God Most Likely Does Not Exist

Con: Acceptance of Occam's razor requires us to be blind to the empirical evidence God has left behind... Please provide convincing empirical evidence of God! So far you have not, you have only asserted that your holy book is true without proving it to be true, or giving any reason to disbelieve the holy books of other religions as well. Con: I argue that vicarious redemption is contrary to evil and immoral. It is loving and self-sacrificing. The only gain made by your sacrifice is to help someone else. God knows your heart, so if your heart is evil, then God will know... Using Jesus as a scapegoat for your actions is reprehensible and immoral. As for the problem of evil, if God created everything and he also knows everything, then God created evil and knew he was doing it. Therefore God is not omnibenevolent as he is the source of evil, necessarily. If you believe that God did not create evil, human beings became evil due to free will, you must admit that God made these human beings, and knew that they would become evil because God is omniscient. In any case, a God that asks for worship and threatens anyone to eternal torment in hell if they don’t comply, is a God not worth serving. Any God, that helps you with your petty life but let’s innocent children suffer and die every day is not worth worship. Sources estimate that one child dies of hunger-related causes every five seconds (http://www.bread.org...). Con: If you consider that an all-powerful being may exist, it is impossible to discount the notion that our mind is affected by God and therefore affects our actions... Your first sentence is completely wrong; deists believe in God but do not believe he intervenes in any way, so he doesn’t affect our mind or our actions. There is no evidence that shows that God affects minds either. But let’s assume for the heck of it that he does affect people’s minds and their actions. That would mean that God causes people to commit murder and rape. Do you now see why I think your arguments are illogical? Con: The beginning of your post began with the indoctrination of religion by parents to their child. The same idealogical transfer is true for atheists too regardless of thought process. Christians are people of religion who are skeptical too. Nobody can say with certainty that God does, or does not exist... It is true atheists may be raised by atheist parents but the atheist worldview is more likely and therefore more realistic. I would contend that atheists come together from different religions to find truth. Con:[God is perfectly loving argument.] God has never revealed himself to me, or any other people that are secular. There is no compelling evidence for a God. Miracles are just stories that our uneducated, illiterate ancestors made up because they did not understand science. They did not know about atoms, they did not learn about DNA or evolution. They were highly susceptible to fallibility in their situation. Con:I still argue that it is a semantic argument. The logic behind this: If God cannot do something, he is not omnipotent. The answer is: God could not do anything that would make God non-omnipotent, because in doing so, He would not be omnipotent. I reference my example of drawing a square circle. By drawing a square circle, it is not a circle. Again, I will explain to the readers and Benshapiro why he is wrong in asserting my argument is a semantic one. A semantic argument revolves around a dispute which is usually about an unconventional definition that is used for a word. Con and I have already agreed to the definitions in round 1. Therefore, this argument is a logical one which Con does not want to answer. Either way if Con answers yes or no, he will have proven that God cannot be omnipotent in a logical world. His reference to drawing a square circle is not even a valid contention against my argument. Please address my argument without scapegoating, I did not ask if God could draw a square circle I asked if God could make a rock he cannot lift. Con: How is free will, our conscience, and our mind evolutionary beneficial to a species?... First off, free will (if it even exists) would allow us humans to choose to reproduce, which is evolutionarily beneficial. Our mind and consciousness allows us to think of different ways of solving problems, finding food and avoiding predators, all of which allow us to reproduce more. As for your light quote, there was light when species originated and when they were evolving, that is why we have eyes. Eyes are also quite beneficial to a species as you can imagine the many reasons why. You are right that the question of Gods existence doesn’t further human evolutionary purpose, but I didn’t even argue that point. Con: Science is biased when scientific researchers become convinced of their ideology, in this case, evolution. (1-4). Wow must be quite the conspiracy that 99.9 percent of scientists believe in evolution. There are plenty of fossil records of missing links. Once a missing link has been found for a certain time period, the theist asks to find another think between the remaining two periods, then another link, and another. It is absurd. Mutations are inherent in each one of us, and most of us I would assume are healthy human beings. Morality is best explained from an evolutionary perspective as killing each other would be harmful to our species. At this point I am going to have to ask you to cite your sources, wherever you are getting this from, it is complete and utter nonsense. Con: My point is that the logical explanation is that if things cannot be created or destroyed, they must have originated from a creator. By originated, don’t you mean created? If so you still are making a logical fallacy. Again, you are not clear in what you are trying to say. Con:Evil is evident in society today without having to quote scripture. If evolution is true, then a woman who bears 5 healthy children but in doing so, requires organ extraction from 5 unhealthy children and kills them in the process, is not evil because the point is to evolve the species and that is the purpose of morality. By making this claim I now know that you have no idea what evolution is or what its implications are. Evolution is not a moral compass itself, but it does explain why humans use morality -to increase reproductive success and benefit the species. Con:I find it interesting you would assert that a foreign existence of substances, one that does not comply with the scientific evidence we have today, as an explanation of the big bang. I have never asserted a foreign existence of substances nor implied it anywhere, I leave this to the fair-minded audience to decide. I said the universe could have an origin that is completely naturalistic, and it could still be eternal even if hydrogen seems to be decreasing overall. Con: God has said in Revelations that the world we have now will end someday. The question of the beginning and ultimate end of the world poses the question: Why? What for? I do not believe in Revelations, please show me evidence for why your holy book is the truth while every other holy book is not. You give no compelling reason for this point throughout the debate. Con: Because since the energy would be taken from a finite form, it would be unsustainable to have this energy last forever. It is currently this way by design. We do not even know if energy is finite or infinite, because the universe may be infinitely large and therefore it may have an infinite amount of energy. The big bang supports a finite universe however, if energy is finite then the human species will die out eventually, but I thought you said God was perfectly good. This observation of the universe again supports the resolution that God is not likely to exist. Con: The end of humanity is prophecied, and was designed this way intentionally. The earth was not meant to last forever. Although Con’s spelling is off, he is correct in asserting that the Bible does say this. I would agree that some things in the Bible are consistent with reality, but many are not which is why I have stated many times it is not a reliable source of truth; it is man-made in a time where man did not know enough. Here is a long list of inconsistent verses in the Bible: http://www.infidels.org... Con: Beauty exists, but some beauty serves no purpose. Like the masterful design of complex architecture for example. Why is this necessary if there is a more useful design? I agree, humans conceive things to be beautiful in many cases and what makes it more appreciable is that it is likely this all came to be naturally, without a divine authority. Con: It could, but this doesn't further your case that God is unlikely to exist, since it defies mathematics. If you agree that another universe may exist with different mathematical parameters that allow for life, then that is not enough to deny the mathematics of this universe. Please explain why this universe denies mathematics. Con brings no compelling evidence, sources, or arguments to the table. He gives no reason to believe his holy book over others, when there are numerous inconsistencies and immoral teachings that I have pointed out in the Christian Bible (all other holy books have them too). Atheists have more evidence, more compelling arguments, and superior logic which create a more realistic worldview. Although we atheists do not say that there is no God absolutely, it must be noted that what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. For all other questions pertaining to purpose and wisdom, it is best to consider philosophical doctrines and theories, rather than holy books. “Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology” (Christopher Hitchens). The resolution therefore stands, God is not likely to exist.