Atheism vs. Theism

Introduction Again, I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for giving me his arguments towards Theism and the existence of God. He has given me plenty of arguments to refute, so I will start from the beginning. Rebuttals My opponent begins by talking about how God cannot be proven the same way one might prove that carbon and iron are formed within start. This is true, for no evidence exists within the universe to prove or disprove it. However, when one looks at the probability and the amount of evidence towards God’s existence, they will see that it is slim and that there is no evidence. Who has seen this Creator? Why has He not shown himself? This is a problem that Theists simply do not see. My opponent says that everyone perceives the world in a different way. This is true; however everyone should perceive the world by using facts, data, and evidence. Faith and guessing does not get very far. A thousand years ago, people guessed that Zeus created lightning. Now, however, we are aware of the fact that lightning simply comes from ionized particles in the air. We forgot the guess and used science to find the true answer. Data wins, faith loses. Then, my opponent went on to create a list of things that prove that such a Creator created the universe, mankind, and everything else. Here is his list: “the law-like nature of logic, the uniformity of nature, moral duties, and freedom of thought.” This is interesting and I hoped my opponent would create a list such as this, for these points are points I wanted to discuss. I will start with the first point: Nature of Logic: Theists assume that because this universe runs using basic laws, there must be an intelligent Creator. They do, however, fail to realize that if there were no basic laws, there would be no universe. If there were no gravity, physics, etc., the universe would have been rendered nonexistent a long time ago. The multiverse theory says that more than one universe exists. If that is true, then there were plenty of big bangs and at least one universe had these basic laws. The Uniformity of Nature Uniformity is perceived. My opponent somewhat made this point when talking about worldviews, hence meaning that what I find nice may not be what my opponent finds nice. We think the world around us is beautiful, but an African Lion may not find the Rocky Mountains to be uniform. The fact of the matter is this: Uniformity is perceived differently by everyone and everything. Moral Duties As I mentioned in my first argument, Theism does not teach morals. What truly drives morality is what is called the Amygdala. The amygdala is the portion of the brain responsible for emotions. What is written in the 2,000 year-old book known as the Bible has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, objective morality is relative. We find what Hitler and the Nazis did during the Holocaust to be immoral, but people fail to realize that the Nazis had “Gott Mit Uns”, which is translated as “God With Us”, inscribed on their belt buckles. The Nazis thought they were doing God’s work and thought they were being moral. Objective morality is relative and is different across everyone. My opponent also says that “God is good”. Again, I proved this wrong in round 1 when I talked about the Ten Commandments and what the Bible looks upon in a positive way. “Throughout the Old Testament, the Bible talked about rape, slavery, incest, and gender inequality in a positive way. In the Ten Commandments, God never says "All humans are equal", "You shall not rape", or anything that we, today, would think should be law. The Bible also states that not following the Ten Commandments results in death. Imagine the death penalty for a disobedient child. Imagine death for working on Sunday or being raised to believe in another god. To me, it sounds like there is something wrong with Theism” As you can see, the Bible, Theism, and God do not teach morals. Freedom of Thought Finally, my opponent speaks of freedom of thought as proof for the existence of God. He says that if thought is governed by the laws of physics, it must not be real freedom. This, however, is not entirely correct. Studies are showing that neural processes within the brain function at a quantum level, not the physical level. Because of this, our brain processes are not predetermined, making Con’s argument about freedom of thought invalid. Conclusion In conclusion, I believe I have refuted all of my opponent’s arguments towards Theism and God, just like every other Atheist in history. As I have already stated, a Theist’s reasoning has never disproven an Atheist’s reasoning, simply because it cannot happen. Facts, evidence, data, and research always beat faith, guessing, and unfounded opinions. I look forward to my opponent’s rebuttals and I hope to see how he can refute them. Thank you. Sources 1. http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu...'s%20mutliverse.html2. http://webspace.ship.edu...3. http://atheonomy.wordpress.com...4. http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca...