Gods existence

[[ Introduction ]] Thanks, Pro, for beginning this debate. Before we begin, I'd like to point out the obvious: nobody can really prove or disprove God's existence (how convenient). However, since Pro is the instigator, my role in this debate is to nullify all of Pro's arguments thereby negating his resolution, and of course offer a rebuttal as to why the existence of God is not probable or rather not proven by the Pro. The instigator must exemplify that his arguments for God prove God's existence. If I negate his arguments, then regardless of what you believe, you have no reason to vote for Pro. [[ Re: Kalam Cosmological Argument ]] Pro begins with the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Right away we can see the issue that Pro has no proof that the universe began; he cannot disprove the theory that the universe has just always existed. Unfortunately 'philosophical' evidence that the universe began is not tangible evidence relevant to this debate. As philosopher J.L. Mackie pointed out, "There is a priori no good reason why a sheer origination of things, not determined by anything, should be unacceptable, whereas the existence of a god with the power to create something out of nothing is acceptable" [1]. Additionally, the argument that nothing can begin without a cause is false when it comes to quantum fluctuation. In the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, for example, an alpha, beta, or gamma particle begins to exist spontaneously without a cause. In the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. Since the universe at the beginning of the Big Bang was as tiny as a subatomic particle (at singularity point), it could have been created with an uncaused quantum fluctuation that led to inflation which afterwards proceeded through the appearance of matter and structure [2]. Moreover, the uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again [3]. Scientists agree that electrons behave unpredictably on the quantum level, apparently popping in and out of existence at varying locations. They believe these quantum events seem to contradict traditional cause and effect relationships, thus defeating Kalam's causal premise [4]. As you can see, this argument has been defeated. [[ Re: Teleological Argument ]] Here we can see that Pro assumes that the universe is greatly designed, therefore begs a designer. However, there are examples of systems that are non-random or ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes - for example diamonds or snowflakes. Moreover, this logic does not follow as it implies an infinite regress. To put it simply, if EVERYTHING requires a designer, then who/what designed God? To say that God is not subject to the laws of the universe (requiring a designer) fails because it does not explain the improbable occurrence of the designer's existence in the first place, and does not combat the idea that if God can simply have just 'always existed,' then the same could be said about the universe. [[ Re: Moral Argument ]] Pro's moral argument could easily be combated by a quick perusing through 'Euthyphro' by Socrates. Ignoring the reality that many still reject the concept of objective morality in the first place, Pro should answer Socrates' question - Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God? If something is only good because God says so, then that combats the idea of objective morality because God can 'decide' what is moral on a whim thus defeating the concept. The alternative is that God made his commands in accordance with transcendental facts that exist apart from God — exactly the types of facts that the theist is asking the non-theist to provide an account for. The argument is thus turned over on its head; the theist must account for the existence of these transcendental facts without invoking God. The non-theist can thus recognize the transcendentalism of moral facts and yet still reject the premises on the basis that a theistic hypothesis still leaves transcendental moral facts unexplained [5]. Further, Pro's 2nd and 3rd premises don't even follow. Even if we agree that morality is objective, how does that prove that morality isn't inherent or that it requires a law giver? Pro should answer these questions before we continue any further with this argument. [[ Re: Religious Need Argument ]] Finally I'll reject all 3 premises of Pro's last argument. The first states that every natural innate need has a real object that can fulfill it, and the second claims that human beings have a natural innate need for some kind of spirituality that explains God's existence. However, Pro cannot prove any of these 3 premises and I ask that he do so before I provide an adequate rebuttal. The reality is that no such "need" can be proven thereby negating the entire argument. Moreover, even if we did have a 'need' for spirituality doesn't imply that we have a 'need' for God as the reality is that we can just fabricate the idea of a God to suit that need. Such an issue was raised by Voltaire when he posited that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to create Him. Feuerbach and Marx had a similar ideas. Many throughout history have noted the benefits or uses of religion, but again the existence of religion or organized religion in no way proves that God exists. [[ Conclusion ]] As you can see, I have negated every last one of Pro's arguments that attempt to prove God. As such, you have absolutely no reason to vote Pro even if you personally believe in God. On my behalf, there is no empirical evidence proving that God exists. If you can use science to disprove a myriad of other possibilities (including a flying spaghetti monster), then the same logic can be applicable to God. Moreover, the problem of evil seems to negate the existence of an omnibenevolent God. Why would an all-good God create/permit evil, and why would an omniscient God thereby essentially condemn people to Hell? Furthermore, the argument from inconsistent revelations posits that if God existed, theologians or believers would not have such a dramatically different perspective of what God was. The argument from non-belief follows suit, explaining that if God really existed and wanted everyone to believe in Him, he would have imposed a situation where people did not have a good reason to deny the existence of God. Instead, the Lord apparently wants people simply to have "faith" which is fine but does not prove a thing. Yet another problem is the omnipotence paradox: Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? If you say, "It's not logically possible so even God can't do it" then you agree that God adheres to the laws of logic/nature. However, almost all of God's attributes transcend the laws of logic and nature, so again this explanation does not follow. Good luck to my opponent in trying to prove that God exists. [[ Sources ]] [1] Mackie, J. L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Clarendon. [2] Edward Tryon. (1973). Nature, pp. 246. [3] http://www.infidels.org... [4] Reichenbach, Bruce. (2008). "Cosmological Argument: 4.1 The Causal Principle and Quantum Physics." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...