Agnostic Atheism Is The Most Logical Default Position

<INTRODUCTION> Thank you to WindWaker for his arguments. He has presented three arguments in support of weak atheism. I will now respond to them and show why, inverting the resolution, agnostic theism is the more logical default option. MY ORGANIZATIONAL STYLE I have placed WindWaker’s arguments in bold. I have numbered his arguments and summarized them. My arguments have, in front of them, a number followed by a letter. The number matches up to the argument to which I am responding. The letter denotes a different response to the same argument. <ARGUMENTS> [1] God is the bigger leap of faith The reasoning that is used to defend God as the explanation of the universe can also be used to defend non-theistic theories. The fine-tuning argument can point to evolution rather than God. [1A] It is true that some kinds of reasoning used to support God as an explaining factor can also be used to support natural causes as the explaining factor, but not all. I have issues with the fine-tuning argument, so I will not defend it. Read the section following this “Arguments to Prefer Agnostic Theism Over Agnostic Atheism” for my example of something that is better explained by God and therefore taking an atheistic stance on it would be a bigger leap of faith. It is important to realize that the position that God does not exist is a universal negative, whereas the position that God does exist is an existential affirmative. Now some theists argue that you cannot prove a universal negative. I think they are wrong, but what is important is that, in terms of quantity, atheists have a much heavier burden than theists. Atheists must show that it is likely that all phenomena have natural explanations, where theists must only show that it is likely that at least one phenomenon has a theistic explanation. [1B] All of the things that I believe that science can explain are the kinds of things that I would never expect God to explain in the first place. For example, even before examining the arguments concerning intelligent design, I would never expect God to be the designer of the bacteria flagellum (a popular example used by ID theorists). As a Christian, I see God as being too profound to be interested in constructing bacteria. If intelligent design turned out to be true, it would taint my view of God. My point is that the fact that science can explain so much does not in any way cast doubt on the existence of God. Rather, it purifies the concept of God. [2] God doesn’t really answer the question If we use God to explain the mysteries of the universe, then we are left with the mystery of what explains God. We should rather wait for science to explain what is currently unexplained. [2A] It is true that God does not ultimately answer the question of why anything exists, why are things the way they are etc. but neither does anything else, and that includes science. Anything that can possibly be posited as an explanation for something simply brings up the question of what explains that. It is an unending cycle. So God and science are both in a tie in terms of ultimate explanations. So where is the tiebreaker? It is that since these ultimate questions are radically different from everyday questions (Why did the ball fall when I dropped it?) we would naturally expect that whatever is behind them would be radically different from the everyday explanations (gravity). If secondary problems have secondary answers, wouldn’t primary problems have primary answers? We know that science can be used as a secondary answer to secondary problems, but wouldn’t we expect something different for primary (ultimate) problems. Again, positing God would not tell us why God exists, but at least it would fit more with the territory of an ultimate explanation. [2B] In saying that we should wait for a scientific explanation for X, atheists assume that a scientific explanation is even possible for X. Putting aside the issue of the origin of the universe, what about just the bare existence of the universe. The universe is continent (it could have been different) hence its existence does not follow from any aspect of it, but why does it exists. Since its existence cannot come from itself, it must come from something outside of itself. If that thing were just another universe, a black hole, vacuum fluctuations, the same problem would exist for those things, since they are contingent too. But a God who is radically different from all other things is the best candidate for whatever must break that chain in order to existence to be possible. So even if science can explain the coming into existence of the universe, it cannot explain the existence of the universe. That is, natural forces fail to explain the modality of the universe, or anything for that matter. [3] A reasonable person would bet against the existence of God Because there is no evidence for God, a reasonable person would bet that there is no God. [3A] This last argument is not an argument in itself. It is basically just a rewording of the main contention, which is that people should not believe in God because there is no evidence to support it. I agree that people should not believe in something in God if there is no evidence for God, but that in itself does not imply that there is no evidence for God. So this point is not actually an argument in support of the resolution, but a restatement of the resolution. My evidence for God is to be found below. Argument To Prefer Agnostic Theism Over Agnostic Atheism (I could only fit one) If evolution were atheistic, then it would not move upward, but only outward. A blind process does not aim for the sky. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has explained that the word “evolution” is really a misnomer, since it implies that one species is more evolved than the one preceding it, when in fact no species is more evolved than another but just differently evolved. But if there is an upward movement, that implies guidance; that implies theistic evolution, or teleological evolution. Now using an everyday example involving one animal and another evolution, it can easily be argued that evolution does not go up, it just goes. But in a few significant respects, it does clearly move upward. Just the instigator behind evolution, life, shows upwardness. Why did things go from non-life to life? That seems like an improvement to most people. Atheists will attribute the development of certain traits to survival, but why did the need for survival come about. If evolution were truly blind, it would not care about survival or natural selection. Why did consciousness come about? That is not necessary for survival. Even if we get past the issue of why life exists, we are left with the huge mystery of why life is for humans is so extravagant. Why are we equipped with such biologically useless abilities? Why can human write music, for example, when it has zero survival use? Bottom line, evolution moves upward, hence it is must be theistic in nature. <CONCLUSION> We have learned that certain phenomena are better explained by theism. We have learned that God’s being unnecessary to explain certain things helps to purify the concept of God. We have learned that neither God nor science can offer us ultimate explanations, but that God is a more likely candidate for first explanations. And we have learned that the very nature of evolution implies a God who guides it, and therefore a God who exists. This means that agnostic theism is the more logical default option over agnostic atheism. I turn it over to Pro.