Atheism is more Probable than Theism

He has presented evidential and logical arguments against God to which I will respond. I would like to make it clear that I do not have to argue that theism is more probable atheism, but only that atheism is not more probable than theism. If my arguments properly defend agnosticism over atheism, then I win the debate. I have not used any sources as all of the thoughts which follow are my own. My organizational style is as follows: I have put my opponent’s arguments in green. I have summarized my opponent’s arguments. I have numbered my opponent’s arguments and put a number followed by a letter to denote my response to them. ARGUMENTS Negative Arguments [1] the problem of evil [1.1] evil originated in God If evil had a beginning, then it must have originated in God. [1.1A] confusion of two kinds of beginning and causation It does not follow that if evil has a beginning, and therefore began in God, that God is morally responsible for evil. If I give birth to a child who grows up to kill someone, I may be causally responsible for the person’s death (as well as generations before me as the chain goes on and on) but I am not morally responsible. Similarly, if evil originated in God (for it could not come about without God) it does not mean that God is to blame for evil, which is what the argument implies. [1.2] traditional formulation of the PE God’s traditional attributes cannot co-exist with evil that exists for no purpose. [1.2A] negation of evil in the grand scheme Acknowledging the existence of pointless and horrendous evil, why exactly should God eliminate evil if it will all be eliminated anyway due to our deaths (and the death of the world)? From our perspective, evil can seem so overwhelming sometimes. But from God’s perspective, from the point of view from eternity, even the most horrible evil is like a paper-cut on a hand. God is traditionally understood as desiring for us a whole other world from which we fell and to which we are meant to return. Indeed, considering this grander scheme of things, wouldn’t it be redundant for God to stop evil? So while God may have the power and desire to stop evil, doing so would simply be impractical. [2] argument from demographics One’s religious beliefs are based on the region in which one grows up. Why would God let something like that determine one’s conception of God? [2A] what incentive for caring? In round one, my opponent said that we are not referring to a specific deity. So if we are not referring to a specific deity, then why would the deity care what conception people have of him as long as they acknowledge his general existence? [2B] incidental and irrelevant But going beyond this, even if we were talking about a specific God who wants people to reject one vision and accept another, the argument still would not work. Just because where one lives can affect one’s religious beliefs does not mean it has to. Human beings are perfectly capable of considering other religious conceptions, challenging their own, and even rejecting their own in favor of another. Many view reason itself as a gift from God, by which to attain knowledge over such matters. If demographics get in the way, that is an unfortunate circumstance, but it does not cast doubt on God’s existence. [3] incoherency among divine attributes [3.1] incomprehensibility versus all other attributesIf God cannot be comprehended, then how can we say that God is all-powerful or all-knowing, for that would entail that we comprehend something about him? [3.1A] partial incomprehensibility Some theists say that God is comprehensible; some say that He is not comprehensible, and others do not speak on this issue. There is no common consensus on the conception of God. I went to Catholic school for several years and do not recall hearing about the incomprehensibility of God. It all depends on whom you ask. Considering this, the most bipartisan conception of God we must form based on comprehensibility would be one in which comprehensibility is intermingled with the other attributes, but not dominated by them nor dominant over them. For example, God can be spoken of as being loving, though we cannot comprehend how much He loves us or why or what He would do for us. One can apply this to any of the other attributes. There is no contradiction there. We must not use an ultra-literal interpretation of the words. [3.2] free will versus omniscience If we have free will, then how can God know what actions we will take? [3.2A] omniscience does not include knowledge of future As for the free will issue, some theologians have accepted both that humans have free will and that God knows the future. I am somewhat open to this but mainly I lead to the view that God cannot know the future because it does not exist and so knowing it would be logically impossible, and God’s powers are not traditionally understood to cover what is logically impossible. God’s omniscience therefore does not include knowledge of the future, so his omniscience is not in contradiction with the free will of humans. Positive Arguments I will present one two arguments for the existence of God. the modal cosmological argument The universe is contingent. We know this because we can imagine it being different from how it is. Since it is contingent, its existence does not follow from any aspect of it. There is nothing about it which explains why it exists. Whereas the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is tautological and hence requires nothing to make it so, the universe requires something else than itself to explain why it exists. If we simply posit another universe to explain the existence of this universe, then the problem only becomes backed up and we now have no answer to where that universe comes from. The only way out of the problem is to posit something radically different. If we keep positing something natural, we are left with the same problem, but if we posit something “supernatural”, we have a better explanation. We still would not know how this supernatural thing exists without a cause (we could never know that, regardless of what we posit), but we would have found a more likely first cause, as it differs from all other things that could be posited. the argument from beautyUnlike any other creature, human beings have the ability to see and appreciate beauty. We find beauty in music, in literature, in paintings, in the bodies and faces of fellow human beings. The ability serves no natural or evolutionary purpose. It does not fit into any materialistic scheme. Hence, we must look beyond to the divine realm and must posit some kind of “supernatural” being to account for the existence of beauty and our ability to see and appreciate it. CONCLUSION 1- The problem of evil does not refute God’s existence. It fails to acknowledge the smallness of evil compared to eternity. 2- The demographics of atheism are irrelevant to a general deity. 3- The concept of God as I have laid out is not incoherent. The charges of incoherence against God are based on certain people’s over-literal and misapplied use of words. 4- The argument from beauty points to the existence of a God.