Does the Christian god exist.

Unfortunately, my opponent's rebuttal falls short. None of the first arguments are "intact." Christianity was not the first or even NEAR the first faith/religion in existence. Further, with respect to research and belief, the first hypothesis is ALMOST NEVER the correct one. There were hundreds, if not thousands of religions/faiths that preceded christianity. It was, however, among the first MONOTHEISTIC faiths to take root and spread. This, however, was more a result of kings/emperors/rulers having dominion over larger populations, and mandating "official" religions, for all of their people. Without these events, there is no reason to believe that christianity would have spread as far as it did. To rebut my opponents first set of arguments, directly, point by point: Pro Argument 1 Part 1: ***** Big Bang -> cause -> ??? Big Bang -> cause -> God -> cause -> ??? ***** The cause of the Big bang is unknown The Big Bang and the existence of a deity are mutually exclusive, until such time as a deity is demonstrated. To this point, belief in a deity doesn't even have a reason behind it, let alone any substantiation. Until such time as a deity can be even logically demonstrated (let alone proven), the Big Bang is not even a part of this discussion. Concerning cause/effect statement, while the reflexive property of mathematics is appropriate to this statement, we still are not completely familiar with all the "laws," pertaining to physics/quantum physics. Concerning the "chance statement, while this statement may sound "deep," it really does little to support anything, at all. What are "planes of causation," and what evidence do we have that they exist, or that they are many? No evidence is provided to support this assertion. In the next statement, what "Law" is inescapable? Unfortunately, the presumption of a cause is not axiomatic, in all cases. Second, the question assumes the existence of a deity, and there is not link between the two. This leap is far too great to be bridged, or so weakly prefaced. Such a question would HAVE to be preceded by SOME form of evidential introduction. Making one axiomatic statement, and using it as a basis for a completely unrelated question is problematic, given that the only place where the deity is even introduced is the question which has already assumed its existence. This is not proof, or even evidence. It is presumption without foundation. In order to create, the creating (causal) entity must already exist. Therefore, nothing (ABSOLUTELY nothing) can "create itself." Intent also presupposes existence, and requires the pre-existence of the deity. This argument can be dismissed as unsubstantiated. If there is NOT a mind behind it, there can STILL be a reason and a cause. It simply would not be a cognizant, self-aware entity. Causation does not necessarily imply personage. What is the "reason to exist?" Where, when, and how was this ever established? Assuming such axiomatic "truths" without establishing their validity does little (or nothing) to support an intelligent causality. Since no "reason" has ever been declared, let alone demonstrated, such a declaration is nullified, as being without support. *************** 1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary. 2. Not every being can be contingent. 3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend. 4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by God. 5. Therefore, God exists. *************** 1 -- False binary choice. There is nothing axiomatic about this statement, and is therefore not a valid premise on which to begin. * A parent is a NECESSARY being for a child. * A grandparent is a NECESSARY being for a parent. * Water is necessary for a bass, trout, or sunfish. Water, however, is not an entity. By this token, one must first establish that there is a BEING that is necessary, before this statement can ever be made. 2 -- This has not yet been established. WHY can every being NOT be contingent? 3 -- Even if #2 was true, there is no way to establish that there is one being, in common to ALL other beings, that is necessary. * I am a being contingent upon the existence of my parents, grandparents, etc. * My opponent is a contingent being, but is NOT contingent upon the existence of my parents, grandparents, etc. * Premise falsified, even if that premise is targeting the deity as the "necessary" being. There has still been NO establishment of the fact that there is an ENTITY, upon which all entities are contingent. 4 -- Attempting to introduce the axiomatic existence of a deity by including it in a definition AFTER THE FACT, breaks the line of logic. There has STILL been nothing to indicate that there is an entity upon which all other entities are contingent. 