God Probably Doesn't Exist

God Probably Doesn't Exist. However the clich" title, I will be taking the Pro (for) side on this debate. I am an agnostic personally and can clearly see both arguments on why people are theistic and atheistic. Due to my knowledge of Christianity I will also be attacking 'God' on the premise that someone assumes the Abrahamic God of the bible is true and the bible is the infallible word of God. I would like to get some definitions down before we go, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agnostic; Noun: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. (a claim not to know something) Gnostic; Adjective: Relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge. (a claim to know something) Atheist; Noun: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. (a lack of belief in a deity) Theist; Noun: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world. (a belief in a deity) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am aware that in this debate, the burden of proof is being put on me, I am to make arguments as to why God does not exist and my fellow debater is to suggest how one does. However, to accurately suggest a God does not exist, we need to know the limitations of what this god is, and what this god can do. Recently someone has 'created' a god, suggested they 'hear' from this god and are a prophet of the god, this god is called the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If I was going to attempt to disprove this god, I would need to know the limitations or extent of it so I could make claims that appear to show the 'God' unrealistic. If it claimed the earth was flat, all I would have to do is prove it round and therefore show the 'God' to be wrong, I could use that as a basis to suggest that if a God is omnipotent, it would just know the earth was round. However if I am arguing against a 'God' in general that has no limitations or made any assertions like the Abrahamic God of the bible, someone could argue that what ever we see is simply the expression of this 'God', I would then have no ground to stand on. Science is the observation of the natural environment, science does not claim that a god does not exist, science does not claim that a god does exist, science does not claim to be atheistic or theistic. Science simply looks to find an answer that is falsifiable (testable and repeatable), science has nothing to do with the supernatural, spiritual or anything that is not testable or repeatable. When people use science as a way to justify proving 'God' wrong, they are simply showing the assertions made by either scripture, or the person who talks for the god wrong. If something is shown to be wrong, people can stand on something to and suggest, 'if one thing is made up and none of it is testable, how can we be so sure any of it is true?'. However, even if this does happen, it is still something very personal. I know Christians who are legalistic, fundamental and literal with their religious view and doctrine, I also know Christians who are liberalistic, moderate and modern with their walk in Christianity. These adjectives describe the bible in two totally different ways, one sees the bible as the infallible word of god that is literal and direct. The other sees the bible as god inspired but written by man, a lot of doctrine and passages aren't followed because it doesn't hold up to new doctrine. Since some Christians have this open minded, logical and reasonable outlook, when problems such as geology and biology come into play, it does not phase them, as their faith in their 'God' is not with in the boundaries of the book of Genesis in the Bible. At this point I no longer have any assertions to test and it is up to the person to decide what they want to do. However, I can show 'God' (of the bible) to look like an unpleasant, unstable 'God' that is not worth following. I can show contradictions and simple untruths, one scripture for example is Mark 16:18 "They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed." I could use this scripture to suggest that it is wrong if applied, and we have evidence of Pastors over in America holding snakes, getting bit and dying shortly after; however in the Christians defence, we could counter this with other scripture that says not to tempt God. Or the really funny phrase a lot of people use 'you just do not have enough faith'. People will find loop holes in literally everything, especially if they find them selves in it. In summary so far, I need to have limitations or assertions placed for me to test otherwise I have no reason to simply say 'there is no god'. To quote the late Christopher Hitchens - "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." If I make a claim that there is a rainbow monkey flying around the planet Venus, you have every reason to question me and no evidence to suggest otherwise. If I claimed that this rainbow monkey was a god and it talked to me, you have no evidence to suggest it did not do this. You can show the probability of it not happening, of there being no evidence and there is no reason to accept or believe in it. But you still have not shown it to not be true. It is only when I make an assertion like, 'Rainbow Monkey revealed to me that he was our monkey ancestor and created the first proto-human descendant for the evolutionary chain to eventually reach what we have today.' At the point that I made a limitation or assertion, you are allowed to rebuke or refute because you have ground to stand on. If you don't then you can't show a god to not be true. For my opening statement, I will now leave it over to Con.