing at all. But out of nothing, nothing comes. B: And if the Universe never began to exist, then it has existed eternally. But if it has existed eternally, thenat some point in the infinite past it would have realized its potential for non-being. Therefore, there exists an outside force that either caused the universe to begin, or keeps it from actualizing its potential for non-being over an infinite span of time. IV: Fine-Tuning 1: The existence of intelligent life in the universe depends upon a highly complex, delicate, and improbable balance of initial conditions, simply given in the origin of the universe itself. A: Strong nuclear force is exactly the right strength, gravitational force is exactly strong enough, protonsand neutrons have exactly the right size ratio to one another, etc. 2: The explanation of this fine-tuning for intelligent life is one of three things: Physical necessity, chance, or design. 3: Physical necessity is not a possible option. A: Initial constants not dependent on physical law. 4: Chance is not a logical option A: While still a possible option, it is very unlikely. +“within the wide range of universes permitted by the actual laws of physics, scarcely any are life-permitting, and those that are require incredible fine-tuning of the physical constants and quantities. In fact, Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study has calculated the odds against the formation of our universe as 1 out of 10 billion124” (WL Craig “In Defense of Rational Theism” p. 143) Therefore, the most logical explanation is design V: Evolution 1: Macro-evolution has produced a wide variety of extremely complex biological life on this planet. A: Most scientific evidence seems to suggest this. 2: This process could only have occurred due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. 3: Physical necessity is not a logical option A: Nature was in no way obligated to produce the complexity of life we now see. It could’ve produced nolife, or less complex life. 4: Chance is not a logical option. A: Abiogenesis (required for naturalistic evolution) from the “primordial soup” described in NDT wouldhave been impossible. The life-building components could not have combined if there was oxygen in theatmosphere. If there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, what life did form would have been killed by UVrays. B: Even if abiogenesis had been possible, it would’ve been fantastically unlikely. All the life-buildingmolecules would have had to arrange in just the right order. The least complex cell we observe todaycontains 400 of these molecules. Even if the first single-cell was less complex, say, 100 molecules, thechances of the right arrangement occurring would be about 1 in in 100 million-billion-billion-billion-billion-billion. C: “Barrow and Tipler in their book “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle” lay out 10 steps in the courseof human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would’ve occurred the sun would’veceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth.” (WL Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens) (Icouldn’t find an actual excerpt from Barrow and Tipler’s work) Therefore, the best explanation is design VI: Logic 1. There are laws of logic which govern rational thought. (Law of identity, non-contradiction, etc.) 2. Such laws are not physical, nor dependent on time. Rather, they are immaterial & conceptual. 3. These laws are universal, and not contingent upon human minds. 4. Therefore, they have their basis in a reality independent from the material universe and human minds. Therefore, there exists an immaterial, non-human mind, which serves as the foundation for logical law. VII: Axiological Argument 1: Without god, objective moral values could not exist. A: If moral values were objective, they would be universal and not dependent on whether anyone agreeswith them in order to be valid. They would then transcend humanity and require an ontological foundationin a non-human mind. B: On atheism, moral values are the result of natural selection; right and wrong are what NS makes usTHINK they are. 2: Objective moral values do exist. A: We have a priori knowledge of moral truths. +Ex: Raping women for fun is morally wrong OBJECTIVELY. B: Moral Dilemmas: Two or more objective values in conflict. +Ex: One knows it’s wrong to kill, but must kill a man to stop him from raping his wife. (Savinghis wife is a good moral act) Thus moral hierarchies are established. C: People who deny objective morality appeal to it daily. (Complaining about wrongs done to them,referring to “good” and “evil” etc. Therefore, God exists. VIII: Abstract Entities 1: Abstract entities, such as numbers, exist. 2: Abstract entities are not physical, but conceptual 3: Abstract entities are not contingent on human minds. Therefore, there exists an immaterial, non-human mind which is the basis for abstract entities. IX: Ontological Argument 1: God is defined as a maximally great being. 2: A maximally great being exists in some possible world. A: This is true unless the concept of a maximally great being can be proved logically incoherent. 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds; lest it would not be maximally great. 4: If a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world. Therefore, God exists.