God Does Exist

Hello Everyone. I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. We need to have more debates like this. So lets go over a few of my opponent's points. The Teleological Argument --------------------------------------- We have all heard of this little gem from the middle ages. Basically it argues that the fine tuning we see in the universe must have been designed. Since this is, in my opinion, the strongest of my opponent's arguments I am surprised he did not spend more time on it. Two examples pointed to are the complexity of biological life and the incredible fit this planet is for life. In the 19th Century the Theory of Evolution showed that most of the complexity seen in biological life, except for traits already in the universal common ancestor are due to the processes of natural selection and mutations. I will now provide some evidence for the theory. Theory of Evolution --------------------------------------- We have found thousands of hominids which are transitional between humans and apes. These specimens often have human traits such as the ability to walk, flatter faces, and larger brains relative to apes. However they have ape traits such as a more projected face, eyebrows, and a more prominent jaw. They also have brain sized much smaller than modern humans. The vast majority are in much older strata than any human fossils we find. Examples of whole species we found are homo Erectus, homo Habilis, homo Ergaster, and Australopithecus Afarensis (1). Evolution predicted we should find these specimens since we are most genetically related to apes. We have also seen evolution in action. For example, scientists in the lab observed the evolution of the ability for strains of e coli to digest citrate in oxygen rich water. This happened through decades of natural selection and mutations. They did not have this ability previously (2). If my opponent wishes for a more thorough discussion of the theory of evolution, I can provide more evidence. Evolution explains most of the complexity in biological life and shows that you can indeed get complexity without a creator thus negating the teleological argument. Repeated Trial Argument ---------------------------------------- It may seem improbable that the forces capable of creating such complexity can even exist, but yet here they are. Natural Selection and mutations could not have been created by God because natural selection is just the fact that some animals survive better than others, and mutations is that DNA copying isn't perfect. It would take a God to make these forces not true. The reason they exist is because we have billions of interconnected processes and forces throughout the universe forming many other logical relationships. While it is unlikely that any one of these combinations will be able to build complexity, we will find at the very least one which will be able to do so. This kind of process is what I call repeated trial. Repeated Trial also explains why earth is so perfect for life. Since there are billions perhaps trillions of planets, we know that at least one will have the right conditions for life. In short, repeated trial is the dumb person's way of getting something right. Repeated Trial is the answer to the teleological argument and so far is a much better explanation because it has already been shown explain the majority of complexity in the universe, the complexity in life by explaining evolution's existence. Design has never been shown to explain any complexity. You cannot assume design from complexity. Now lets move on to the cosmological argument. ----------------------------------------------------- Cosmological Argument from Contingency 1. everything that exists has an explanation of it's existence. 2. if the universe has an explanation of it's existence, that explanation is God. 3. the universe exists- obviously the universe exists! 4. therefore that explanation of the universe's existence is God. ------------------------------------------------------ I have a real problem with premise #2. This assumes that the explanation of the universe is God from the start. It completely ignores the possibility that whatever created the universe was some sort of natural phenomenon or force. Many scientists today suspect that this universe is simple one of many universes like a bubble among many. More bubbles are being created through big bang effects. This theory is posited under many versions of string theory (3). While these theories have not yet been completely proven, neither had the idea that a disembodied mind created the big bang. --------------------------- The Kalam Cosmological argument 1. everything that begins to exist, has a cause. 2. the Universe began to exist. 3. therefore, the Universe had a cause. 4. this cause must be immaterial, atemporal, immensely powerful and personal because if it exists without time then it exists infinitely, but if a cause exists infinitely it's effect will have existed infinitely also, but the universe is not infinite. Therefore, the cause can only be a personal agent who could freely choose to create the universe. ------------------------------ I have a problem with premise #4. It argues that if a cause exists infinitely, so much the effect. I see absolutely no basis for making this claim. Why couldn't a force outside this universe in a multi-verse not be able to create space-time bubbles? It is also possible that when the universe was created, it was not created out of nothing. It may have converted from one form to another. The original energy of the universe may have been converted and changed in the process of the big bang. So the universe may have existed all along in a different form. This naturalistic explanation is not proven, but neither is the God explanation. You cannot just assume one is right and the other is wrong. ----------------------------------- The Moral Argument 1. if God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist 2. but objective moral values and duties do exist 3. therefore, God exists ----------------------------------- My opponent never really showed us why we should believe that objective morals exist. I have something of a Buddhist life philosophy and believe that to be truly enlightened, you should be acting morally or else you will go on in this wasteful cycle of craving and suffering. This is one of many things you should do to become enlightened. Even if an objective morality exists, my opponent never explained why it has to be the commands or beliefs of a person (God). Can anything be true simple because of the opinion of a person? Someone's opinion all by itself has no effect on the real world. Truths come from logic not opinions. Maybe that is why morality exists, because it is logical. Argument against God ----------------------------------- I don't really need to prove God doesn't exist, I only have to argue as Con that Pro isn't able to show that God exists. I don't have much space for this so I will only present one. If there is no evidence for a proposition then it is unlikely that this proposition is true. For example, if you don't know what the color of a ball is under a blanket, it is unlikely that it is green because it has to compete against equally unlikely possibilities. Maybe the probability is like 1 in 10. The same goes for God. My opponent argues that a mind without physical parts (no evidence), that can exist without a body and outside space-time (no evidence), somehow has the ability to create a big bang. One can come up with any number of unsupported theories for our universe and until one of them is shown to be true, any one of them is unlikely to be true. 1: http://www.talkorigins.org... 2: http://en.wikipedia.org... 3: http://www.pbs.org...