5 -- All four preceding statements have already been falsified. The conclusion, by extension, is falsified. This is not a logical extrapolation, given the falsification of ALL premises. Pro Argument 1 Part 2: A Priori is not valid, here, since part 1 failed to establish anything, at all. There was no logical sequence, all premises were falsified, and the conclusion may NOT be used "a priori." Further, the ONLY "a priori" arguments that are valid for use in subsequent arguments are those that are universally accepted as axiomatic. Any "a priori" argument that is challenged is immediately invalidated as "a priori," and Part 1 was both challenged and invalidated. Despite already having been invalidated as an "a priori" argument, I will address this. St. Anselm's premise of knowledge rested on the premise that belief was a prerequisite to understanding. This is a reversal. It is a reversal of the laws of cause and effect, and leads to erroneous conclusions. Truth is a prerequisite to belief. To attempt to reverse this allows for ANY belief to become "truth," in the mind of the believer. Not all beliefs are true, and not all truths are believed. The belief that the world was flat did not yield an "understanding" of how or why the world was flat. It led to the hindrance of exploration. Anselm's argument boils down to: "If I can conceive of an ultimate good, it must exist." This is a fallacy of enormous proportions, given "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" does not give form, property, or personality to such a "good," the presumption that it is an intelligent and causal agency is not a logical deduction. This is nothing short of presumptuous pomposity, on the part of one that already believed. St. Anselm was a theologian and, therefore, already a believer. His belief, therefore, was established before ANY consideration of possibility. Since Anselm's premise of knowledge is wrong/false, any conclusion drawn using it as axiomatically inclusive must also be, at the very least, suspect, if not outrightly dismissed. Argument invalidated. No god has been shown to exist, and its perfection was assumed, by definition, before the consideration of arguments ever began. A false premise will, invariably, lead to a false conclusion (at the very least, erroneous or incomplete). Thus, perfection is not established. Pro Argument 1 Part 3: Given that this entire debate is about, SPECIFICALLY, the "christian" deity, part 3 is completely unnecessary and irrelevant. No other deity is even being considered, and how one myth compares to another myth, based on comparisons of "mythical content" is completely devoid of value to the discussion at hand. ***** In point of fact, there is virtually no reason, even inductive, to accept that there is a deity, at all. Without the bible, christianity would have no deity to worship -- at least not a named and codified set, anyway. Having narrowly conceded that "... maybe the bible is false," my opponent has effectively conceded that "...maybe the biblical deity is false." Without the biblical deity, whose ONLY support is the bible, there is no christian religion. Once the foundation of a building has been obliterated, the entire structure is set to collapse. No bible, no christian deity. No christian deity, nothing to worship, and nothing around which to create dogmatic doctrine or method of worship. The bible is definitely full of errors; not just scientific errors, but errors of easily demonstrable fact. There is no conceivable reason to accept the christian deity on ANYTHING other than 1) the bible or 2) acceptance of the word of other humans that tell us that this deity exists. Further, they tell us that BECAUSE he exists, there are certain behaviors, beliefs, and practices that are mandatory, under penalty of eternal torture/punishment. The sheer magnitude of the injustice of eternal punishment in exchange for a few decades of erroneous belief would be sufficient to render this deity unjust. A moral breech of this magnitude from what is supposed to be an all-perfect being renders this deity, by definition, false. This is simply one among many easily falsifiable moral attributes that are ascribed to the biblical deity. There is not sufficient room to list all of the immoral acts that would not be conceivable, today. Following, however, is a short list of atrocities that are MANDATED by the biblical deity which is reason, not to hate this deity, but to dismiss it as altogether nonexistent. No deity of the magnitude, perfection, and benevolence the biblical deity is purported to have would even consider atrocities about which even we, as mere humans, would be shocked and horrified to read in our morning papers, hear on our evening televisions, or discover on our news websites...: Mass slavery Tribal genocide Mass kidnapping of virgins -- human trafficking National invasion of sovereign nation (look at what happened to Saddam Hussein, for invading Kuwait...) No, the biblical god does not make any sense. The biblical interpretation of god is not reasonable, logical, or believable. I'm sorry, but the christian deity most likely does not exist.