Atheism (Con) vs. The Existence of God (Pro)

Refutation of the Atheist Case Recall that Con must offer a positive case in favor of the denial of God. But he has only offered musings and puzzlement over a strange view of God, not rational evidence disconfirming the existence of a supreme being. The first two objections in his former round are irrelevant. The validity of the bible and the project of hermeneutical exegesis and inspiration isn’t germane to the debate. Whether or not God exists is what the debate is about, not if he revealed himself to the Jews then through Jesus to the world. The theory of evolution is compatible with their being a creator and so this can’t count as evidence against theism. Interestingly, Saint Augustine, ~1500 yrs before Darwin, argued that God created the cosmos with certain potencies that would later unfold naturally into what we see today. So a Christian’s acceptance of evolution isn’t a modern retreat in the face of contemporary biology, far from it, we’re one of the first to propose the idea! (Along with Anaxagoras). The third point rests on a misunderstanding, God has classically been defined as a necessary being who is the ground of all reality. So he isn’t defined as self-created or self caused, rather he is uncreated (ungenerated) by definition. Recall that it is only contingent beings that require a cause, whereas necessary beings are not caused, otherwise they wouldn’t be a necessary being. So it makes little sense to ask what caused the first cause… it’s the first cause! Moreover there is nothing incompatible with saying that God existed timelessly without creation -- but exists in time coincident with, and subsequent to, his creating the cosmos. Hence Con (Hawking) would have to show that it’s impossible for anything to exist timelessly. So the quote, "God could not have created the Universe because no time existed before the Universe for any God to create it." … is mistaken theology, if God can exist in a timeless state and will the cosmos into being via simultaneous causality, then problem solved. As for the location of God, location is relative to objects in space, but God, an ultramundane mind, isn't in space, he is causally transcendent from it, and so at most this objection would show that God is immaterial, which is what the theist affirms. Thus all of Con’s points are simple clarifications regarding our theological view of a supreme being. They aren’t really objections at all. Even so, I provided answers. Defense of Theist Case Regarding the overall structure of my case, my claim was that theism better explains what we know of reality than atheism. Meaning that certain facts about reality are not surprising on theism, but they are surprising on atheism. Here Con misunderstands my claim, he says, “Pro says how reality cannot be thoroughly explained with Atheism,” But this is not my claim, I fully affirm that atheism can explain the facts, that they can come up with a possible explanation. Well and fine, ... illiterates accomplish the same feat. Rather what my claim is, is that theism provides a better explanation of the fine-tuning of the cosmos for moral and rational persons than atheism, all things considered. Moreover there may always be problems with explanations, the merit of each, however, is to be judged relative to other competing explanations, not just by their individual problems taken in isolation. So then let’s see if Con’s atheism better explains the facts. Facts I. Personal Cosmos http://www.debate.org... Recall here the fine-tuning of the physical constants and quantities which allow for embodied moral and rational persons as well as an environment in which to accommodate such beings in terms of secondary properties, reliable order, possibility for unlimited good and so on. How does Con have atheism better explain this than theism? He says, “The reason we can interact with our environment [and perceive it as beautiful] is because we have evolved to do so.” This explains nothing! That’s like saying that the reason we were naturally conditioned for such things is because we were naturally conditioned for such things. It’s circular. The question is why did we evolve for these things in such a way and why did that evolution take place in an arena finely tuned for embodied moral and rational persons as well as an environment in which to accommodate such beings in terms of secondary properties? Con basically just answers “because it did… therefore atheism!” This fails at even being an explanation let alone a good one. Next fact is the mind-like structure being consistent all the way from the observable universe to the human brain in the photo below and onto our creations, the internet. And this is a structure not just in resemblance, but also in thought. The cosmos is rationally discoverable and so lends credence to its being rational. Moreover there's the fact of our reliable cognition in an otherwise randomly