Con (Theist) Will Not Fulfill His/Her Burden of Proof in Establishing The Existence Of God

Introduction I thank my opponent for her acceptance and her success in establishing an interesting and well thought-out argument for the existence of God. However, this argument is inductive rather than deductive which means that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. I point this out as an innate flaw and a ground to posit that it can never be considered an absolute proof. Other arguments concerning the existence of a God, like the ontological argument, are deductive and would serve as absolute proof if their premises were true, but fortunately they are not. Now, I know that I have outlined a specific definition for God in this debate however I think it fair that I do not hold Con to show proof of omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence. The colloquial definition of the Jewish God which includes a God that gave the Jewish people the Torah, spoke to them at Mount Sinai, and so on, suffices. The argument at first glance may seem reasonable but upon further inspection it has some lethal presuppositions and issues that Con did not seem to discuss. Another gaping flaw is that the argument itself can easily be used against Judaism to support any other religious miracles such as the revelation of Jesus or the splitting of the moon by Mohammad. I will show as in all cases that the natural explanations are always more likely than the supernatural ones, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Dangerous Presuppositions I would first like to point out that the most dangerous presuppositions to accept is that all 2.5 million Jews were present at the supposed event. My opponent uses a rather biased and unreliable source to get this number (bible. ca). Who exactly was it that estimated these numbers? Can you give me the names of at least 100 individuals present (or reference them)? Why would I or anyone else accept these estimates from anecdotal evidence alone, sourced by ancient texts (like the Torah) that are known to be unreliable in themselves? Don’t these texts lose some credibility due to the fact that they are all copies of copies with no originals most of which are written by anonymous authors? Are there any underlying motives to fabricate such a claim? Do any outside sources confirm this miracle? Answers to these questions are of utmost importance to establishing the validity of the Sinai event. Skepticism & Naturalistic Explanations I must posit that the evidence laid out by my opponent is not sufficient to establish that the event actually occurred as foretold or that the Jewish God must exist as a corollary. All miraculous events must be scrutinized to its utmost as they all have an inherently low epistemic possibility. Why is this? Because a supernatural event (miracle) is the suspension of the natural order of our universe. If you witness a supernatural event first hand you must ask yourself this: “What is more likely? That the natural order of the universe has been suspended in my favor? Or that I have made a mistake. ” This question must be asked by any truth-seeking skeptic and with double the force for any event that you have not seen first-hand. This question must apply with double the force to everyone currently reading this unless you are to say that another miraculous event has taken place and that you are in fact thousands of years old and witnessed it yourself. The more plausible explanations for this event include: 1) The event never took place; it began as a myth, legend, or lie which grew in popularity over time. 2) One individual hallucinated or lied about the event and started the myth. 3) A small group of individuals hallucinated or lied about the event and started the myth. In ancient times superstition and supernatural claims were the norm and skepticism wasn’t. Because of this situation it was quite common for a myth to begin with a small group and rapidly spread to large populations. If this is not the same explanation my opponent uses to discard other religions and widespread supernatural beliefs then I would sincerely like to know what is. I would agree that the larger the audience the less likely that the event was hallucinated but there are a few examples in history which show it possible. The Miracle of the Sun supposedly occurred with 30,000 to 100,000 people (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). However, no astronomer verified any of these “extraordinary solar activity” claims. They are most easily explained as perceived experiences that happened strictly within each individuals mind, which explains the variety of claims and it’s inconsistency with the scientific data. I uphold that the Sinai event could have happened in very similar way and is even more likely considering the possibility that 2.5 million people were not all there. Regardless of how carefully my opponent lays out a precise transmission of the Torah over generations, we will never be able to directly compare how much it has changed because there are no originals. Establishing the Validity Historical Claims It is reasonable to agree with point #2 of my opponent which states that: “The validity of such a claim increases in relation to the number of witnesses that claim to have witnessed the event first-hand. ” However the validity of the claim relies on a few more parameters of great importance. These parameters and their relevancy to the Sinai claim are outlined below:1) Epistemic Probability2) Logical Coherence3) Integrity 1) The epistemic probability for all miracles is quite low because absolutely none of them have been demonstrated or accepted through empirical and scientific grounds. Anyone can come up with a miracle however nobody has ever proved that one occurred. I must also point out that the God of ancient monotheisms had allegedly created gigantic and stupendous miracles in ancient times (like the splitting of the sea), but in modern times where scientific methods and technology with recording capabilities have developed, God seems to have gotten tired and only small miracles are claimed to have occurred to no avail. The only source for the Mount Sinai claim comes from the Jewish Bible also called the Torah. However, the Torah claims many other events which are absolutely absurd and admitted to be untrue (or only parables) by even the religious. Examples would include Noah’s Ark, talking snakes, and the ten plagues subjected to the Egyptians. One of the most significant examples though is the claim that it was witnessed that Sun stood still for one whole day written in Joshua 10:13 (1. . http://www.chabad.org..., using a Jewish website so nobody can accuse me of biased references). This claim, just like the Mount Sinai event, is another miraculous and public event. It is quite peculiar to me why my opponent chooses to emphasize the Sinai event over the standing Sun even though the Sun event must have been witnessed by the entirety of everyone in the world. Scientifically this doesn’t make sense as we now know the earth rotates around the Sun, so for these people to see a stationary Sun either the Sun must be orbiting around the earth, or the earth must have stopped rotating. Both are equally ridiculous scientific absurdities that breach every law of gravitation known to man. Furthermore, an event of celestial magnitude such as this could not have gone unnoticed. The main point that I would like to express is that no other culture in existence (including the ones with refined writings systems and cosmic awareness) has ever recorded this event ever taking place. The glaring and obvious answer to this dilemma is that the Sun event never took place, and it is exactly because the Sinai event originates from the same unreliable source that I find it insufficient and unconvincing to ever claim that the Sinai miracle was real. On top of all of this, the fact that the Mount Sinai event does not have any confirmation from any other outside sources automatically reduces it’s epistemic probability now to the lowest degree. 2) The reliability of a source depends on its logical coherence. Therefore, a source riddled with contradictions is not a very reliable one. Unfortunately, I can only site about 2 inconsistencies in the Torah from over 100 of them due to my character limits: 1. Man was created equal, male and female. Gen.1:27. Woman was created as a companion to the man only after he rejected the animals. Gen. 2:18-24. 2. Man was created after the plants. Gen.1:12, 26. Man was created before the plants. Gen.2:5-9. Source: (. http://www.skeptically.org...) 3) Sources are more reliable if the author has a generally good reputation for telling the truth, and does not have underlying motives. So far we have seen that many miraculous claims of the Torah most likely did not happen and thus the authors have questionable integrity. Another key influence to the acceptance of this myth is that the Jewish people have a deep underlying motive to accept this miracle which will be used as a root to support and establish any other tenants and stories written by my Jewish ancestors. In the end, the Kuzari principle supports an illusion the Jewish people must believe and cannot afford to live without. Conclusion Although my opponent has a well-outlined argument, I think I showed enough reasons as to elucidate why her argument does not stand when faced against science and skeptical inquiry. The sources of the claims are insufficient to use as evidence and unreliable in essence. The Sinai claim does not pass any of the criteria for assuring the validity of a historical claim. I must also note that even if I somehow admitted that this event may have took place (which is exceedingly unlikely) my opponent has yet to prove how these people surely know that the words they heard was uttered by the Jewish God and was not some loud and deceptive person.