It is Probable That God Exists

I hope we both may be enlightened to some degree. Opening Argument For this debate, I’ll be defending three points which indicate that the existence of God is improbable: the Infinite Regress Problem (IRP), Occam’s Razor (OR), and another argument which is a combination of arguments, which I personally refer to as the God Problems (GP). Occam’s Razor (OR) This argument is the argument that can be found at the core of my position. OR can be most easily described as "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better,” [1]. Or, to change the wording to fit this debate, “the simpler one (the one with less assumptions) is more likely to be true. ” One simple way of proving this statement to be generally true, I present a hypothetical [2]. If you were to look in a mirror, and see a person who looks identical to you, and you carry around that mirror and see that this mirror shows a world that is exactly like your own, two hypotheses could clearly arise. One, which is the far more complex one, is that what you see in the mirror is an alternate universe of some sorts, nearly identical to your own. Now, most of us would agree this is an absurd and incorrect theory—and while it cannot be completely disproven based on the observations alone, it is highly less likely and more complex (it assumes quite a lot) than the alternate theory, which is that the mirror reflects light and thus, our own world [2]. Not only is it more supported by evidence, but it is also simpler (assumes less, relying on evidence), and much more likely than our alternate universe hypothesis. My reasoning for the hypothetical was twofold: to prove the worth of Occam’s razor as a general rule in probability, but also to present a sort of analogy for the debate at hand. I propose that, if OR is to be paid attention too, then, the belief that God exists is more complex than the atheistic alternative explanations, and is thus less likely to be true. With the belief in God, you are assuming that God created Himself from literally nothing, that this complex being in and of itself would wish to create a world with teleology, etc. etc. etc. Whereas with atheistic explanations, there are far less assumptions being made without any evidence backing those assumptions up. For example, to parallel the given assumptions with theism, atheism has implicit evidence of a Big Bang which created the universe. This is assumed, but with supporting evidence. The Infinite Regress Problem (IRP) The IRP is an argument of itself, as well as a bit of a rebuttal to Pro’s KCA. The IRP can be explained in a simple way, with a similar first premise of the KCA: 1: Everything that exists began to exist. 2: Everything that exists must have a cause. 3: Therefore, assuming God exists, He must have a cause. 4: Therefore, the cause of God must have a cause. 5: Therefore, the cause of this cause must also have a cause. 6: Therefore… (Ad infinitum) Premise one can be proven true with simple logic and physics—nothing can exist forever, without any cause, as Pro has agreed to in his opening statement. Premise Two is similar to P1—this point has also been proven by Pro. So, if God existed, this syllogism would indicate that, because He exists, He must have begun, as Pro has provided no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, He must have a cause (possibly another creator), but then that cause exists, so it must’ve been caused. What is created is an infinite regress of causes, which, if we are to follow Occam’s razor, is far less likely than the alternative, which is that God does not exist. God Problems (GP) While this isn’t a formal name for these arguments (which I’m sure have individual names), I group them under this moniker. 1: A perfect God wishing to create. This argument is simple in logic: if God is completely perfect, what would compel Him to create the world? One definition of perfect, that is more fitting when speaking about God, is “excellent, or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement,” [3]. This would mean that God is, by definition, complete, and without any room for improvement. If this would be so, than there would be no reason for Him to create the world. If something did compel Him (as it clearly did) than He could no longer be considered perfect—He would be flawed with desire, a lack of completion. So, you can derive two possibilities from this: 1) God is not perfect, or 2) He does not exist. And seeing as how perfection is the very definition of the Judeo-Christian God, the second is more likely. 2: The principles of God do not mesh. Going back to what I stated earlier, God is perfect. More specifically, one could say that He is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. However, I intend to prove that all of these can be disproved when together—of course, disproving one would show the improbability of the Judeo-Christian “perfect,” God existing, but I’ll attempt to disprove all four tenets. Omnipresence can be eliminated on its own. To be omnipresent, God would have to exist even before He existed (which I proved earlier, would have to be a time that existed). This is impossible (even if popular in Back to the Future). The other three tenets will have to be knocked out in conjuncture. If God is omniscient (He knows everything to know), He would know that, if He created mankind and the world, people would sin and reject his presence. However, He created mankind with the free will to sin anyway. This would imply that He is either not omnipotent (He cannot stop these events when omnipotence is all-powerfulness) or not omnibenevolent (He allows evil to occur when omnibenevolence is all-goodness). One could apply the same strategy backwards. If God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, He would have to not be omniscient for evil to occur. So, one could say that God is none of these things (which make him imperfect, going against the definition of God), or, the more likely and simpler answer, God does not exist. Thank you, and I shall refute Pro’s arguments directly with my defense of his refutations in the next round. References [1] . http://www.desy.de... [2] . http://www.jimloy.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...