Belief in God is reasonable

Thanks for the rebuttal Pro. Pro is attempting to soften his burden by addressing the argument ‘Belief in a God is reasonable’ instead of ‘Proof a God exists’. My original adaption of Russell’s teapot scenario still applies here. I would add, even if you were able to conclusively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt evolution is false. This does not begin to make the belief in a God reasonable. As it is an entirely separate claim, which needs to satisfy its own burden of proof. Of course given that Pro’s definition of god is in direct contradiction with the theory of evolution, if Pro could prove his god true, then it automatically follows the theory of evolution is false. Pro has his own burden of proof to satisfy here, and therefore essentially all seven of these lines of evidence are arguments ad ignorantum. “God of the Gaps” is another description of my take on Pro’s position. Now Pro stated: “There are two logical theories on how life came to be: 1) by a supreme being or 2) by natural means.” Even this is a false dichotomy. The true logical dichotomy is: 1. By natural means 2. Not by natural means (or supernatural) Or 1. By a supreme being 2. Not by a supreme being One example I can and have give is a celestial PhD student (CPS) who lives in another reality, or dimension. A higher reality. This PhD student is by no means special in it’s reality, nor is it any more intelligent than our average scientist. But let’s assume the laws of it’s reality are understood well enough that the beings in this alternative reality would create micro-universes, such as our own. The CPD’s project could, in theory, have been set a project to see what kind of micro-universes are capable of producing life by tweeking the natural laws it will come into existence by. This scenario would be perfectly compatible with the observations we have today. Whilst of course no serious person would advocate for this explanation, it does demonstrate Pro’s false dichotomy. Since we don’t have a very good understanding of the address-space for potential non-natural means except for humans, then claiming that the non-natural means must be a god seems to be another argument ad ignorantum. Evidence Rebuttals: 1. 1st Law of Themodynamics Pro gave the following logical argument: Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed Matter and energy exists The existence of matter and energy contradicts laws saying that they can't exist God must have created all matter that exists Note that the last line is a non-sequitir. As Pro has jumped form ‘a contradiction’ (which I argued isn’t true) straight to God. Pro makes the assumption there could never have been a natural process that would account for thie apparent contradiction. Just like the orbit of mercury ‘contradicting’ Newton’s laws of gravity did not prove god, it was Einstein’s theory of relativity that allowed us to resolve this contradiction. This I hope has highlighted the dangers of putting god into a gap in scientific understanding. Also recall my original rebuttal: 1. Matter cannot be created or destroyed 2. Matter & energy exists C. The matter & energy that exists was not created, and cannot be destroyed. con: "In the laws of thermodynamics these laws have applied without fail, but they do not describe the how or why questions of the laws themselves." Zero energy universe: Pro claims a contradiction in the zero-energy hypothesis. I was merely laying the groundwork for how matter and energy can apparently appear where the energy content should be zero. While virtual pop in and out of existence on incredibly short timescales, if you take a patch of space, you will have countless particles spontaneously appearing and annihilating [1]. The physics gets complicated from here, but the end result is an empty patch of space will have an overall negative energy potential, and a positive mass. It is from a process akin to this that positive matter and energy can appear form what seems to be nothing, since the net energy content is zero. 2. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Pro seems to be quite hung-up on the disorder definition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Disorder is an exceptionally ill-defined quantity, whereas entropy is defined strictly in terms which relate to the quantity of ‘useful energy’ in a system. It does not follow that a higher entropy = higher disorder, especially when we have the entropy of the Sun+Earth system constantly increasing (as the energy/mass in the sun reaches equilibrium… which will take billions more years). 3 & 5. I only have this much to say: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” – Hitchen’s Razor. 6 & 4. The substance of Pro’s argument is: “If we originated from random processes then love would serve no purpose.” This is a blunt and hasty generalization. The evolutionary explanation is rather more subtle. In biological evolution, life as we know it today including the most intelligent species’ emerged via a gradual, cumulative process. This cumulative process is made so by random mutation followed by non-random natural selection. The population with traits that better enable them to survive and reproduce will have an overexpression of these genes. We can also apply this to love, which is best understood as a neurochemical process. The benefit of possessing the ability to love, or hold deep affection becomes obvious, as it drives the formation of parental and intra-cult bonds, which is important given we are a social primate species, and very similar behavior can be observed in our primate cousins. Furthermore, let’s assume if suddenly love were erased from existence on the planet. What would happen? Mothers would leave children, fathers would not attempt to care for said children, and it would essentially become much more akin to ‘every man for themselves’, with overall less co-operation and physical support and ultimately negative survival consequences. Therefore, given our unimpressive physical bodies, it is very logical for emotions to have arisen via purely natural processes, including love. Pro’s forth argument is rather hard to address as he has provided virtually no support for his argument and leaves the definition of Good & Evil undefined. 1. What is Good & Evil? 2. How do we know what is Good & what is Evil? If Good & Evil were well-defined, like a square, or a triangle, then the answer becomes trivial. Our brains are capable of matching the concept with the manifestation. Similarly in the case of Good & Evil. However I think Pro is arguing for our intuitive sense for right & wrong, which is a far cry from ‘Good & Evil’, which is generally loaded with religious presuppositions. Our sense for right & wrong is easily explained by an understanding of how we are a social species[2], and doing things that positively affect well-being (as mentioned in my rebuttal to #6) will generally positively affect the overall survival of said species. 7. Pro’s seventh argument is a rather interesting one, much like how we will derive pleasure from numerous experiences, the question of why we find things attractive, or beautiful, seems to be addressed in how our ancestors chose places for habitat, and for personal beauty, addresses our innate lust to mate [3]. At the core of it, this is another argument ad ignorantum, and one that would not require a positive explanation in order to be dismissed. It isn’t even clear why a God would be required for our sense of beauty, only Pro’s bare assertion for such. Conclusion: The main issue here at the heart of Pro’s arguments are that they don’t provide positive support for the existence of God. The lack of attributes that Pro has put forward, and ability to make precise predictions that would confirm this make such an exercise very difficult to accomplish as it stands. I would like voters to take Pro’s god as seriously as the orbiting teapot, or celestial PhD student until Pro can put forward some hard attributes and predictions that would make his God testable and therefore verifiable. 1. http://profmattstrassler.com... 2. http://www.eva.mpg.de... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...