In Light of Modern Science, God Is More Likely to Exist

I would like to start by thanking PRO for setting up this debate; it promises to be enjoyable. I will start out with a brief discussion of probabilities, address PRO’s two arguments, and then offer a point of my own. Probability The resolution being debated here is that it is more likely that a god exist than that no gods exist, or to put it more succinctly, it is more probable that a god exists, than that one doesn’t. Now, the way we determine probabilities is to divide the number of ways the thing can happen, but the number of possible outcomes [1]. For instance, to find out the probability of rolling a 4 one a 6 sided die, we divide the number of fours on the die (1) by the total possible outcomes (6), and end up with a 1 in 6 chance. Bringing this back to the topic at hand, we only have one universe to investigate, and we can’t go back in time to see the beginning. We don’t know the number of different ways a god might or might not exist, and we don’t know the different types of universes that might exist. So, while the arguments presented here may or may not lead anyone to think that a god is more or less likely than they did before, the two cannot be compared, since an actual numerical calculation is not possible without additional information. Therefore, the comparison of probabilities PRO suggests is impossible. A Cosmological Argument I would like to thank PRO for putting his argument in syllogistic form; this makes it much easier to address. Very simply, I question both of your premises: Everything that Begins to Exist Has a Cause Of course this seems intuitive, especially as everything we see in our everyday life follows this rule, however, I would like to ask PRO to demonstrate it. I will concede that every trial we have ever investigated suggests that this claim is true, but PRO is claiming that it applies universally. Does this not risk a Hasty Generalization [2]? Also, to paraphrase Dan Barker, we are putting everything into two categories: things that begin to exist (BE), and things that do not begin to exist (DBE). Seemingly, everything in the universe, except God, is part of the set of things labeled BE. God would presumably be labeled DBE. However, if there is nothing else in the DBE category other than God, than the category itself would be a synonym for God. This means that PRO’s claim that “everything that begins to exist has a cause,” would be equivalent to saying ‘everything except God has a cause,’ which is a fallacy known as Special Pleading [3][4]. The Universe Had a Beginning This is another claim I would like PRO to demonstrate. PRO claimed that “Cosmologists are now pretty certain that the universe originated in the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.” This is not accurate. It can be said that we are pretty sure that the universe AS WE KNOW IT began about 14 billion years ago, but we do not know what happened during the Planck Epoch. Our models theorize about the history of the universe back to about 10^−43 seconds after the big bang, but we know nothing about the universe before that [5]. We know all matter and energy were squished together really tightly, but we don’t know what made it go “bang,” or where it came from. Perhaps it had always existed, perhaps it grew out of a multiverse…we don’t know, so if PRO is going to claim that the universe had a beginning, he will need to provide some evidence. A Teleological Argument With this argument, PRO is asserting that the specific conditions (values of gravity, the strong force, etc.) of the universe require a god. For instance, if gravity were slightly weaker, stars wouldn’t “burn,” and if gravity were slightly stronger stars would be shorter lived, and would burn out before complex evolution such as our own could take place. PRO has suggested three possible explanations for the balance of forces we experience: design, necessity, and chance. I will utilize PRO’s framework (in a different order). Design PRO asserts that design should be posited because he feels the other two options aren’t possibilities. I suggest that the other options should not be counted out. Also, we should not posit design simply because the othe options are shown incorrect (assuming they are), because there might be a fourth option we haven't thought of. We should not believe this particular explanation until positive evidence is provided for it. Necessity Necessity is the suggestion that the universe could only have developed this way. PRO claims that the values are arbitrary, a claim he has not supported with evidence. Maybe this is the only way universes develop. Chance PRO is discounting chance as a possibility based on Penrose’s estimations of the odds of the universe developing this way. I want to point out that long odds do not equal impossibility; people DO win the lottery. We don’t know how many other universes might exist, perhaps all with different constants. Since we are sitting here discussing the matter, it is clear that our universe happens to be one of ones where the constants happened to be amiable to the development of us. Also, PRO is ignoring the possibility that there might be multiple combinations of the constants that will develop into a universe that is amiable to life. Perhaps if gravity is a little weaker, but electromagnetism is a little stronger, while the weak and strong forces are changed a little this way and that, a different form of life could arise. We don’t know; PRO is simply asserting that it is too unlikely. This is a fallacy known as the Prosecutor’s Fallacy [6]. I admit that I am speculatinghere, however, PRO is asserting impossibility, and he carries the burden to demonstrate his claims. The Existence of the Supernatural The god we are talking about in this debate, according to PRO, is “the supernatural, powerful creator of the universe,” who is also “personal, uncaused, timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful.” I would like to ask if PRO has any evidence of the existence of a supernatural ANYTHING, even if it isn’t a god. My point is that we have lots of evidence of the existence of the natural world, but no evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. While I freely admit that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Occam’s Razor demands that we consider the possibilities that require fewer assumptions first [7]. Therefore, since the natural world is known to exist, a natural explanation, however improbable, should be assumed before ANY supernatural explanation. Wrapping Up I have shown why neither PRO’s cosmological or teleological arguments hold up. I have also shown how supernatural explanations are necessarily inferior to natural explanations. PRO has not met his burden to show that the existence of a god is more likely that the lack of existence of such a deity. Sources: [1] http://www.mathsisfun.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://infidels.org... [5] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://math.ucr.edu...