God Probably Doesn't Exist

God Probably Doesn’t Exist. Before we get into this debate, I would like to go over some things that were asserted or have been misinterpreted… I will also be shortening the quotes so my word limit is not scrapped. “As I made clear in my first rebuttal, two considerations undercut the whole of Pro’s case against God.” ~Completely disagree, your rebuttals were nothing but shabby philosophical circular logic that does not stand with anything other than God. “He responds that he is not disproving the biblical God, but “simply attacking” Him. This is a meaningless distinction. Philosophically speaking, an attack against a position is an argument against its truth.” ~In fact, by ridiculing the bible, it should show little to no flaws if in fact correct. This is the scientific method by principle. “Kryptic gives two other loosely related responses. First, if he had attacked “the Islamic god” instead of the Christian God, I would have raised the same objection. That is right.” ~I don’t understand how they are loosely related, they are directly related. It seems more like you are committing logical fallacy with poisoning the well and using ad hominin’s “Pro clarifies that he is concerned with “whether God in general is true or not.” Fantastic. But then I do not understand why the Bible was brought into the discussion.” ~I gave an example before saying my in depth knowledge on Christianity gave me a guideline to prove any other God wrong, because I would know how to attack it, however, Con, for some reason made it clear we are not talking about the Abrahamic God of the Bible, and me bringing it up was redundant; although I would have to disagree again. If we are going to talk about any deity, regardless of which one, we need to have an array of tools in which to go up against it, since none of them are falsifiable (testable). “We are not debating any specific God, but rather a general theism that unifies all its diverse religious interpretations.” ~Due to the lack of consistency within Cons argument, it appears he has given me an opportunity to portray how the God under his new conditions is not real. “my opponent raises irrelevant arguments and objections: (1) various errors in the Bible, and (2) the demographics of American Christianity. Concerning (1), Kryptic clarifies that he is merely trying to investigate whether “the bible could be right through testing.” Fine; but a discussion of how the Bible might be tested is still irrelevant. Regarding (2), Pro gives no response. Fortunately, though, he does not continue to attack general Christian character, so I will take that omission as a concession.” ~As I stated clearly before, my reasoning for attacking the bible was to give you an example of how I could claim to know a god does not exist. It was on the basis that you need assertions and claims to test, in order to prove a god real, in no way have I conceded, as this was an example and not the topic at hand. “And really, look at how desperate this entire argument is. Philosophers Graham Oppy, Quentin Smith, J. Howard Sobel, and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong have no problem arguing against the existence of a theistic God, so why should Kryptic?” ~Simple, they had a god to argue against, I have had this discussion before where people have claimed that there is a God, but they have not shown me how there is one, the reply saying that the big bang was the result, god then started evolution etc. I had no ground to stand on because I had nothing to test. I thought this was the route you were playing. “In my first rebuttal, I fleshed out a powerful argument for the existence of God based on contemporary cosmology. Surprisingly, Kryptic failed to engage with it. Instead, all he says is that “there is literally nothing to suggest a god does exist.” Well, if you ignore that evidence when it is presented, it would appear that theism has nothing going for it. But for those of us who are not so blinded, we have at least one argument for God: the kalam cosmological argument. Kryptic does muse about “God-of-the-gaps” reasoning, but he fails to apply the fallacy to my argument specifically, and I am not going to do the work for him. So I await his response to the kalam cosmological argument.” ~ Because your argument is this: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause (from 1 and 2). If the universe has a cause, then a transcendent, personal Creator exists. Therefore, a transcendent, personal Creator exists (from 3 and 4). This has committed logical fallacy, I can name them, but there are quite a few… (Begging the question, complex cause, false authority, false cause and effect, hasty generalization, moral equivalence, stacking the deck, wrong direction). [1] I don’t argue with things that can’t be proven, tested or seen; you have invoked a god because you don’t see any other situation, I don’t because I do. I will debate assertions and claims made from a god, from someone who speaks for god as well as scripture. Since they have been asserted, I can now try and test it; assuming the assertions are falsifiable. “Third, and this really the main point…” ~Because you think I have no case, therefore I could not prove otherwise, therefore atheism is a lie? Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity, nothing more. Agnostic is the claim not to know something in regards to how life began. Theistic is the belief in a deity. And finally, Gnostic is a claim to know something, usually in regards to how life began. You can simultaneously believe in a God/s while not knowing how a God/s did it, you can also not believe in a God/s and claim to not know how it happened… Being an Agnostic Atheist is not against the rules, many are this combination. My hypothesis can’t be disproven, it was simply to show you that you can make any assertion you like, it doesn’t mean you take any of it on board, you should only accept what you have proven. Believe what you like, it’s a free country with free will; my job is not to impose anything. However this is a debate setting and I am showing you why it is viable not to believe in God, and a perspective where god probably doesn’t exist. “Therefore, Kryptic’s remark that “[t]he ‘God’ in question…still needs to be properly addressed for me to make any other claims” is seen as an empty excuse not to engage in an intellectually responsible way with my arguments.” ~I see where you’re coming from, however to assert something with no scientific basis is futile, an assertion that is testable, like… claiming intelligent design and creationism to be true can very well be tested. “There are other ways of falsifying a hypothesis besides falsifying its predictions.” ~No there isn’t, this is lying… “The moral argument, as formulated by William Lane Craig, looks like this: 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties exist. 3. Therefore, God does not exist.” ~First off, you say the God at question is not the Christian god, you say this is just a God that is ‘morally perfect, personal, creator of the universe’ but now you use apologists from the Christian faith as well as suggest this god is the construction of all religious figures. Fair enough. Also in round 3, under “IV. A Moral Argument for God” You have a passage called… 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Where you insist that Atheism can’t be true because of the phylogenetic classification. Also this philosophers exaggerating the words drastically, leading to yet another logical fallacy. This one is called Prejudicial language. I do hope you realise that the person who invented this system was a creationist that was Christian. It was not atheists who made this claim but biologists. At this point I am unsure if you are also insisting that evolution is deemed false because of the random chance aspect. If that is the case, I won’t mind arguing how evolution is correct and intelligent design / creationism is not. However clearly this is a different debate. I am unsure if I am now allowed to use scripture to refute this god now. I am also unsure if I am allowed to use evolution to. I refuse to use logical fallacy and stoop to the level of a philosopher in order to stump them, to not be sure of an answer is not to forfeit. It just means you don’t know, if I have to invoke a god every time I am stuck trying to find the mysteries of the universe, I am going to have a lot of trouble each time I think I can make it to the next level. I refuse to invoke a creator, not because there is one, not because I hate god, but because I see no moral advantage to that of a Christian then to an Atheist. Hitler was a Christian yet intended to hurt millions of people and did; is that morality from a god? In fact… it is, during the old covenant of the bible and in the Quran. In conclusion: Every assertion ever made that is testable doesn’t prove a God. This doesn’t justify a Gods existence, this just means that intellectually dishonest people can justify a god and the refusal of scientific advancements because it doesn’t fit right with their holy book. A lot of claims by each holy book have been shown incorrect or false. So far, everything that your ‘God’ can explain, scientists can explain better. God probably doesn’t exist. I would like to debate this topic again with the same preface as what we have concluded so far.