Theism is a More Rational World-view than Atheism

I think before I begin I should clarify the meanings a bit more. Let me start by taking the definition of 'theism'. Theism is defined as: 'the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).'.[1] While 'Deism' is defined as: 'belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).'. This means that theism does not deny organized religion, far from taking God to be indifferent to humans, theists believe in a God who is tri-omni, and is actively engaged in human affairs, and has revealed a religion to follow. This is a very important analysis and before beginning I would like these definitions, and their consequences to be clear. Theists cannot deny revealed religion, even if they disagree as to which religion. The resolution is very clear in so far as it deals with 'theism' and not 'deism'. Now before starting the debate I think it worthy for some burden of proof analysis. The motion lays forth an affirmative, absolute claim. This means that let 'X' stand for this motion, and so my opponent must show []X (necessarily X) while I need only ~[]X (negation of necessarily X) which translated to <>~X (possibly not X). So while my opponent must prove his case beyond any doubt, I need only show room for doubt, if I can do that I win this debate. The burden of proof is all on my opponent. Some introduction should be given. In this debate my opponent must show this: there exists a God, He has given a certain religion, and following that religion is the most productive thing one can do. If he fails to show any one of these he cannot win a debate. For a theistic world view means that one looks at the world from a perspective of belief in the above three, to justify such a perspective the above three must be justified. Until they are, my opponent will lose this debate. I will first move on to counter the contentions of my opponent, and then if I have space, I shall present some problems which my opponent must answer. If I succeed in any one tier, I win this debate. The first reason that my opponent provides, is in fact an argument ad ignoratium. It shows, if anything, the dogma of religion more than anything else. It basically states that since science does not have a confirmed answer to how this universe was made, there must have been a Creator God who did so. This may also be represented by the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but I won't go into that because my opponent never provides an argument. All my opponent states is that since Time was once finite, and we do not yet have a proved reason for the creation, there must be a God. This is inherently flawed, for firstly it commits a logical fallacy. Secondly while physicists agree that Time was finite, they do not believe that Space was finite. According to the Hawking-Heartle model of the Lamda-Cold Dark Matter Model of the Big Bang Universe it is perfectly rational to say this Universe was not created, rather an infinite series of multi-verses are stacked upon each other. In fact to ask what happened before the Big Bang is a meaningless statement.[3][4] This point fails miserably. The second reason is also an out-dated reason, and my opponent provides no proof for his claims. He needs to show us why he feels conscious, intelligent beings could not have come to being without the aid of God. Since he does not do this, his argument should once more be ignored. Even so, I will rebut that he has said. There is no good reason why the process of evolution could not have yielded conscious life. As writes the celebrated Robin Dunbar: '...consciousness, language, and such could have easily come into being over a large period of time through evolution. We started off with simple sounds, and over time developed elaborate languages.'[5] Also keeping in mind how it is proven that the Early Universe contained nothing but Hydrogen in a cosmic mush it follows that we are all created from the breaking apart of those particles into newer particles. How can my opponent state that there is an a plan when at a time we were all floating sub-atomic particles. Then from that slowly different elements formed, and we are all a mixture of those elements.[6] My opponent's argument would only make sense if the Universe began with planets, and humans. Since this is not the case, my contentions stand. My opponent's arguments on the third reason rest on two unproven hypothesis: a. there are objective moral values, b. objective moral values can only exist with a God. I contend this on both levels: firstly there cannot be objective moral values for that would presume a binary logic system. Instead actions can also be amoral. Is it moral or immoral for me to grow my hair long,? Is it moral or immoral for me to massage my foot? Is it moral or immoral for me to have a glass of water? Sure in certain circumstances it could be argued that these actions are moral, or immoral. For example it could be argued that it is immoral for me to have a glass of water in front of a person who is dying from dehydration, when I do not need the water. In all this however, is there an inherent moral value to the water? No, there is only one to the conditions. Hence forth objective moral values cannot exist.[7] On a second tier I do not see why God must exist for objective valued morals. An excellent rebuttal to all this is given by Sam Harris in his 'The Moral Landscape'. I feel no need to expand on that at this moment because I feel that my opponent never provided an argument for me to refute, and my earlier contentions deals with the argument as a whole in any case. I shall now in the remaining space present one argument which argues against the theistic God. Remember unless the theistic God exists, and a certain religion can be provided the more rational perspective of the world would be one where one says: I do not know what happens. It is more rational to say we do not have the answers, and invest time into science to get those answers than to presuppose a mythical being. Its as simple as that. So a theistic God must be tri-omni, in this case I present William L. Rowe's argument against God from the Problem of Evil. It states (I have copied the premise-conclusion, but I have cited it. The explanation is my own though): '1.There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. 2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. 3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. The second premise is self-proving. For the first consider a forest fire where a deer is trapped. In this fire the deer is burned and dies after days of agony, it is unnecessary suffering which does not forward any good. Since this suffering exists, a tri-omni God could not exist. Hence it is foolish and irrational to have a world-perspective having such a God.[8] [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]http://arxiv.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]Introduction to Evolution by Robin Dunbar [6]http://en.wikipedia.org... [7]http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com... [8]http://en.wikipedia.org... Faithfully Yours, Ajab