These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1E.

Before I begin, I would like to point out that why my opponent wanted to have this debate. He says that his intention ws to "that the God of the Bible and thus the teaching of Christianity does not exist, i. e. has no solid evidence for it's existence. " Does he mean that the God of the Bible doesn't exist or that the teachings of Christianity doesn't? It would seem more likely the former, because we have huge amounts of teaching of Christianity right from the Bible. He also mentions that the teachings of Christianity has no solid evidence for it's existence. While that may be true, the resolution is clearly states as "These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid. " Therefore, this debate should be whether the arguments against the God of Christianity are valid or not. =====Counterarguments===== First, we shall be discussing the argument of evil. "If an all-loving God exists, then why does evil and suffering exist in the world? " Since we are talking about the Christian God, not any other god, let's see what the Bible has to say. We opponent seems to claim that a perfect, loving God must create a universe that is perfect. However, nowhere in the Bible that the universe was created to be perfect. In fact, God called it "good" (1) and "very good" (2), but never said it was "perfect. " The Bible states that the current universe is not perfect, but was designed to be temporary (3) and will be replaced with a perfect universe that will be permanent (4). Therefore, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe was not for humans to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which moral choices are restricted to only good choices. One cannot choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. "Secondly, the Christian has to somehow account for natural disasters that cause millions of deaths, tons of parasites that feed on humans, and of course bacteria and viruses. " Why don't I give statistics about how much they negatively impacts our lives? Meteorites: 0% Earthquakes: 0.02% Volcanoes: 0.2% Landslides: 0.02% Floods: 0.03% Hurricanes: 1% Tornadoes: .006% Lightning: 0.00004% Fires: 0.1% Genetic diseases: 1.3% Cancer: 0.5% Infectious diseases: 0.06% (deaths) Total: 3.2% of the whole human population. (5) The physical processes that cause natural "evil" are the same ones required for the proper functioning of the universe and the existence of sentient life given the laws of physics and the nature of quantum events. So the laws of physics require the existence of all natural evils defined by atheists, but it is still possible that God could have chosen different laws of physics. It is my opponent's burden to show that substantially different laws of physics can still produce a universe in which sentient creatures would be allowed to make moral choices. His created laws of physics must allow the following requirements: 1. The universe must allow for the existence of sentient creatures. 2. These sentient creatures must have the ability to make moral choices such as choosing whether to commit an unlawful act or not. 3. The universe must operate by physical laws that are reliable, so that the sentient creatures will be able to interact reliably with their surroundings and each other. 4. The universe must declare the power and glory of God. Question: Well, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, every time something bad was about to happen, God would personally intervene and stop it, right? Answer: We wouldn't be able to understand science since it would be impossible to determine how the laws of physics operated. God's interference would make measurements unreliable, since he would be constantly stopping every natural disaster from harming anyone. In addition, if God constantly interfered, people would get used to being rescued and would get lazy, expecting God to bail them out when they failed to act responsibly. My opponent seems to be stuck on the idea that a perfect God must design a physically-perfect universe, even though the universe we live in is perfectly designed as a place to choose between good and evil. This is why God designed a two universe model - a temporary universe dominated by choice, and the second, eternal universe designed to optimize interpersonal relationships between believers and God. 2. Argument from Non-Belief Here's my response: 1. If God exists, God: A. Desires all humans to believe in God before they die; B. Does not force anyone to believe in God even at the time when Jesus was alive; C. Benevolence is only obtained through pure freedom, not forced belief, as provided by God; D. Freedom of thought and belief, always leads to conflicts and debate, regardless of truth and reality; E. Chooses to allow mankind to govern his own mind without forced influence; F. Cannot bring a situation in which all humans will believe in God before they die without violating people's free will; 2. If God exists, many humans would still not believe before they die (from Premise 1). 3. There is no contradiction between Premise 1 and Premise 2. 4. Therefore, the non-belief of God fails to establish the non-existence of God. =====Conclusion===== Both arguments (Argument from Evil and Non-belief) fail to disprove the existence of the Christian God. Sources: 1. Genesis 1:10 2. Genesis 1:31 3. Revelation 21:1 4. Isaiah 65:17 5. . http://www.godandscience.org...