God Probably Doesn't Exist

Thanks to Chest for accepting. Contention 1: The Problem of Evil This is probably the most well known, used, and simple argument against God today. It simply states that since evil exists, God does not. I will be using Rowe’s inductive formulation [1]. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. Premise one is probabilistic. William Rowe gave his famous example in support of it "In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering.” [ibid] It is intuitively probable from everything we have seen. Premise two follows from the definition of what it means to be all knowing, powerful and good. The conclusion follows from the premises. Not much needs to be said, it is a straightforward, simple and powerful argument. Contention 2: Modal Argument for Atheism This argument was proposed by Ryan Stringer. It is formed like so [2]. A. It is possible that p. B. Necessarily, if it is possible that God exists, then it is necessary that God exists. C. Necessarily, if God exists, then it is not the case that p. D. Therefore, it is not possible that God exists. (from A, B, & C) We can use various plugins for P, like 1. Minds are dependant on the physical world 2. An evil deity exists 3. The universe was created by some non-god being 4. Being morally perfect is impossible 5. Gratuitous evil exists. 6. All free non-god beings always produce evil. 7. Being omnipotent is impossible. 8. The Universe never began Now, one could propose that theism is an analytic truth and thus P is not possible. However, since we can come up with more P plugins this makes P more plausible. There would simply be more ways for P to be true than God. So, while it may refute one P argument on its own, it does not refute the P arguments overall. Contention 3: The Universe Never Began God needs to be the cause of the universe. In order for this to be true, the universe must begin. It must at one time not have existed. Otherwise, God would not have been the creator, only a sustainer of something that has existed as long as he has. A clear definition of what it means to begin to exist is given by Christian Philosopher, William Lane Craig e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact. [3] This means most of the A theories of time are required for something to begin to exist. So, do theories of time in which the past and future exist hold weight? Experiments in quantum mechanics say yes. Particles can be entangled through time [4]. The present can affect the past and the past can be affected by the future, meaning they must all exist. This implies either the B theory of time or the moving theory of time, but these don’t fit the given definition. Other experiments show time is an internal phenomena from quantum entanglement [5]. An external observer would perceive all states of time. Furthermore, time travel cannot happen for the universe to begin. Otherwise, the past and future would have to exist. But we have observed time dilation [6]. Take note, this does not reject current scientific models like the big bang. Under these theories of time the universe is indeed finite. However, it does not begin. It’s like inch one beginning on a ruler, or Canada beginning at its border. To put this in a syllogism 1. If the Universe never began, God does not exist. 2. The Universe never began C. Therefore, God does not exist. Premise one is true by the definition of God. Premise two has just been justified. The conclusion follows. The resolution is affirmed. Remember Con, in the next round you don’t address these arguments, you offer some in favor of your position. Now to Con [1] Rowe, William L. 1979. “The Problem of and Some Varieties of Atheism,” American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335-41. [2] http://infidels.org... [3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [4] http://www.livescience.com... [5] https://medium.com... [6] http://www.phy.olemiss.edu...