God Does Not Exist

Hello! I am very excited to be participating in this debate and I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity. I will be presenting a case for the existence of God through the lenses of 'best explanations'.. More specifically, I firmly believe that the Christian worldview is the most plausibly true in the face of all the atheist and other such objections which in my experience, I find to be lacking in explanatory scope. Nevertheless, I look forward to a thoughtful debate and wish my opponent the best of luck, Lets begin: Argument from Contingency:(1). Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.(2). If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.(3). The universe exists.(4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.(5). Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is GodDefinition of Contingent: Occurring or existing only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent onhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Now according to premise (1), everything that exists either exists by neccesity of its own nature (I.e. it needs to exist) or it exists contingently. We understand this from our everyday experience, something doesn't just 'exist' without a reason but rather it needs an explanation. Now premise (2) is playing on our understanding of contemporary Big Bang cosmology.. We have significant evidence that the universe came into being from literally nothing roughly 13.7 billion years ago.. http://www.bethinking.org...Whatever brought the universe into existence at this point needs to meet some requirements. It must be eternal (since it created time), it must be omnipotent (since it created everything), and it most be spaceless (since it created space).. Its also important to note that this being cannot be an abstract quality but rather an unembodied personal mind since abstract quantities are not causally related to anything. We are thus left, with a few of the characteristics of the Christian God. The remaining premises are logically airtight, since we know that the universe exists (unless you are willfully ignorant) then the remaining two follow given the validity of the first two premises. This ultimately concludes in God being the best explanation for the existence of the universe in which we inhabit. Argument from Design:1). the universe appears fine tuned for intelligent life 2). The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.3). It is not due to physical necessity or chance.4). Therefore, it is due to design.Take a few moments to look at some of the universal constants: * Speed of Light: c=299,792,458 m s-1 * Gravitational Constant: G=6.673 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 * Planck's Constant: 1.05457148 x 10-34 m2 kg s-2 * Planck Mass-Energy: 1.2209 x 1022 MeV * Mass of Electron, Proton, Neutron: 0.511; 938.3; 939.6 MeV http://www.reasonablefaith.org...we see that these values are VERY specific quantities whereby, any change in the slightest to these values would not allow for a life permitting universe to exist. Take it from the big man himself:"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" - Stephen HawkingThis leads us to premise (2) in which, 3 options are given to explain this remarkable phenomenon:Physical Neccesity - There is not a single shred of evidence as to the universe 'needing' to exist with these quantities set the way they are.. No laws of nature dictate this process, there is simply no reason to believe in the physical neccesity hypothesisChance - Lets understand that their are around 50 of these dials that all need to be in their own infetesimally small life permitting range in order to allow life. The odds of this simply cannot be grasped by our limited understanding. To quote myself from a previous debate: "The chance that all of these values would be set in these specific quantities can best be likened to an orchestra in which, any 'out of tune' value would result in the complete failure of the ensemble. Pulling the luck card in this situation is just not a viable option "Design - The only reasonable explanation that stands is the universe being set in these values by an intelligent designer (as stated in premises 3-4) Argument from Objective Morality: 1). If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist2). Objective moral values exist3). Therefore, God existsIn speaking of 'objective morality', I am speaking of moral values and ethics that are true regardless of others opinions. Just as 2+2=4 is 'objective' truth. Now according to the first premise, 'objective' moral values cannot exist in a naturalistic worldview, without a moral law giver, there is no moral law. Morality without God is nothing more then varied opinions, walking into a schoolyard and unloading the clip on any toddler in sight is not really wrong, its just not beneficial to society...Now according to the (2) premise, moral values are objective. There are certain actions and behaviors that are not only socially regressive, they are moral abominations across all cultures, races, and orientations. Raping a little child is one such action, another would be cheating on another mans wife. There is a specific standard by which, all humanity judges each other actions.. C.S Lewis puts it perfectly:'The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about."It then follows exactly, that God exists the foundation for our sense of an objective moral standard by which, we judge the world.Argument from the Historical Jesus Christ: 1). There are 3 established facts regarding Jesus life: His empty tomb, His post mordem appearances, and the origin of the disciples belief in His resurrection. 2). the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these facts 3). the hypothesis that "God raised Jesus from the dead" entails that God exists 4). Therefore, God exists Disagreeing with premise (1) is the logical equivalent of disagreeing with modern science on the existence of atoms. in fact, these three historical events (empty tomb, post mordem appearances, and the origin of the disciples belief) are general accepted as historic fact by the majority of NT scholarship. I can elaborate more on this in the latter rounds if my opponent so deems. Premise (2) is where the controversy really lies.. Did you know that the leading explanation for these facts is a mass hallucination between the disciples? To put it simply, the disciples all hallucinated Jesus... What? Never in the history of mankind has their ever been a mass hallucination between large groups of people.. This explanation just does not hold up.. Other half hearted explanations like the 'twin brother' hypothesis or the presumptuous idea that the disciples stole the body and lied all crumble under serious examination. As best stated by William Lane Craig, "in order for atheist to discount a miracle, they have to create a miracle!".. I urge my opponent to give a more viable explanation for these happenings rather then Jesus actually rising like He said He would.Since the best explanation for these occurrences is the resurrection of Jesus, then Premise (3) and (4) stand firmly since God needs to exist for the resurrection hypothesis to have any merit. Conclusion:According to these 4 arguments, we can come to these conclusions: God is the best explanation for why anything exists at all God is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universeGod is the best explanation for objective moral values and dutiesGod is the best explanation for the historical events concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ I expect my opponent will either discount the credibility of either given premises above or show how these premises if true, do not logical lead to God as the best explanation. Nonetheless, I look forward to my opponents further rebuttals. Back to Pro Sources: 1). http://www.reasonablefaith.org...