Why god exists

Thanks, Pro, for challenging me to a rematch. == Rebuttals == C1 - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence Perhaps this could be more aptly stated as "absence of evidence is not *proof* of absence." Absence of evidence for X counts against the existence of X just in case we should expect to find more evidence for X if X actually exists. Suppose that if God exists, it is very likely that we should find a certain kind of evidence. By contrast, if God does not exist, it is very unlikely we should find such evidence. If no evidence is found and all other factors are equal, following Baye's theorem, it is probable that God does not exist.[1] I don't find Pro's arguments particularly convincing for reasons I will get to shortly. Moreover, I think the assumption that if God exists we should expect to find good evidence is reasonable. Therefore, a fortiori, God probably does not exist. C2 - Cosmological argument On theism, God is a brute fact explaining the existence of the cosmos. On naturalism, the cosmos is a brute fact that is ultimately unexplained. The task for the proponent of the cosmological argument is to show that God is more likely to exist without an explanation than the cosmos, which Pro has not done. C3 - Teleological argument The improbability of a given scenario does not ipso facto point to anything. Suppose there is a 1 in 1,000,000 of any given person winning the lottery. Just because I happen to win is not evidence of tampering. The anthropic principle explains that if the universe were not fine tuned for life, we could not be having this conversation, just as we would not express any particular shock if someone other than ourselves won the lottery. == Con Case == C1 - The problem of evil William Rowe's evidential argument from evil is considered the "gold standard" of its kind in contemporary philosophical circles.[2] It is as follows: (1) There probably exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (2) An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. .:. Therefore, there probably does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. Examples of gratuitous suffering that support the first premise might include plagues, earthquakes, hurricanes, world wars, the Holocaust, etc. The second premise is uncontroversial. C2 - The problem of non-belief Charles Echelbarger argues that the Gospel message contains three essential propositions. (1) There is a being who rules the entire universe. (2) This being has a son. (3) He has sent his son to be the savior of humanity. Let situation S be the situation of all, or nearly all, humans since the time of Jesus of Nazareth coming to believe all three propositions of the Gospel message by the time of their physical death. (1) If the God of evangelical Christianity were to exist, then he would: a. Be able to bring about situation S. b. Want to bring about situation S, i.e., have it among his desires. c. Not want anything else that necessarily conflicts with his desire to bring about situation S as strongly as he wants to bring about situation S. d. Always act in accord with his own highest purposes. (2) If a being who has all four properties listed above were to exist, then situation S would have to obtain. (3) Situation S does not obtain. (4) Therefore, there does not exist a being who has all four properties listed in P1. .:. Therefore, the God of Biblical Christianity does not exist. || CONCLUSION || Pro's three arguments for theism ultimately fail for the reasons I've outlined. On the other hand, I've given two positive arguments for atheism. Judging solely on the evidence presented thus far by both sides, it is unlikely that God exists. The resolution is negated. References: 1. http://blog.sigfpe.com... 2. http://www.iep.utm.edu...