Atheism is more probable then Theism

INTRODUCTION In round two, Pro presented one positive argument against God (the problem of evil) and one two negative arguments (criticism of the Kalam cosmological argument) in support of his resolution that atheism is more probable than theism. I will demonstrate why both of his arguments fail. I do not have to show that theism is more probable than atheism. I only have to show that atheism is not more probable than theism. I could defend agnosticism if I wish, and cast doubt on atheism. But I’ll give a defense of one kind of cosmological argument for the existence of God. CONDUCT I would first like to point out that Pro plagiarized his post for round one. He took it from this debate http://www.debate.org...; Our debate is five rounds, yet Pro refers to four rounds in this post. That is because the debate round he plagiarized was from a four-round debate. Fortunately, Pro did not plagiarize an argument round but only an acceptance round so it's not so serious. But still, plagiarism is plagiarism. THE ARGUMENTS 1- The Problem of Evil Pro did not elaborate on the problem of evil but only presented it in its syllogistic form. The key premise is #6 but Pro did not flesh this out. But as I am aware of the elaborations it tends to take, I will present my argument against it. The problem with the problem of evil is that it assumes that knowledge of evil plus the ability to eliminate evil plus the desire to eliminate evil equals the elimination of evil, but there is simply no reason to believe this. But why should God eliminate evil if evil is going to be eliminated anyway once we die?Wouldn’t that seem impractical and pointless? It makes sense for humans to try to eliminate evil on the earth. We are living with it day to day. It’s all around us. We are compelled to eliminate evil because it affects us so deeply. But from God’s perspective, in Heaven, this life is temporary and overwhelmingly short compared to eternity. A supernatural being who intervenes left and right into our affairs to prevent evil sounds more like a magic genie than a respectable god. Many atheists say that God must have a purpose for evil in order for him to be justified in allowing it. But they mistakenly equate having a reason for doing something with having a purpose. A purpose implies that something is done in order to achieve some end, but not all actions are done in order to achieve an end and can still be justified. For example, suppose you are a college student who notices that yourfriend has not been studying for his physics exam coming up. When you ask him why he is not studying, he tells you that he does not need to because he already knows the information flawlessly. His action of not studying is not done with a purpose (he is not neglecting to study in order to achieve an end) but that does not mean it is not done without a reason. Similarly, even if many evils that God allows do not serve a greater purpose, lead to a greater good, or build character, God could still have a reason for allowing them, the aforementioned one. 2- Criticism of the KCA — “The issue with this is because we only can witness ex materia creation, not ex nihilo. We can't take the rules for ‘ex materia’ and then sic them to ‘ex nihilo’. “ Pro seems to be saying here that just because the things we experience everyday have a cause of their existence, it does not mean that the universe has a cause of its existence. Well, that’s true, but we need not rely on experience to form the conclusion that the universe has a cause of its existence. We know the universe has cause of its existence because it is contingent. It could have been any other way. The universe’s existence is not entailed by any aspect of the universe. There is no reason why it could have been something else, or not existed at all. Something outside of the universe is required to explain why it exists. 3- Criticism of the KCA — “One other thing. God is a problem for the KCA. WHERE did God come from? HOW (like how the big bang was created the universe?) did God come to be? No doubt by "argument from design" logic it had to be quite the anomaly. Thus by this logic the KCA and God are self refuting.” God is not a problem for the KCA. Pro asks where did God come from? But most people who believe in God (and certainly the Judeo-Christian version of God) believe that God always existed. Therefore, Goddid not come to be. He always was. The KCA only says that things which begin to exist need a cause of their existence. Since God did not begin to exist, this rule does not apply to God, so the KCA is not a problem for God and is not self-refuting. I have a lot of issues with the Kalam cosmological argument, so I won’t defend it here, but I’ll defend something similar. I’ll call it the modal cosmological argument. Allowing for the possibility of an infinite series of causes prior to the universe, the universe is still contingent and still requires a cause of its existence even if it does not have a godly cause of its coming into existence. The existence of the universe would have to be dependent on something which does not depend on anything else for its existence. Now we all know that logical relations of ideas do not depend on anything else for their existence. For example, 2 + 2 = 4 is tautologically true and so does not depend on anything else outside itself for it to be true, so logic is not dependent on God. But logical relations cannot cause material to exist. They only regular what exists. So if a logically necessary relation cannot be the ground of being and if postulating another arbitrary non-necessary cause simply backs the problem up another step, the only solution is something in between the two: Something which does not have a logically necessary existence but also is not dependent on anything else for its existence. What better than an single, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being. It’s the most non arbitrary, most comprehensive, and most economical solution to the problem. And from the conclusion of God being the cause of the existence of the universe, we can then (and only then) inductively infer that God is also the cause of the coming into existence of the universe, for it would seem inconsistent that God would be the fist but not the second. GRAMMATICAL ERRORS 1- debate title — “Atheism is more probable then theism” The word “then” is supposed to be “than” in the debate title. 2- round one — “We are not referring to anyspecific deity”. There is supposed to be a space between “any” and “specific”. 3- round two — “The issue with this is because we only can witness ex materia creation, not ex nihilo.” It should read either “The issue with this is that we can only witness…” or perhaps “This is problematicbecause we only can witness…” 4- round two — Not the best argument but time to move on the the Kalam. It should read “…time to move on to the kalam.” CONCLUSION I have demonstrated why the problem of evil fails as an argument for atheism, and why the basic form behind the cosmological argument still stands. I have shown that the three arguments Pro presented for his resolution fail. Sources cosmological argument Adler, Mortimer J. How To Think About God: A Guide For the 20th Century Pagan (1980) the problem of evil Adams, Marylyn McCord “Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Vol. 63 (1989) pages 297-310