The Abrahamic God Does Not Exist

I would like to remind readers what the resolution is: "The Abrahamic God Does Not Exist" My opponent has accepted the Burden of Proof, therefore we should assume the Abrahamic God possible until Pro shows otherwise. Note, the resolution deals with certainty, not probabilities. My burden is to find flaws in Pros argument. If I establish one single contradiction or flaw in any way, it will make the Abrahamic God possible and I win the debate. I will now address my opponent's case, then present one of my own. First Argument My opponent starts by saying God is superfluous, that is nice, but it helps his case none. We are not here to determine if God is superfluous. In fact if we go ahead and say, "God is no longer needed for all humanity"(*sarcasm), that still doesn't show us God don't exist. Here are his argument points: "We needed many gods to explain things we did not understand" We chose to use God to answer things we do not understand. My opponent must show that Christians and Judaism use God to explain things around them. If this were true then we would have never invented science. The point helps my case that God may exist. "Gaps in our previous understanding are now being explained by natural phenomena" Of course they are, we have been around for along time and we will learn even more. My opponent ignores supernatural phenomena when we cannot rule out almost any possibility. [1] "We now know that "God did it" is a non-answer" Of course we can use the 'God did it' answer. But, what we cannot do is tell people to stop believing in God. When have we reached the point we are we tell people to stop using God when we do not understand things? It hasn't been in this debate. "This means that God is superfluous. " No, this simply means man uses God to explain things they do not understand. I doubt you will find many people who do that anymore unless it calls for it. This doesn't prove God does not exist. "Therefore, it is rational to conclude that this being does not exist" It is never rational to conclude such notions. You can never make such bold claims because you do not know. You may never know. Frankly, you have taken upon yourself a heavy burden in this debate. I feel you may not be able to carry it. Second Argument Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit I am surprised Pro offers us Dawkins argument from his book, 'the God delusion'. This argument has been pretty well criticized. The reason for this is because the argument is a logical fallacy of begging the question. In order to have an explanation of a event, you don't have to have the explanation of the explanation. [2] This argument has been widely accepted as invalid. Plantinga writes: "So first, according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex. More remarkable, perhaps, is that according to Dawkins's own definition of complexity, God is not complex. "[3] For this argument to be a valid one Pro must show us materialism is true. I offer John Lennox to explain it to us. .. .. .---> The video . http://www.youtube.com... Third Argument The problem of evil If an all-powerful and perfectly good God exists, then evil does not. There is evil in the world. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist. There is a big problem with this argument because it assumes God and evil cannot co-exist. Pro needs to show us premises which bring out this contradiction. God could have sufficient reasons for permitting evil in the world. We are not in the position to determine whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur. The Bible gives us doctrine how and why God and evil co-exist. My Argument I will offer one contention, Thomas's "five ways" Thomas's "Five Ways"[4] or five proofs for the existence of God are often named as follows: Note* All these arguments together are strong. Individually they are much weaker. (1) Argument from motion This argument deals with motion. It contends nothing can move without reason and therefore needing a reason to move. This argument combines into the second which is the necessity for a first mover. (2) Argument from efficient cause The argument contends that nothing exists prior to itself. Nothing is the efficient cause of itself. It contends if a cause does not exist then the things does not exist. Therefore it is necessary to for a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God (I contend the Abrahamic God). (3) Argument from necessary being This argument contends that contingent beings come and go in and out of existence. Therefore there could have been a time when nothing existed. Therefore some being exists on its own and brought everything into being. (4) Argument from gradations of goodness This argument contends that there are good and bad things, some better or worse than others. Therefore there must be a being which causes there being so much goodness. (5) Argument from design. We can observe natural bodies which work for a goal. Natural things lack knowledge. Therefore some intelligence exists by whom all things direct their end; and this being we call God. I send back to Pro and await curiously. LINKS: [1] . http://www.albany.edu...... [2] . http://www.godandscience.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://web.mnstate.edu...