The God of classical theism is real.

In all likelihood, the God of classical theism (i.e. an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God) does not exist. The belief in such a being is, more importantly, primarily sustained through nothing more than a strange juxtaposition of terrible evidence melded with shoddy reasoning. In the course of this debate I will demonstrate that: 1. The presence of gratuitous evil makes the existence of a benevolent God unlikely. 2. The occurrence of reasonable unbelief in a theistic God makes the existence of such a being implausible. 3. God almost certainly does not exist because God would have to be a being of extremely improbable ordered complexity. =====> Why I Am Not A Christian <====== Contention 1: The Evidential Argument From Evil The occurrence of gratuitous evil, though logically compatible with God's existence, makes the existence of a benevolent God rather unlikely. For the sake of argument, I will concede that there is no a priori negation of God's existence by the presence of evil. Nonetheless, the problem of evil is much better viewed as an inductive rather than a deductive argument. As such, the pertinent question at hand is not: "Is the existence of God logically compatible with the existence of evil?" The real question before us, brothers and sisters, should be: "Given that there is all this needless suffering, what are the odds that there is a God that takes a special interest in human affairs?" In light of this supposition, the occurrence of evil renders the existence of God quite doubtful. Moreover, God's existence becomes less and less plausible when one takes into account all of the needless suffering that is visited upon this Earth on a daily basis. Consider, for example, the natural evils that are rampant in the world. In the 20th century alone, smallpox killed over 500,000,000 people, many of them children. [1] Likewise, in the course of Earth's history over 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived have gone extinct. [2] Do these facts suggest that there is an omnibenevolent God that takes a special interest in life on Earth? Not at all: in truth, that is probably the last thing that should be inferred from such facts. None of this capriciousness, indifference, and cruelty makes any sense under the premise that there is a loving God that cares about humanity. All of this evidence is, however, sensible under the assumption that no such being exists. Therefore, reasonable people should employ Ockham's razor to dispose of the God hypothesis since it fits rather poorly with the occurrence of gratuitous and pervasive evil. Contention 2: The Argument From Divine Hiddenness If God wanted humanity to know that he existed, as many theists often propose, then he should have brought about a situation whereby everyone reasonably believed in him. As such, if God existed and God wanted us to know this, then reasonable non-belief should not occur. But reasonable non-belief does occur because God has refused to provide any compelling evidence that he exists, if he does exist. This, it would seem, entails a contradiction. The philosopher Theodore Drange sets forth a formal version of the argument in the following syllogism: 1. If God exists, God: (a) wants all humans to believe God exists before they die; (b) can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die; (c) does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and (d) always acts in accordance with what it most wants. 2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die. (From 1) 3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die. .: Therefore, God does not exist. (From 2 and 3) (Drange [3]) As can be plainly seen, the presence of reasonable unbelief presents a very real problem for the existence of God. The common religious response to this argument usually alludes to the notion that the ways of God are mysterious. However, this proposition flies in the face of the central doctrines surrounding theism. According to theism, God wants humans to have a relationship with him. Meanwhile, this God has also cloaked himself from the greatest tools and insights of modern science. Surely, any God that would bother to involve himself in the affairs of one primate species in a universe teeming with over 70 sextillion stars is not as inscrutable as all that. [4] If, however, the argument from divine hiddenness is removed from its deductive form, then there are still serious problems that occur for the theist. For instance, intelligence and educational attainment run along a negative correlation with religious belief. [5] It would therefore not be untrue to say that if God existed, then God has set up a salvation scheme whereby the mentally unbalanced and poorly educated are those statistically most likely to accept the truth of that revelation. On the other hand, 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences may be doomed for an eternity by their skeptical doubts. [6] Does this not strike you as odd, dear Christian? Furthermore, other problems for religion arise if theism is sought to be reconciled with the rest of reality. If a theistic God exists, then that God: 1. set in motion a process of biological creation-- evolution via natural selection --which needs no guidance. [7] 2. created a universe through readily understandable physical laws. [8] 3. remains totally and utterly hidden from human perception. In other words, if God existed then that God designed and maintains the universe in such a way so as to make it appear as if he didn't exist. Needless to say, the plausibility that God exists and is simultaneously a trickster seems very low by any objective standard available. Contention 3: The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit If the traditional argument from design is followed to its logical end, then it leads to a self-defeating conclusion. Esteemed evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, presents this as one of his main arguments in his book, The God Delusion, and he calls it The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit. [9] The thrust of the argument goes something like this: Statistical improbability in cosmology (it is argued) must be accounted for by an explanation. In most religious circles the usual explanation is referred to as God or an ‘intelligent designer'. God, in this setting, is viewed as being the terminus for the problem of complexity. However, the God hypothesis only regresses the problem and does nothing to actually solve it. Any God capable of designing the universe would necessarily have to be enormously complex and thus more improbable than the universe itself. Simply put, you can't explain away statistical improbability by postulating an explanation that is even more improbable than that which is trying to be explained. Evolution via natural selection is the only system we know of that can create complexity out of simplicity. Unfortunately, we do not possess a similarly powerful theory in physics to explain complexity, but the relatively weak theories we do have are of magnitudes better than the question begging God hypothesis. However improbable or ‘finely tuned' the universe may be, a God that could design or ‘fine tune' the universe would have to be even more complex and improbable than the universe itself. Ergo, God almost certainly does not exist. ::Conclusion:: If the foundations of my arguments are accepted, then the God hypothesis is untenable. And in the absence of any convincing arguments for God's existence the only reasonable position a person can take is unbelief. Nevertheless, I am more than open to the possibility that I may be wrong. If you have detected any errors in my reasoning please fell free to let me know. You may yet still have time to save me from the torments of hell. ::References + Definitions:: http://www.debate.org...