Atheism is more probable than Theism

Thank you for your reply. In this post, I will respond to your rebuttals to my opening arguments first. My opponent added to his argument and thus we should only count his original statement when voting. I. Defense of Opening Statements A. Presumption of Atheism My opponent straw man’s this argument. My opponent first of all states the following: "First of all, we have to establish that Weak Atheism is not...This is not relevant to the resolution because it’s a negative claim; since there is no assertion, there’s no “likelihood” involved. If we substitute the definition of Weak Atheism into the resolution, we end up with “disbelief is more likely than the existence of one or any ‘gods’”, which doesn’t make sense." This is false. I have to show that atheism (positive atheism) is more probable than Theism. The purpose of this argument is to show that the lack of evidence for God’s existence is evidence against God’s existence. It shows that we are reasonable to conclude that God does not exist. Consider the argument from non-belief: 1. If God exists, inculpable non-belief does not exist; 2. Inculpable non-believe does exist. 3. Therefore, God does not exist. Why do I say this? Consider that if God perfectly loves, then he desires to have a relationship with every one of us. If that were the case, then God would want to give us evidence that God exists. My opponent admits that his argument for God’s existence was not strong enough in light of my rebuttals. Indeed, as Paul Tobin notes: “[T]he fact that theist philosophers have been unable to prove the existence of God, is enough for anyone to not have any belief in God. In other words, the absence of evidence is a strong case for atheism.” (Tobin, 2006) Now, my opponent straw man’s this argument by proposing three questions: Is the current amount of evidence for the ice age sufficiently “extraordinary”? Yes, the current amount of evidence for the ice age is sufficient. First, we need to understand how we can calculate the probability of the events. To this, I use Bayne’s theorem. The following information is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Joyce, 2003): The probability of a hypothesis H conditional on a given body of data E is the ratio of the unconditional probability of the conjunction of the hypothesis with the data to the unconditional probability of the data alone. Definition. The probability of H conditional on E is defined as PE(H) = P(H & E)/P(E), provided that both terms of this ratio exist and P(E) > 0.[1] To illustrate, suppose J. Doe is a randomly chosen American who was alive on January 1, 2000. According to the United States Center for Disease Control, roughly 2.4 million of the 275 million Americans alive on that date died during the 2000 calendar year. Among the approximately 16.6 million senior citizens (age 75 or greater) about 1.36 million died. The unconditional probability of the hypothesis that our J. Doe died during 2000, H, is just the population-wide mortality rate P(H) = 2.4M/275M = 0.00873. To find the probability of J. Doe's death conditional on the information, E, that he or she was a senior citizen, we divide the probability that he or she was a senior who died, P(H & E) = 1.36M/275M = 0.00495, by the probability that he or she was a senior citizen, P(E) = 16.6M/275M = 0.06036. Thus, the probability of J. Doe's death given that he or she was a senior is PE(H) = P(H &E)/P(E) = 0.00495/0.06036 = 0.082. Notice how the size of the total population factors out of this equation, so that PE(H) is just the proportion of seniors who died. One should contrast this quantity, which gives the mortality rate among senior citizens, with the "inverse" probability of E conditional on H, PH(E) = P(H & E)/P(H) = 0.00495/0.00873 = 0.57, which is the proportion of deaths in the total population that occurred among seniors. Here are some straightforward consequences of (1.1): Probability. PE is a probability function.[2] Logical Consequence. If E entails H, then PE(H) = 1. Preservation of Certainties. If P(H) = 1, then PE(H) = 1. Mixing. P(H) = P(E)PE(H) + P(~E)P~E(H). So, based upon this, what evidence is there for the ice age which include, but is not limited to (Isaak, 2003): 1. Species of foraminifera vary with ocean temperature. The variation is recorded in deep ocean sediments, showing many long-term changes. 2. Oxygen isotope ratios (18O/16O) indicate when more water is held in glaciers (because 16O evaporates more easily and so is disproportionately common in snow). This ratio is recorded in carbonate shells in seafloor sediments; it shows the same sort of variation. 3. Formations caused by glaciers on Mauna Kea show that the volcano experienced at least four glaciations. Lava flows between the formations show that the glaciations were separate.4. Needless to say, there are a lot of evidence for the ice age event and zero for the existence of a God! What about the big bang? Is there sufficient “extraordinary evidence” for that? Once again, yes! First, let’s define the BBT as In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler.[1] Some of the evidence for the BBT includes large-scale homogeneity, abundance of light elements, dark energy, evolution of galaxies, and the existence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (Feuerbacher & Scranton, 2006) If not, does that mean that we should assume that these events did not take place? My opponent asks that should we assume that these events did not take place if there is no extraordinary evidence for these events. My answer is yes. These are extraordinary events; though just because they are extraordinary does not mean they did not occur. Because of the large amount of data and evidence that we now have for those events, we can confidently say that these events did occur.[2] Out of room! [1] Note that the BBT does not about the origin of the universe; rather it is about the development of the universe. This is a misconception that we need to clear up. [2] It is important to note that "... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory." (Popper, 1968) So, we cal these events “facts” because they are so well-documented and the evidence supports them so well that it is unreasonable to reject such theories. Bibliography Feuerbacher, B., & Scranton, R. (2006, January 25). Evidence for the Big Bang. Retrieved from Talk.Origins Archive: http://www.talkorigins.org... Isaak, M. (2003, June 9). Claim CH590. Retrieved from Index to Creationists Claims on Talk.Origin Archive: http://www.talkorigins.org... Joyce, J. (2003, September 30). Bayes' Theorem. Retrieved from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition): http://plato.stanford.edu... Popper, K. (1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson. Tobin, P. (2006, August 9). God and Christian Theology. Retrieved from The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Skeptic's Guide to Christianity: http://rejectionofpascalswager.net...