God Most Likely Does Not Exist

Clearing the AirI have found a mistake in my Round 1 opening where I may have confused Con and the readers (my apologies). Disregard the sentence that says, “The burden of proof is on Con to show that a God exists. ” I would also like to urge any readers/voters that they should not take points off of Con for his short outline in the acceptance round. Con misunderstands the shared burden of proof I have granted for the debate. In most situations it is up to the Theist to prove that God exists, not the atheist to show that God does not exist. However, the resolution and rules of the debate clearly state we are arguing over the likelihood for such a God to exist, and that the burden of proof is shared. I specifically created the resolution in this way to sidestep the need for proof and to facilitate a debate of arguments with evidentiary support for or against the resolution. Therefore I need not provide absolute proof for the non-existence of God, rather just show that the likeliness of this God existing is very low. In any case, it is ridiculous to ask any atheist for absolute proof that God doesn’t exist. It is synonymous to asking someone if they can show absolute proof that an invisible unicorn does not exist, in no place throughout the entire universe. Even if this unicorn wasn’t invisible, nobody can give absolute proof that the unicorn doesn’t exist. The default position in any case should be doubt and disbelief until proof is given for any extraordinary claim. In this respect, I have relieved Con to bring forth any such proof of existence of God rather Con only needs to support the claim that God is likely to exist. I hope this is clear now. Religions and God are Man-Made:Although the debate is centered on the existence of a deity, I would like to discuss various religions and show that not only are their teachings irrational, but their claims have lacking evidentiary support. I challenge Con to express to the readers and myself which religion he holds to be true if any so that I can address his beliefs more specifically. In the meanwhile, I will address the main monotheistic religions as a whole and show why it is more likely that man made God, rather than God making man. As some have probably guessed, I am an agnostic atheist (they are not mutually exclusive). When it comes to the truth of religions, there can be only two possibilities. Either all religions are false or one religion is true. All religions cannot possibly be true because they all conflict one another (non-conflicting religions can be true as well but I find it unlikely for anyone to argue for this proposition). Christopher Hitchens logic on miracles is quite indisputable as I paraphrase: “What is more likely? That the natural order of the universe has been suspended in your favor, or that you have made a mistake? ” Most individuals confuse a highly unlikely event to be a miracle, or might believe some radical event is a miracle if they and others do not have the capacity to explain it. This is not a rational way to approach the world. Highly unlikely events happen all the time, but when one of them happens in your favor, you suddenly label it a miracle. If a radical event takes place that may seem unexplainable, it is not evidence for a God, rather it is evidence that one should try harder to understand what exactly took place. Theists used to claim that God caused the rain, when in fact we now know that this happens due to the natural process of evaporation and condensation of pools of water. God is an unnecessary assumption to a universe that seems to operate perfectly without one. Regardless, it seems that God is taking great strides to hide himself from reputable scientists. God also seems to not care at all about a human certainty and consensus towards religions, theistic evidence, and even interpretations of scripture. It is what one would expect if you assume all holy texts to be man-made. All miracles, stories, and myths from holy books are indoctrinated into children at an early age. If you have Christian parents, you are most likely to be a Christian if you have Hindu parents then you are most likely to be a Hindu, and so on. It seems as though one will stick to the beliefs given to them at the very early stages of their lives and hold them faithfully until death. I do not believe one will ever find the correct path to truth in this manner. Skepticism and logical inquiry is the greatest path to truth in both science and life. Rene Descartes once said: "I know how much we are prone to err in what affects us, and also how much the Judgments made by our friends should be distrusted when these Judgments [are] in our favor. " If you want to truly know whether your religion is true, in an unbiased and genuine fashion then please apply the outsider test (. http://wiki.ironchariots.org...) to your personal religion. This test basically asks one to question their own religious evidence with the same amount of skepticism as you apply to other religions. If any rational person does this in a sincere manner, then they should find themselves at a loss to which religion to believe. Ideally, they should ultimately become skeptical of all religious beliefs and concede that scientific evidence is our best bet. The Origins of the Universe is UnknownTheists are glad to announce and proclaim that God is the creator of the universe. However no person can actually provide any proof of this claim. If God is the creator of the universe then who created God? If one can claim that God had no creator and he is eternal, then one can say the universe is eternal as well. According to Occam’s razor (. http://en.wikipedia.org...), since the universe is much simpler than a God, then the natural eternal universe explanation is more likely to be true. Adding in the unnecessary explanation of God, does not solve the problem in any sense, it makes the problem worse. One must now explain where God came from, and how this infinitely complex being operates and affects our world. The God explanation adds an infinitely more complex problem and fails to be a theory with any useful epistemic benefits. In reality, nobody knows the true origin of the universe and therefore we must keep our possibilities open: 1) The universe and the Big Bang could have been created by completely naturalistic causes. 2) The Big Bang could have been created by uncaused causes. Uncaused causes seem to occur all the time through spontaneous quantum phenomena such as radioactive decay (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) and quantum fluctuations (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). 3) The universe could have always existed. 4) God always existed, and created the universe. Again, it is better to adopt the universe explanations as the universe is less complex then God and therefore more likely to be correct. It is up to Con to prove that (4) is more likely than all other possibilities. Evolution trumps Intelligent DesignEvolution through natural selection along with abiogenesis is the best theory with predictive power which explains how life could have begun, and how species develop over time. Intelligent design is the theory that the universe was designed by an intelligent being rather than a naturalistic process such as natural selection. In any case intelligent design cannot be considered as a scientific theory (like evolution and natural selection) because it does not meet the following criterion (. http://en.wikipedia.org...):1. Consistent2. Parsimonious (see Occam's Razor)3. Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)4. Empirically testable and falsifiable (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation)5. Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)6. Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)7. Progressive (refines previous theories)8. Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)It is impossible for anyone to disprove the proposition that God did create the universe with intelligent design. Therefore intelligent design is unfalsifiable by principle, rendering it an untestable and unscientific theory. Furthermore, if God did create all species with intelligent design than why didn’t he make them optimal beings? It seems that God supports poor design by allowing humans to choke from the same hole we breathe with. We have too many flaws in our design to have been made by a perfect all-loving God. God Cannot be Omnipotent or Omnibenevolent in any Logical SenseThe omnipotence paradox is as follows: If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). An example would be: Can God create a rock so massive that he cannot move it? If the answer is yes, then God is not all-powerful because he cannot move this rock. If the answer is no, then God is not all-powerful because he cannot create this rock. Either way it is not possible for God to be logically omnipotent, this means that an all-powerful God could not exist in a logical universe. One may argue that God transcends logic, but it is up to the theist to provide proof and evidence for such a wild assertion. God cannot be omnibenevolent (all-loving, or infinitely good) as well. To put it plainly:1) If an all-powerful and perfectly good God exists, then evil does not exist.2) Evil exists.3) Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good God does not exist.