RESOLVED: Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist

Introduction I shall briefly dismiss the absurd points of the opposition and to point out several misusages of the word “fallacy” Objection One: On Science Obj. 1.1 Anything that can be experienced or conceived in the physical world has a physical explanation Defense: For anything that studies reality, they necessarily study the existence of such realities; for anything that studies the nature of reality, they study an a priori cognition which allows men to build on, to rationalize, and this rationalization is seen in metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology. Obj. 1.2 Existence cannot be rationalize Defense: Let us first assume that all existence can be rationalized. If the existence of the object x can be rationalized, then object x both empirically and rationally exist in a possible world. But let us take the notion of color; a man has experienced many shades of blue except for a particular one. If existence could be rationalized, then the color or particular shade of blue that is missing from the man’s imagination would be an a priori cognition. However, the man would not even have any conceptions about this particular missing shade of blue, for all existence is solely based on a posteriori notions. If the opposition can prove to me that he could create something from nothing; that is, if he could create and prove the existence of something without any input to it, then he is mistaken. [10] Objection Two: Fallacies Obj. 2 This shall be short, and concise. The opposition accuses me of committing strawman. Need I quote the opposition’s own sophistic reasoning to demonstrate that it is he who has strawmaned his own arguments? The universe is an attribute of God because he spoke it into his existence (Gen. 1). The ability to commit evil and consequences following in Genesis 2-3 shows that God did not create the world morally perfect Obj. 2.1 The opposition commits another error; moving the goalpost. The opposition has attempted to argue, “Theologically, the Christian God exists” not “PHILOSOPHICALLY the Christian God exists” Philosophy deals with reality, and the study of reality and the nature of it. Theology deals with other more complex religious functions that are of no interest to this debate. Obj. 2.2 The opponent apart from that has cherry picked my arguments, ignoring what I wrote and just taking the points in which he finds absurd. If the opposition thinks I am arguing for solipsism, or if he is, then I appeal only to the reasoning of the judges to vote him down for ignoratio elenchi. [7][8] Apart from this, the opposition has committed "causation-correlation" fallacy. "If a theory correlates with reality, then the theory must be true" is a wholly false statement. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created spaghetti; does that mean he exists? Objection Three: On Certainty Obj. 3 Here is one of the points where my argument has been cherry picked. The opposition here thinks that syllogisms are an extraordinary case, where the truth can be derived synthetic a priori. However, this is not the case. In fact, the truth in all syllogisms is derived analytic a priori, which arises from some a posteriori impressions. For example, let us dismiss the opposition’s invalid unaristotelian syllogisms for more sound and valid ones. P1. Some people rob banks P2. All bank robberies are illegal C. Some people commit illegal actions This derives from the following: P1. SiP P2. SaP C. SiP This is a logically valid syllogism of the Dimaltis type, which builds upon the first premise to prove and the second premise, two a posteriori notions, to prove the conclusion. We can henceforth dismiss the fact that the opposition claims that pure reasoning can lead to truths, for pure reasoning can only lead to conclusions from established truths, or axioms, that we hold. [9] Objection Four: Occam’s Razor Obj. 4 Occam’s Razor is a simple theory that states that in the absence of provable and empirical evidence, the theory with the simplest explanations and without the most assumptions, would be the most scientifically valid theory. [6] The opposition talks as if we still lived in the 1500s, where we had a lack of information about the world. However, we do have concrete evidence for the non-existence of God, or at least the unneed for it. Let us take the following proposition for example:"The universe was created from something "higher" entity" is another false statement. For if it were, then what caused God? If God were a free lunch (i.e God always existed) then that violates the cause-effect structure. If God was always there, then why not say the universe was always there? The Big Bang, the best explanation for the causations of the universe, was caused by quantum flunctuations which allowed for time, space and atoms to be formed. If the Christian God caused it, then the universe is 6,000 years old. In reality, that is a false statement, for there has been no proof, or definitive ones, of the universe being that young. [3][4]Objection Five: God is a Human ConceptObj. 5 God was created by humans, or by the human mind. Firstly, let us take the "natural dualist" explanations. It may seem indeed absurd to think the human "soul" will survive its own death. Human beings are natural dualists, firstly. Dualism is an innate structure, in which all humans were born with. However, as proven in the substance-mode argument, two substances of different nature cannot be the cause of one another; then how could the material and immaterial interact with each other? Nevertheless, since humans are natural born dualists, then without much reasoning, they would be dualists for the rest of their lives. If humans are natural dualists, then it would be more justifiable and reasonable to believe in God, that is, if dualism were true. [1]Obj 5.1 God is also reasonable to believe in. But there are historical evidences that disproves God. All monotheistic religions, or at least many, derive from one group; the Jews. Accordingly to the Bible, the Jews are desert mongers who were drafted by the "pharoah" to build cities. Let us look at this in a more general perspective; the theory that someone human created the one-God theory historicaly is a very valid structure. There was one particular Egyptian Pharoah, Amenohept IV, who created the first monotheistic religion. Amenohept IV denied the many Gods theory, and much like the Chinese, he thought that he was the only God. The cult of Atens was henceforth create. Amenohept recruited "desert dwellers" (accordingly to the records) to build a new city, but soon died of plague, to be succeded by his son, Tutenkhamen. (Correlation much?) This theory then states that Amenohept recruited the "Jews" to build his cities, and in reality, the "Jews" were worshippers of the cults of Atens. Now, how could such an absurd theory be supported? The main concepts is that since Amenohept lived around the time Moses lived, and they simply talked about the same events that happened, then historically, there is no better explanation. What the Jews really called God was a human pharoah; this is psychologically valid too. The Emperor of Japan still claims divination over his people, and is accepted. So henceforth, we can come to conclude that the true origins of God was in a spoiled pharoah who created a cult that worshipped himself. [2]Objection Six: Correlation/CausationObj. 6 Many cultures in the world are connected via flood myths. Nevertheless, let us take a detour into the discussion of the Old-New Testament for a brief period of time. The New Testament and the Old Testament is accordingly an anthology of all the works of major thinkers and philosophers of the time. It is a reflection of the thinkings of the time itself, not the word of divinity. The opposition claims that since there are correlations betwen both, they are both "divine texts" and God exists. However, how does the opposition account for the differences between both? More importantly, if it were truly divine, then why is it not accepted by the whole world? Apart from this, there are flood myths all over the world. If this were truly divine, then how could civilization itself account for all these Gods being true; an example is the conflict between Noah's Flood and the Chinese Flood myths, both if they were true, would easily be contradictory to each other. We have no evidence for a worldwide flood. [5] Objection Seven: Existence is Dependent on AttributesObj. 7 Existence is dependent on attributes, or at least, in this case it is. The opposition uses my analogy and completely misinterprets it. Then let us talk about God in general, and how his attributes cannot ever be satisfied; the opposition still leaves my case fully affirmed through the Epicurean logic used. Nevertheless, God is via definition, all good. After affirming this, let us also affirm that he is omniscient. Then, using the axiomatic (xΞ(a  b)) proposition, then ~a or ~b would necessarily result in a negation of x itself. God cannot be all good, for he has killed people in the flood and evil still exists. God can be omniscient, but that is highly unlikely. Henceforth, God cannot exist in such a world where the conditionals of his existence are sufficiently negated.All of my points remain more or less affirmed. They have been faced with piecemeal attacks from the opposition, and that is all. The resolution remains negated, and the cherries the opposition has picked are now rotten. Citations:[1] http://www.americanscientist.org...[2] http://glynsbox.blogspot.co.uk...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor[7] http://philosophy.lander.edu...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...;