The Evidence Points to Atheism

I would like to thanks Fritz for acceptingMy ArgumentsArgument 1: Non CognitivismThe Argument from Non Cognitivism is formed like this,1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being: A. Primary AttributesB. Secondary AttributesC. Relational Attributes.2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.3. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.4. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.6. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.Argument 2: Argument from Reasonable non-belief.Theodore Drange formed the argument like this1.God is omniscient. 2.God is omnipotent. 3.God wants everyone to believe in him. 4.Since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what demonstration would convince any given person that he exists. 5.Since God is omnipotent, he is capable of performing this demonstration. 6.Since God wants everyone to believe in him, he wants to perform this demonstration. 7.However, atheists manifestly exist. 8.Therefore, the god described by the first three conditions does not exist. Also formed1.God either does or does not reveal his existence 2.If God does not reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief 3.If God does reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief, only knowledge 4.The problem of vagueness indicates that there is an unclear ground for belief. Argument 2a: Application to Bay’s Theorem.We can apply any one of these arguments to Bay’s Theorem, which is a Theorem on calculating the probability of something. We'll use this one.For a better understanding of Bay’s, I recommend reading the Wikipedia article on it.http://en.wikipedia.org...Bay’s starts with taking the probability of hypothesis being true based solely on the background knowledge and nothing else. We will assume the background knowledge of God existing is 50/50. Now we must get the probability based on evidence. We have a lot of experience with beings that have these characteristics of wanting to give evidence, having the power to do so and actually doing it. They’re called humans. If we have 1000 humans who want to give evidence they exist and have the power to do so, there wouldn’t be any reason at all for someone not to give that evidence. Let’s be really generous and say there exists 50 good, unique, and valid reasons for not giving that evidence. This would mean our probability for God’s existence would be 50 or 0.5 and against would be 950. Our equation with answers is below. 0.5*0.5 = 0.25P= ----------------- 0.5* 950 = 475 + 0.25= 475.25 0.25/475.25 = 0.0005Meaning there’s only a 0.0005% chance God exists.The resolution is affirmed.My Opponent's arguments1. Contingency2. KalamI will respond to both cosmological arguments. The first premise of the contingency isEverything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.and Kalam isEverything that begins to exist has a cause.These are however wrongPhysical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause or contingent reason is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus. As other events such as Quantum vacuum fluctuations have no cause. [1][2][3]All Con says is the name of the arguments, but these arguments if valid only show the universe had a cause. Con needs to prove that cause is God and the reason of the universe's existence is because of God. The arguments are irrelevant until Con proves otherwise.3. The moral argumentCon gives us the moral argument, but a typical definition of "moral" is assumed. I need Con to define "morality". Keep in mind Con's definition can't include a reference to God, otherwise his argument is begging the question, by stating the very thing he's trying to prove that morality comes from God. If Con doesn't include a reference God than the conclusion (that God exists) can never be reached.For example, why does Con think something like murder is wrong? Saying "Because God says so" is circular and saying "The victim is suffering" would need proof that in a universe where no gods exist the victim wouldn't suffer.Euthyphro dilemma "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" -SocratesIn modern terms it would be formed "Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?"If the first is true, then there's an objective standard of morality above God.If the second is true, then morality is just might makes right, it would make good arbitrary to what God commands. 4. Fine-tuning argumentSince Con just says "the teleological argument from fine-tuning" I can only go so far. Con needs to provide specific examples.The fine tuning argument is actually a good argument for atheism“Similarly the “fine tuning” of the universe’s physical constants: that would be a great proof—if it wasn’t exactly the same thing we’d see if a god didn’t exist. If there is no god, we will only ever find ourselves in a universe finely tuned (in that case, by random chance), because without a god, there is no other kind of universe that can produce us.... a universe that produced us by chance would have to be enormously vast in size & enormously old, so as to have all the room to mix countless chemicals countless times in countless places so as to have any chance of accidentally kicking up something as complex as life. That’s exactly the universe we see: one enormously vast in size & age. A godless universe would also only produce life rarely & sparingly, & that’s also what we see: by far most of the universe is lethal to life (being a deadly radiation filled vacuum) & by far most of the matter in the universe is lethal...Again, all exactly what we’d expect of a godless universe. Not what we’d expect of a god-made one." -Richard Carrier [4]Paul Doland has this to say about the fine tuning argument [5]I've coined a phrase to describe the "fine-tuning" argument. I call it the "astonishment index." People find the universe, well, astonishing--and rightly so. It is quite amazing that it exists. And the "fine-tuning" argument seems to argue that the more astonishing the universe is, the more unlikely it is to exist without a creator. Thus, Collins seems to be saying that the probability of the universe existing without cause is inversely proportional to the astonishment index. But no matter how high the universe ranks on the astonishment index, God must rank even higher. So the probability that God has no creator must be even lower than the probability that there is no creator of the universe! 5. Ontological argumentThe ontological argument can prove anything if its reasoning is validGaunilo's island The perfect Island is that than which no greater can be conceived. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea. If the Perfect Island does not exist, one can conceive of an even greater island, id est one that does exist. Therefore, the perfect Island exists in reality. Hercules refutation Hercules is the greatest warrior in history. A warrior that existed is greater than one that did not. If Hercules only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater warrior Therefore, Hercules existed Thanks! Back to Con Sources in link below [1] http://tny.cz...