It is Probable That God Exists

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to debate you. I will basically use the same arguments that I used in the SPinko tournament. PART 1: A CASE FOR WEAK ATHEISM Weak Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. [1] This differs from strong atheism as it is the positive (or affirmative) belief that no gods exist. [2] 1. ATHEISM IS THE DEFAULT POSITION A. WHAT IS THE NULL HYPOTHESIS? The null hypothesis is the "practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect., [3] Basically, the null hypthesis demands evidence. Unless you provide evidence for your assertion, the null hypothesis basically states that it is best to reject such an assertion. Examples You would do this on a daily basis. If I said to you that God spoke to me last night and called me to be His prophet, you would have every reasonable right to reject my assertion until I provide evidence that God called me to be His prophet. Next, let's say that your wife has cancer and I have a magic sandwitch that will heal her and I'll give it to you for $50,000. You'd be a fool to pay the money and neglect medication for something which has no effect on cancer. [4] Formulation 1. If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false. 2. The claim that a God exist is an extraordinary claim. 3. Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that God exists may be considered false. 4. There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that God exists. 5. Therefore, the claim that God exists may be considered false. What evidence has my partner brought forth for the existence of God? None. As we will see in my rebuttals. So, what is an extraordinary claim? An extraordinary claim is any claim that contradicts accepted physical laws or our common sense, everyday experiences of the world.[5] As we see, atheism is the default position. My partner does not believe that Muhammad split the moon [7] or that the Egyptian god Isis exists.[8] Or even better yet, that St. Genevie ordered a cursed tree cut down and monsters sprang from it. [9] Why is that? Simply because there is no evidence. PART 2: A CASE FOR STRONG ATHEISM As defined above, strong atheism is the affirming belief that no gods exist. Why can we be confient about such a claim? Well, there are many reasons why though I will bring the argument from non-belief. C2) THE ARGUMENT FROM NON-BELIEF. It is an undeniable fact that humans disagree on issues regardding religion (indeed, we wouldn't be having this debate if that were not the case). Moreover, it is equally undeniable that in Theism, there is differences between mythology. Because all religions contradict each other, they cannot all be logically correct. Doug Krueger formulates it this way: [10] Let set P be defined as the set of the following propositions: (a) There exists the god of theism. (b) The god of theism loves humanity, and (c) This being wants each person to be saved by having certain beliefs sufficient for salvation, such as beliefs P1...Pn. Beliefs P1...Pn represent whatever beliefs in addition to (a) and (b) would be required for salvation on any given version of theism. One may add to set P as members of P1...Pn any additional propositions such as "Jesus died for your sins," "Jesus rose from the dead," or similar propositions. Let us stipulate for the sake of simplicity that anyone who believes the propositions in set P is saved, and anyone who does not believe them is not saved. This simplified argument from nonbelief, then, is the following: 1. If god exists, then god wants what is best for each person. 2. What is best for each person is that he or she is saved. 3. Therefore, if god exists, then god wants each person to be saved by having the beliefs of set P. 4. If god wants everyone to be saved by having the beliefs of set P, then everyone would have the beliefs of set P. 5. Not everyone has the beliefs of set P. 6. Therefore, god does not want everyone to be saved by having the beliefs of set P. 7. Therefore, god does not exist. PREMISE 1: IF GOD EXISTS, THEN GOD WANTS WHAT IS BEST FOR EACH PERSON. IF god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent (which I presume is also what you mean by 'god', also given that you are a Christian), then by moral definition and requirement, God will want what is best for each person. PREMISE 2: WHAT IS BEST FOR EACH PERSON IS THAT HE/SHE IS SAVED Also uncontroversial. The Bible tells us that God is not willing that ANY should perish. (2. Peter 3:9) and he desires a personal relationship with each and every one of us. PREMISE 3: THEREFORE, IF GOD EXISTS, THEN GOD WANTS EACH PERSON TO BE SAVED BY HAVING THE BELIEF SET P. As defined above, the belief setp is on represent whatever beliefs in addition to (a) and (b) would be required for salvation on any given version of theism. One may add to set P as members of P1...Pn any additional propositions such as "Jesus died for your sins," "Jesus rose from the dead," or similar propositions. Let us stipulate for the sake of simplicity that anyone who believes the propositions in set P is saved, and anyone who does not believe them is not saved. Support once more comes from the Bible as Jesus "is the way the truth and the life" (Jn. 4:6); hence we cannot be saved apart from the belief in God. God desires us to believe in him for Salvation. Out of room. __________________ Footnotes and Sources 1. http://wiki.ironchariots.org......; 2.http://wiki.ironchariots.org......; 3.http://en.wikipedia.org......; 4. The magic sandwitch is a term coined by Thunderf00t on his "magic sandwitch show" to show the folly of faith. It is basically a tongue-in-cheek parody of religion. Just like atheism, no one has been able to provide PROOF and EVIDENCE that the lack of believe in sandwitchism is accurate and correct. The only logical VIEWPOINT is to conclude that it is correct. It also parodies that anyone who neglects to give the magic sandwitch and pay the 50k to someone dying of cancer is a moral monster because it may have healed him. To see more, see http://rationalwiki.org......; 5. This definition was provided in the Kruger-McHugh debate on the same topic. He also formualted the syllogism provided for the argument. For more, seehttp://www.infidels.org......; 7. This was one of many of Muhammad's "miracles" that are left without evidence. If you look at the Muslim claim of evidence for the moon split, it isn't much different than Christian's arguments for the resurrection! See http://www.answering-christianity.com...... more information. 8. Today, people still worship the pagan gods of the myths such as the Egyptian and Greek/Roman mythology. It is preserved today in the Wiccan tradition and in pagan mythology. Seehttp://www.wicca-spirituality.com......; 9. You can read more about this story in Richard Carrier's essayWhy I don't buy the Resurrection Story. "As David Hume's puts it, 'Why don't these things happen now?' http://www.infidels.org......; 10. This is from the Doug Krueger - McHugh debate. URL founded in source 5