Agnostic Atheism Is The Most Logical Default Position

INTRODUCTION This time I have used direct quotes as opposed to summaries due to my opponent’s much briefer points. We will see that his opening arguments are problematic and are not applied to any theistic arguments. We will see that his objections to my evolutionary argument do not work as well. ARGUMENTS [1] Theism provokes so many questions that are unanswerable. [2A] This is essentially the same point he brought up in argument two, which I already answered. We are left with questions regardless of which worldview we take. If vacuum fluctuations caused the universe to exist, we are left asking what caused the vacuum fluctuations. And regarding his specific questions of motive, we might respond to the question “Why did God create humans?” with the obvious answer “Because he is all-loving and wants us to have experience life and have a relationship with him.” [2] Psychology tells us that the human mind detects agency in a mysterious phenemenon. [3A] I agree that we have an intuition to find agency, but that itself does not mean that agency does not exist on a cosmic level. The bare fact that we have a psychological tendency to believe something does not make the belief false. [3] It does not make sense to accept that the universe was created by God when it didn’t have to be that way and there is no conclusive evidence that it is. [3A] Even if he is right, that would not mean that God does not exist. I did not put forth an argument with the conclusion that God created the universe, I put forth an argument that sustains the universe, and hence exists. Unfortunately my opponent did not address this. A dropped point counts as a concession. My Argument For Theistic Evolution [1] First, when you say that evolution moves “upward”, I assume you mean that evolution seems to improve life rather than simply change it. But that observation is simply coming from a subjective standpoint…There is no quantum difference between life and non-life. [1A] Life is necessary for everything that is significant to us. Is pleasure, for example, no better than non-pleasure? Of course not. It is overwhelmingly obvious that life is preferable to non-life. As I explained earlier, the fact that we are programmed to look for value is not an argument for why value does not (objectively) exist. Denying the objectivity of value brings up problems that stretch beyond this debate, but if my opponent thinks that the significance of life and all that follows it is subjective, then he should at least explain how and why we came to find value in the things in which we do find value. [1B] Who cares if there is no quantum difference between life and non-life? There is no quantum difference between Bush and Obama either. Does that mean there is no significant difference between them? [2] Second, evolution does not just happen within itself. It is influenced by external phenomena, such as ecological and social factors. So this can explain how evolution progresses. And as a species becomes more complex, it will likely develop ancillary traits that are, as you pointed out, not necessary for survival.[2A] I know that evolution is influenced by ecological and social factors. That explains it changing, but not progressing. Progression implies upward movement, which again implies guidance. [2B] I understand that with complexity comes the unnecessary, but the unnecessary traits to which I am referring are more than unnecessary, they are systematically significant and defining of the human race. Where do we get the ability to write and appreciate music for example? It is more than just unnecessary, it’s spectacular. Human abilities are exactly what we would expect under theism, but they are highly unlikely under atheism. [3] Consciousness came about due to a more evolved nervous system.[3A] Even if a nervous system is necessary for consciousness, that does not make it sufficient. A highly evolved physical system cannot betroth a non-physical system. There is no intermediary or pathway between the physical and the mental, only nomological causal interaction the two. And even if it were possible to get consciousness completely from matter, that would still not explain the extravagant abilities conscious gives rise to that demonstrate a complete deviation from unguided evolution. And when you say that no species is more evolved than another, I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously some species are more complex than others. Doesn't that mean they are more evolved? I guess I'm confused.I sympathize with my opponent’s confusion. Technically, it’s just a matter of how broadly or narrowly one defines the word “evolved.” I was using a narrower sense. Anyway, this was not an argument, just an introductory point. [4] It comes down to this: God is used to explain what we can't explain in relation to anything natural. And the problem with that is??? If you have two explanatory options, A and B, to explain X, if and A cannot explain X, then it logically follows that B must be the explanation. [5] God is the supernatural answer, and therefore he is an unprovable hypothesis. It does not sound beneficial, wise, or necessary to invest belief in an unprovable hypothesis of such grand proportions.God being supernatural does not make Him unprovable. One can easily disprove anything supernatural by showing it to suffer from internal inconsistency (via logical arguments) or external inconsistency (via evidential arguments) as many atheists have attempted to do. My opponent has attempted neither of these. [6] In my opinion, God always has been, and is still, the God of the gaps. Just because I don't know why nature exists, I have no good reason to positively believe that there is a creator. One can interpret scientific discovery and natural phenomena as evidence for God, which I think you have done, but in my mind, that doesn't justify the positive belief in God.[6A] There are some gap-arguments for God, but not all of them are such. My modal cosmological argument was not a gap argument, just an application of logic. My evolutionary argument was a probabilistic argument about what we positively know about evolution and the human species. For any debate over God’s existence that involves evidential arguments, one is not required to do anymore than interpret evidence in a certain way. That’s all that the atheist or theists can do. The point is that the interpretation be rational. I have defended what I take to be a rational interpretation of the evidence. CONCLUSION My opponent’s opening points about atheism and theism need to be applied to specific arguments to have any weight. As they are now, they are just fallacious talking points. I have given an example of something that I believe is better explained by theism than atheism, and therefore means that agnostic atheism requires a bigger leap of faith. My opponent has failed to refute this. His point about the subjectivity of value is unsupported and goes against common sense. His point about the complexity of evolution giving rise to unnecessary traits misses the point about the systematic extravagance of the uselessness. He also did not address my argument about God’s sustenance of the universe. Hence, my arguments still stand in showing that agnostic theism is a more default logical option than agnostic atheism.