Theism v Atheism

The Cosmological Argument Firstly, is a singularity impossible? I can’t go much into depth here, because my opponent’s argument rests on a simple misunderstanding of the singularity: it is “naïve” in the sense that it is the realist understanding of the Big Bang theory that adheres to the laws of thermodynamics. The Big Bang theory states the world expanded from a single point where t=0. Matter must still have existed, due to the conservation principle stating that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. This was affirmed by Hawking and Penrose in their magnum opus on the subject, stating “a joint paper by Penrose and myself [Hawking] in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity was correct”[1]. Apart from this actual difficulty, the rest is awkwardly used jargon. Furthermore, even if it something without physical properties, does this mean it does not exist, as my opponent implies? Most will agree that numbers and morals are actually existent, despite the fact that they do not have dimensions. Moreover, God, who lacks physical existence (being “transcendent” or not limited by mere physicality) is supposed to exist according to my opponent. “Why is it possible for a being of no dimensions or duration [God] to obtain ontological existence, yet an object possessing these properties [a singularity] is merely a mathematical idealization?”[2] Secondly, does co-existence at causal events cause problems? Yes, as no event has ever been demonstrated to be causally co-existent. This holds the same problem as an event causing an effect in the past: it is nonsensical. If God created the universe at t=0 (t refers to time, and t=0 refers to the moment of time to which there was not a previous moment), and there was no time prior to t=0, then both God began to exist in the weak sense of the word at t=0, and the universe began to exist at t=0. Both the universe and God are eternal! Indeed, “It seems that regardless of whether a mechanical set of conditions or God caused the universe outside of time, the universe 'always existed', since there is no time at which it did not exist.”2 Both the third and fourth rebuttal (regarding morality existing and minds being the only causal effect) are both arguing from ignorance. The moral response is obvious: there’s no reason why the universe could not be caused by an impersonal cause, any more than it being caused by a personal one. There’s no reason either way. The fourth case is just littered with question-begging. Why is the cause of the universe ultramundane (which isn’t a word, nor has even been defined at this point, so I can hardly argue against a non-statement)? Why is it necessary? Why are minds necessary? Why is it that only minds and concepts are necessary? Why are concepts necessary? It’s a series of empty claims with no justification. The Ontological Argument No necessary beings exist, as existence is by definition a contingent thing, as empirically we can verify there is no reason why anyone must have existed. As both Hume and Kant demonstrated, necessary existence is a contradiction in terms. It requires there to be no other way for existence to function. “There is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction”[3], and God’s inexistence is not contradictory. Moreover, as Gaunilo demonstrated, the fact that something is the greatest you can imagine does not mean it exists in reality: I can imagine an Island which no greater island can be conceived. That island does not necessarily exist, though, no matter how much I cross my fingers. It only exists in concept: which is where God also exists. Finally, the parodies demonstrate the ontological argument’s incoherence with reality. Firstly as Gasking points out, a deity is more amazing the larger its handicap. Inexistence, being the greatest handicap therefore, is a property God must have: surely a being which does not exist creating the universe is most astounding indeed! Secondly, if a deity existed which was greater than can be conceived, it would have surely intervened in the universe and surely created a better universe! Possibly one where instead of being made of flesh, we were made of solid metal, with ten inch fingers and perfect memory. Again, the ontological argument relies on the failure of the problem of evil and similar cases to be sound. The Moral Argument Firstly, my morality doesn’t rest on physics, this is a blatant strawman. Secondly, a prescriptive moral system (as opposed to descriptive) is non-cognitive and not objective, depending on those who formulate the prescriptions (in other words, all agents) and are not “right” or “wrong”. If I say “Killing is wrong” I express not a proposition, but a command: I am saying “Don’t kill”, rather than stating an objective truth. This argument lacks even a remotely true premise. Arguments Against God Falsifiability My opponent puts two criticisms towards my Kierkegaardian case (which is not Fideism, so I’d ask my opponent not to reference it as something which is ludicrously false). Firstly, he invites me to show which “deities successfully parody God in the sense that he’s a necessarily existing reality, who has at minimum those three omni's”. Well, other than the non-denominational God, there is Allah (not Trinitarian, many prophets), Vishnu (one of many Gods), Ahura Mazda (one prophet). The Calvinist God moreover is vastly different to the Catholic God, which is further different from the Gnostic God, who is still more different from the Cathar God. These Gods disagree on trinitarianism, God’s intervention in the world, and even gender. Secondly, he claims my Kierkegaard case is self-defeating, for I claim properties of God. Yet I do precisely do not do this: my opponent does. Our complete ignorance of God forces us into the niche of atheism called “ignosticism”, or the rejection of God not as false but as a completely meaningless concept. Thus, theism is surely false on this ground. My case of falsification here is important, for I want to refer to it for my argument from evil. Evil Consider firstly that my opponent’s response is God works in mysterious ways: “Such a being, if it exists, would have a morally sufficient reason for instances of evil that he permits to happen, regardless if we, partial knowers, fail to know it.” In short, I as a merely rational thinking person cannot comprehend how God acts morally. Is this not a defence of every action? When I explain to the theist judge how I shot the Prime Minister, can I defend myself by saying “I have morally sufficient reason, but you as a partial knower, fail to know it”? Such a response is just claiming ignorance as a shield. I hoped we discarded this defence of despotism back in the Enlightenment era alongside Divine Right and slavery. Again, this argument is unfalsifiable: any event that occurs in the world, or potentially occurs, is the best possible thing for God to allow by this model. My argument here however is evidential. As my opponent keeps stating, we are arguing about probability, not certitude. So ask yourself this: when 180,000 small innocent children die every year of malaria in Africa alone[4], are we to believe this is for the greater good, the great moral plan that is in store for us, and our benevolent dictator knows what is best? Or that in fact we do not have such a deity ruling over us to defer responsibility to. The ignorance defence of God is not sound. Consider the case of a woman about to be raped. "Look, there's really no point in my trying to explain the details to you," said the fifth officer, who we had nicknamed 'Brainiac' because he had an encyclopedic knowledge of literally everything and an IQ way off the charts. "There's an excellent reason for why I did not intervene, but it's just way too complicated for you to understand, so I'm not even going to bother trying. I mean, you admit you are nowhere near as knowledgeable as I am, so what right do you have to judge? Just so there's no misunderstanding, though, let me point out that no one could care about Ms. K. more than I did, and that I am, in fact, a very good person. That settles that."[5] With my case firmly restated, I pass over to my opponent for his next round. Thank you. [1] Hawking, A Brief History of Time [2] Scorzo, A Discussion of the Kalam Argument [3] Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion [4] Singer, The life you can save [5] Vuletic, The Tale of Twelve Officers