generated evolutionary selection that selects only for survival value and not true metaphysical belief value on naturalism. (Note here that the claim that our cognition is reliable for truth is itself a metaphysical claim.) The last fact in this grouping is our existential yearning ubiquitous across the planet. How then does Con better explain this on atheism? http://www.debate.org... Nothing. Con stays silent and so concedes this point. Extend theist explanation. Explanation of Facts II. Contingent Cosmos by Necessary Being http://www.debate.org... Contingent Cosmos Recall the next fact to be explained is the discrepancy of a contingent cosmos presently existing without any prior ground of being, without which nothing should presently exist. How does Con’s atheism seek to solve this absurdity better than theism? Con mistakenly assumes that I was talking about entropy. The second law of thermodynamics isn’t what was being assumed, but ok let’s roll with it. This understanding of the Friedmann-Lemaitre cosmological model and thermodynamics is greatly mistaken. First the big bang doesn’t start out like a dense “pellet” which later explodes. Rather the singularity marks the absolute origin of space and time from no prior physical state whatsoever. Indeed the absolute origin of the cosmos is thermodynamically inferred, for a singularity theorem formulated by Aaron Waal, showed this past summer that the cosmos must have begun to exist. [13] Con even admits that the notion of entropy creating the cosmos “does in fact lead to a dead end...” The above points prove why Con’s statement that “physics explains the cause of the universe” is absurd. For he objects in the same breath, “How could a nonexistent being come into being?” Exactly! …. How could a cosmos, which didn’t previously exist, come into existence from non-being? The theist’s answer is a reasonable one, that the cosmos was created by an uncreated (not self-created) being, and God is the best candidate for such a being, for he stops the chain of an infinite regress of past causes, thus we have a first cause. Con then asks the question why God created the universe. This isn’t so much of a problem as it is a theological question which isn’t central to accepting theism. But insofar as there is a possible answer then whatever hidden problem just evaporates. One answer: God, as such, is perfect, and such a God only creates good things for good purposes. This cosmos is good, all things considered, why expect anything else on theism? Reason Con’s answer to the theist challenge, why think it is more likely, on atheism, that reason should emerge if some of the fundamental causes of the universe are not more like a Mind? … is a mistaken interpretation of the challenge, he says I am “asking about why logic exists in the universe if an intelligent mind did not create the universe.” But that’s not the challenge, the question is why would reasoning beings who apprehend logical manipulation emerge given only natural, and not rational processes? To which he responds by equivocating logical laws with physical laws. This is mistaken, for logical laws tell you whether statements arranged in a certain order are valid, reason shows which premises in that machinery are more likely true, which evinces the entertainability of propositions, a non-physical process that persons do, somehow. Now physical laws are much different, they are descriptions of the physical regularities we observe in the cosmos. Logical laws by contrast are prescriptions of the non-physical, rational order that should take place if a person wants to draw a reasonable conclusion from a set of non-physical propositions. Furthermore, there is a logically possible world in which every one of those physical law descriptions are false, but no such world in which logical laws are false. For example the expansion rate of the cosmos, as a physical constant, which can take on any form, isn't a logical constant (there isn't such a thing), rather it's a physical expression that can vary with different cosmic structures. By contrast the law of noncontradiction holds in all possible worlds, not just physical worlds. Nevertheless let’s modify Con’s claim to what I am arguing, “that the Universe was created in just the right way for [reasoning beings using logic] to come into being. If it had been different, [such beings] would not exist.” Since God is a reasoning being, and physical processes are not reasoning beings, then it makes better sense that God ordered his creation so that humans would evolve to apprehend logic and reason. Reason comes from reason, not unreason. Therefore Con’s atheism is unreasonable. Personal Dignity and Human Value Con failed to respond to the argument that theism better explains moral dignity and personal value. Extend theist explanation. Sources 13. Aron C. Wall, "The Generalized Second Law implies a Quantum Singularity Theorem," 13 Aug 2013, http://arxiv.org...