Atheism is more Probable than Theism

In this debate, I will defend an Atheist worldview as opposed to a Theistic worldview. Introduction A challenge often presented to Atheists from fundamentalist Christians or various Theists is that atheists have no proof there is no God; therefore it is another faith. Although we do not have the Burden of Proof, we can still put forth different types of reasoning to give a philosophical justification for an Atheological worldview. There are two main categories of evidence that can be used. I will divide my arguments up into different sections for these categories. The first is called evidential arguments. These are arguments that some facts about the world are cited as evidence against God's existence; for example, the large amount of suffering in the world or the argument from Biblical defects. These arguments carry the probabilistic conclusion that God does not exist; in other words, on balance of probability, it is more likely than not that God does not exist. Therefore, these arguments do not carry conclusive evidence that there is absolutely no God. The second is called logical evidence against God's existence. These are philosophical evidence which cites that either a) The proposition that God exists is logically incoherent in some way; or b) the concept of God is incoherent in some way. These type of evidence purports to conclusively demonstrate the fact of atheism based on logical incompatibility with the cited contingent facts about the world and the proposition that God exists. Part 1: The Evidential Evidence Against God’s Existence Contention 1: Argument from Evil and Suffering The Problem of Evil cites the large number of suffering as evidence against his existence. In syllogism form, we have: If God exists, unjustified evil does not exist Unjustified evil does exist Therefore, God does not exist. The world is indeed full of unnecessary suffering and evil. When I say the word evil, I do not limit myself to just moral evil such as sin. Rather, I am referring to all types of calamity that can befall on humans (i. e. , earthquakes, storms, floods) and the existence of mass suffering (i. e. , famines, poverty, oppression, etc). I do not believe that Theists have a good answer for the Problem of Suffering and Evil. As Charles Brandlaugh argues [1]: “The existence of evil is a terrible stumbling block for the theist. Pain, misery, crime, poverty confront the advocate of eternal goodness, and challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of Deity all-good, all-wise and all-powerful. Evil is either caused by God or it exist independently; but it cannot be caused by God, as in that case he would not be all-good; nor can it exists hostilely, as in that case he would not be all-powerful. If all-good he would desire to annihilate evil, and continued evil contradicts either God's desire, or God's ability, to prevent it. Evil must either have had a beginning or it must have been eternal, but according to the theist, it cannot be eternal, because God alone is eternal. Nor can it have had a beginning, for if it had it must either have originated in God, or outside God; but according to the theist, it cannot have originated in God, for he is all-good, and out of all goodness evil cannot originate; nor can evil have originated outside God, for, according to the theist, God is infinite, and it is impossible to go outside of or beyond infinity. ” For examples of disasters may include Hurricane Sandy, which left billions of dollars in damage and hundreds dead, or the Haitian earthquake that has left hundreds of people dead. Thousands of more examples can be noted. William Rowe points out [2]: Lightning strikes a tree in a forest, causing a forest fire. A fawn is caught in this fire, and suffers intense agony for an extended period of time before finally dying. (This has undoubtedly happened many times in the Earth's history. ) A five year old girl is, by her mother's boyfriend, severely beaten, raped and strangled to death. [3] In conclusion, “Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to, or he cannot and does not want to, or lastly he can and wants to. If he wants to remove evil, and cannot, he is not omnipotent; If he can, but does not want to, he is not benevolent; If he neither can nor wants to, he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent; But if God can abolish evil and wants to, how does evil exists? ” [4] One final note: This does not disprove the existence of all God’s; however, it is strong evidence against a God that is supposedly all loving , all-powerful, and all-knowing. Contention 2: The Argument from Demographics If the demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism, then the demographics of Theism make Atheism more plausible than Theism. The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism. Therefore, Atheism is more plausible than Theism. We can begin by making some simple observations: There are many more Muslims than Christians in Saudi Arabia;[5] There are many more Hindus in India than in the rest of the world[6]; and In the ancient world, every culture had its own mythology. In fact, these mythologies often contradicted each other and varied wildly. [7] This pattern is very surprising on the part of Theism. Why would God let such an important matter depend strongly upon the time and place of one’s birth? In fact, atheism explains these demographics better. If God does not exist, then religions are but elaborate social constructions. Therefore, we would predict that the demographics would obey the contours of history and geographic similar to other beliefs and ideologies. This is, in fact, what we observe. Part II: Logical Arguments Contention 3: Incoherence of God The standard definition of “God” is largely incoherent. According to the National Catholic Almanac, there are 22 attributes of “God”[8]: “[A]lmighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true. At least two of the above attributes (incomprehensible and ineffable) contradict the others. How can the other attributes of God be known if he can be neither understood nor described? If God has free-will, as some Christians believe that he does, then how can he know everything? These are some of the attributes of God that are logically incompatible; thus making the Theist God impossible. So “[t]hus the characteristics of God as supplied by Christian theologians (and other theologians) are nothing more than meaningless and contradictory concepts wrapped in theological garb. ”[9] Conclusions The mainstream concept of God is logically impossible; The problem of evil is proof positive for the non-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God; The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism; and Theism does not have a good explanation for the problems of suffering and the arguments for Atheism. [1] Bradlaugh, Humanity's Gain From Unbelief: p28-29. Quoted in Tobin, P. (2000) “The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager: The Skeptic’s Guide to Christianity. ” [2] As Presented in a debate between WriterDave and SuburbiaSurvivor . http://debate.org... [3] This is taken from an instance in Flint, Michigan in 1986 [4] This is the famous Epicurus Dilemma from Aphorisms of Epicurus (c300BC). [5] 99% of Saudi Arabia are Muslims. . http://www.state.gov... [6] 80% of India are Hindus. . http://censusindia.gov.in... [7] See . http://www.mythweb.com... for some of the world’s myths. [8] Quoted in Smith, G. Atheism: The Case Against God [9] Tobin, P. The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager