It is Probable That God Exists

Refutations of Pro’s Opening Argument The KCA As far as the actual three premises go, I do not object to P1, that everything which begins to exist must have a cause. However, to the second premise, and by proxy the third premise, I have objections. Pro states and proves that the second premise, that the universe began to exist is true. However, it should be noted that the universe as to which Pro refers is the animate universe—a universe which is kinetic, and constantly expanding. But, in his article A Big Bang Cosmological Argument for God’s Nonexistence, philosopher Quentin Smith shows that, indeed, the earliest state of the universe, the singularity, was inanimate, as well as being the earliest instant of time’s existence [1]. Therefore, it is possible to state that, since the beginning of spacetime, the universe did, in theory, always exist. As to the idea of the cause of the animate universe’s existence, this can be explained via the well-accepted Big Bang Theory, which states that the ultra dense and hot inanimate singularity rapidly expanded into a less dense and cooler animate universe [2]. After the three premises, Pro proceeds to connect the syllogism to the idea of God’s existence. I find problems with his logic: First, Pro says that because nothing existed before the (animate) universe’s cause, then it can’t be explained scientifically, and thus, it is likely God exists. However, in reality, the animate universe’s best known scientific cause (Big Bang) actually did have something before it—the inanimate universe, the singularity. And, as I have shown, the singularity has, as far as current science can prove, literally existed since the very moment time existed. On top of this, the theory of the singularity and BB (Big Bang) fit Pro’s criteria for a probable cause of the universe (save for the personal bit). The singularity does, by its definition, exceed space and matter, as it is completely dense with practically no measure. The singularity is also changeless until it’s expansion (the BB). Finally, as I have shown, the animate universe was ­­not created from nothingness. Therefore, there are highly more likely atheistic explanations for the universe’s existence than the idea of God’s existence. The Thomistic TA With this, Pro makes the syllogism that, because teleology exists, an ordering intellect exists. The problem with this syllogism is that Pro makes the assumption that for something to have a purpose, a mind must have created it, using the house analogy. However, Pro makes a mistake in his reasoning. He ignores the fact that there are two classifications for teleology: natural, and artificial [3]. Natural teleology’s definition is different than artificial teleology (which Pro seems to be asserting is the only type of teleology). Artificial teleology is teleology in which something is created by an obvious agent for a specific standalone purpose [3]. Natural teleology would be teleology in appearance mostly—better described as adaptations. The heart (an example that Pro used) beats with purpose, but not because of an ordering intellect. Nay, the heart’s beating could be described as beating because, out of millions of years of evolution and natural selection, it is the best means of survival for the human species yet. The same can be said with rational thinking—caused by the frontal lobes [4]. The development of the frontal lobes was advantageous to survival, so the human species is successful in its survival because of the fact that it was naturally selected and evolved into a beneficial trait. To make my refutation of the Thomistic TA brief, natural teleology can and is explained in a much more likely way by science, vs. the existence of God. Defense Against Pro’s Refutations Occam’s Razor With this rebuttal, Pro tries to dismantle my argument by stating that the two key elements of OR are not there. The first is that I have not proven that God is not necessary. In my refutations, I believe I have proved that God is indeed largely, if not completely, unnecessary to explain teleology and the animate universe’s origins. Second, I contend that both arguments are equal in explanatory power because they both explain the same points—in this debate, that would be specifically the universe’s origins and teleology. While it was foolish of me to not rebut in the last round, I hope that what I have presented is adequate defense of OR. The IRP To this, I will largely concede. However, I would like to point out that I never indicated that the IRP and KCA were equivalent, merely a bit similar. As well, I do concede that the first three premises can be proven false. However, this works in my favor—for I can now agree that there can be a first cause—which I have provided an atheistic explanation of: the singularity—a sort of element which, although technically existing since the beginning of spacetime (which it itself caused) is impersonal; thus a valid (and highly likely) atheistic explanation of the beginning of the universe is created. GP 1. A perfect God creating Pro asserts that because God would wish or desire to create the world, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he was lacking—for Him lacking, even at all, would suggest imperfection, and thus, an unlikelihood of His existence. To further his claim, Pro used the analogy of moving a hand. However, I suggest that it actually is more likely always necessarily expressing some level of need. Let me start from the initial problem: Why did God create humanity/the world? One possible answer would be boredom. Boredom would explain a spontaneous act, e.g. the hand movement. The problem is that boredom implies a lacking of activity, and this is impossible because God is perfect, complete, without lacking. Another answer could be that He wanted for a race of His own to be with Him in heaven. However, this implies lacking, as Him desiring for something as that would mean it could be better for Him, which is again impossible. In the end, wanting for something to happen is basically implying that one would care for one’s situation to be different. A perfect being would not want nor need change, as He is perfectly complete as is. 2. Coherence of Theism On the point of omnipresence I will concede. However, I’d like to remind the readers that eliminating any of the three implies imperfection, making the “perfect,” God unlikely. Pro largely spends this section elaborating as to why omnipotence only applies to logically possible tasks. While I will concede that omnipotence relates only to the logically possible, that does not put God in the clear. Pro states that all that needs to be done is for it to be logically possible for God to allow, according to the Judeo-Christian faith, evil to occur. He then doesn’t elaborate that it is logically sound. However, I intend to prove, quickly and simply, that the very definition of God would not allow that to be a logically sound scenario. Pro and I both agree that the Judeo-Christian God is perfect in every way. So, if it is logically possible to destroy even just the source of evil, Satan, then God should be obligated to do as such. And yet, evil still is around—and as the Christian faith implies, evil is done by the work and manipulation of Satan. So, this means that God has not destroyed Satan, even though it is logically possible to do so. God could end Satan without interfering with His current biggest principle of free will—He would not be ending evil by taking control of humans. However, seeing as how He hasn’t still implies a lack of omniscience and omnibenvolence. And thus, will all of the refutations and defense I have presented, it is still defensible that the existence of God is unlikely. Thank you, and I apologize for the delay in this argument. References [1] http://www.infidels.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.counterbalance.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...