Christianity vs Atheism

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence I am devils advocating this debate, and actually found this argument a compelling case for atheism. This argument takes advantage of a basic and accepted principle: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It basically looks like this: 1. If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false. 2. The claim that a god exists is an extraordinary claim. 3. Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false. 4. There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that a god exists. 5. Therefore, the claim that a god exists may be considered false [1]. The claim of god is an extraordinary one indeed. It argues a supreme being which most of us wont come into physical contact until we die exist, and it argues his intellect is beyond our comprehension and his abilities make him the most powerful thing ever. This is extraordinary indeed. It should also be held to the highest standard of evidence. And this evidence simply doesn’t exist. In the absence of such evidence, it is just to reject the theory of theism (in this case, Christianity). This attitude is related to all religions. Before debate of whether god existed (it was universal belief or forced belief) in deities that prevented much debate. Christians, for example, do not believe in the greek gods, Aztec gods, they are atheists to every god except one—their “god”—and does he get a name (I have always wondered what his name is, lol). But really, none of those former gods was disproven. Then why are they rejected? Because no evidence for extraordinary gods exists. As Kruger notes, “No one has ever been able to prove that these gods do not exist, yet no xian believes that such gods exist now or that they have existed in the past. Thus, it seems that most believers in the Judeo-xian god disbelieve in claims about other gods even though the nonexistence of such beings has not been shown. They disbelieve in such gods because there is absolutely no evidence that such beings exist. They use a presumption of atheism.”[1] Presumption of atheism is extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence if you where wondering. Due to the fact Christians reject those gods due to lacking evidence, why do they believe in a god at all? Unless my opponent can provide evidence—which seems difficult—he cannot win this debate. So the question to my opponent: do you have any extraordinary evidence? Argument from evil We are talking about the Christian god in this debate. Meaning god has a few powers: he knows all, he is all-powerful, is all loving, and wants the best for everyone. However, we see if these attributes exist here is a question: why does evil exist at all? Even if I lose all points in this debate but prove this one—I obtain victory as it disproves a Christian god—and if I win the former point (extraordinary) I disprove all gods and still win the debate. Now, here is how the argument goes: 1.There is needless suffering in the world. 2.If god were to exist, then there would be no needless suffering in the world. 3.Therefore, god does not exist. In defending the first premise, the point nearly impossible to beat. Everyone agrees this occurs. For example, the tragedy in 9/11 was horrible, children born deformed or mentally deficient is also very tragic, child abuse still occurs and slavery is still very common. In reality, my opponent will agree this occurred rather he will argue with premise two. As Kruger notes, “So why wasn't the needless suffering of the holocaust prevented? If god is unwilling to prevent it, then god is not all-good. If god is unable to prevent evil, then god is either not all-powerful (he was unable to prevent it even though he may have wanted to do so and knew that this evil would occur), or he is not omniscient (he did not know that this evil was about to occur), or he is both not all-powerful and not omniscient. Any of these concessions would spell defeat for the theist. If any of these attributes are denied, then this is an admission that the god of theism, as we have defined it, does not exist. Thus, the fact of the existence of evil, or suffering, makes the traditional concept of god untenable because the theist cannot maintain the traditional theistic concept of god and plausibly allow that needless suffering exists.”[1] As we can see, it either means the Christian god is powerless (meaning I win the debate—he is no longer the “Christian” god—or it means he does not exist at all. The point is fairly clear and straightforward. Conclusion: I am not good at religion debates so I shall be brief. I have done two things: 1. Shown god cannot exist unless evidence is given 2. A Christian god—an all powerful, good, all knowing god—cannot exist and is incompatible with evil. Meaning Christianity is refuted. Vote CON [1] http://www.infidels.org...