There is a God

He has accepted his burden of proof and so I will begin. Pro begins by asking me why I am an atheist. This is a point I was going to bring up after rebuttals, but it won't hurt to go ahead and get it out of the way. My main reasons are as follows: 1) Lack of evidence. As cliche as this phrase has become, it is still very relevant: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that there is an omniscient, omnipotent being who has willed the entire cosmos into existence, has created time, space, and gravity, has fine-tuned the universe to sustain itself, and has created all of us is an extraordinary one. Such a claim, therefore, must be substantiated with extraordinary evidence. This evidence must go far beyond a self-contradictory, tenuous work of literature that has been shown not to be historically or logically accurate [1]. It must also go beyond certain aspects of the world or the universe happening to work out some of the time. In other words, the fact that we're at an ideal distance from the sun, thus allowing life to flourish, doesn't prove the existence of God. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't be here to have this debate, as is the case in the millions of exoplanets that cannot sustain life. 2) The universe functions perfectly well without presupposing God. We now understand many aspects of the universe, and of time, space, gravity, et cetera. A thousand years ago, before scientific and technological advances, using God as a 'prime mover' for the cosmos was the best explanation of how things work. But we've moved past that. We know why the earth orbits the sun; we know why the tides come in and go out; we know how the universe began and how it has developed since then. (I don't think these are specific enough to require sources, but if pro wishes for me to provide them I will in the next round. ) And the beauty of this is that it all functions perfectly well without needing to work God into the equation. Here, Occam's Razor takes over. If the universe functions as it should without the idea of an infinitely complex being, it would be illogical to include said being in the equation. It's unnecessary and, as we understand more and more, becomes increasingly unlikely. 3) Many aspects of life don't make sense presupposing God. This one is a bit more subjective, so bear with me. Let me give an example of this: our galaxy is currently on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy. Our sun is due to explode in a few billion years. We are slowly losing our moon. A star has died and exploded every second since the universe began. (I think these are common enough knowledge that they don't require sources, but again, I can provide them if requested. ) Genocide, rape, and destruction are all too common. Now ask yourself which is more likely: a) that these things are all happening as the result of an unknowable and elaborate plan that God has carefully constructed and oversees, or b) that these things are happening because the Big Bang created groups of matter and energy and that are randomly hurtling through space. I think it's the latter, and a claim to the former would require. . you guessed it: extraordinary evidence. I'd like to touch on this (and elaborate on the three points I've made) more in the next round so that I have enough space for rebuttals. Rebuttals: "First, I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn't believe that there was a builder, is a fool," etc. I agree. When I see unnatural things, I also conclude they were made. When I look at a sunset, though, I don't believe it had a creator, nor when I look at trees, or the earth, or our galaxy. Unnatural things do not require a creator, and thus you have created a false analogy. A computer requires a creator because it cannot be made by natural means. But other, natural things, like rain, happen of their own accord. A creator for these things is unnecessary. "But that's what the atheist believes--that nothing created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and its silly to would believe that. " Besides being extremely reductionist, this claim is false. Many scientists actually do maintain that 'something' can come from 'nothing. ' Lawrence Krauss, a prominent theoretical physicist, actually has a book and an online lecture entitled "A Universe From Nothing. " In it, he explains that 'nothing' actually refers to zero net energy; this means that gravity (which has negative energy) and matter (positive) cancel each other out. In this Zero-Energy universe, which ours has been proven to be, quantum fluctuations (a result of quantum particles sporadically popping in and out of existence) can produce singularities. We know the Big Bang originated in a singularity, and thus the cycle of our universe unfolds before our eyes [2]. Your argument here is easily dismantled. I would like to point out that pro's entire second argument was plagiarized from this website: . http://www.4forums.com... However, even in plagiarized form, this argument does not follow. Why do 'logical absolutes' prove a God? Even if pro wants to argue that these laws presuppose a God, that would not mean that God follows from them. Here is an elaboration on that point: "To say that A presupposes B is to say that we could not "make sense" of A without assuming B. However, supposing we grant that one must assume B to make sense of A, it does not follow that B is true. For example, if I am trying to communicate to an audience by speaking to them in English, my action makes no sense unless they understand English. But it does not follow that they do. They might only understand Chinese. Scientists listening to radio signals from outer space in order to make contact with extraterrestrial life presuppose that such life is possible. But it does not follow that it is" [3]. As a result of my rebuttal of pro's second argument, his third argument does not need to be addressed. He uses the previous argument as one of its premises; since that premise has been shown to be false, his argument does not follow and is invalid. So that should do it. I have adequately refuted all of pro's claims. I have also established a case of my own, although I will be going into more detail with it in the next round. Again, I thank pro for accepting and look forward to his response. Sources: 1 - . http://www.coppit.org... 2 - . http://www.youtube.com... 3 - . http://www.infidels.org...