There is No God

=========== Introduction: =========== My opponent has admitted that it is possible for God to exist – thus conceding the debate. As long as it is possible than the resolution is incorrect and should be stated, "It is POSSIBLE that god does not exist." What my opponent does not know is that Richard Dawkins and his flawed reasoning have already been refuted in full by Mensa-genius, Vox Day, in his exhaustively researched, "The Irrational Atheist." Dawkins is indeed an evolutionary biologist… and he has strayed far from his field. The philosophical nonsense he has produced is why scientists should remain in the lab, not writing books on metaphysics. =========== Is God too Complex? =========== "There is no reason why a designer must necessarily be more complex than his design. The verity of the statement depends entirely on the definition of complexity. While Dawkins doesn't specifically provide one, in explaining his ‘Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit,' he refers to the Argument from Improbability as being rooted in ‘the source of all the information in living matter.' Complexity, to Dawkins, is therefore equated with information…." (TIA 163) A certain game designer said, "mass quantities of information can easily be produced from much smaller quantities of information. A fractal is perhaps the most obvious example of huge quantities of new information being produced from a very small amount of initial information. For example, thirty-two lines of C++ code suffice to produce a well-known fractal known as the Sierpinski Triangle (4)." So to assume that God must therefore be complex is an unfounded assertion and contra-observation. =========== The Kalaam Version of the Cosmological Argument =========== This has to be true. William Lane Craig is a respected analytical philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of time. He has shown that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an actual infinite to exist in reality. Since my opponent contends that there is a theory that suggests an atom has always existed, however, this would be an actual infinite and therefore impossible. It contradicts causality and all known qualities of present and past states. Craig breaks it down as follows: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite. 2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist. 2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. 2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. 2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition. 2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. 2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. 2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite ========= Fine-Tuning ========= I fully admit that it is logically possible for the universe to emerge by chance. But that is not what we are questioning. We are questioning whether the God hypothesis is a more parsimonious hypothesis than alternatives. Moreover, and using a dice analogy, given what we know about our universe's constants and life itself, the numbers rolled would have to be exactly 1,2,3,4,5…billion…trillion – all sequential – all in one try – or the universe would not be sustainable. The fact of the matter is that we do not merely look and say "this number is improbable," because it is no less probable then anything else that could have been rolled, but rather that we look and say "Wow, if these numbers were ANY DIFFERENT we would not have existed." This sort complexity and order is the mark of intelligence – therefore observed complexity can be explained by positing a designer. Similarly, if I walked in the woods and saw a fully assembled log cabin, I would not insist that the trees happened to fall in such a way as to construct the cabin – I would rightly posit a designer – even if he be unobserved. In order for somebody to explain the log cabin without positing a designer, they would have to posit numerous assumptions and unobserved phenomena. Which is more parsimonious? So when my opponent suggests that it just so happen to occur that way, I cannot help but respond like Alice to the incredulous Red Queen: Alice laughed. "There is no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things." "I care say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age I did it for half an hour a day. Why some times I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." ========= Conclusion ========= I feel no compunction in stopping here. My opponent has unknowingly admitted defeat in both his 2nd and 3rd round. As long as he maintains that God is possible then the resolution is of no avail.