Every one who believes in god delusional

Pro writes some characteristics of god. This is somewhat misleading though. Classical theists did not believe that God could be 'defined.' They believed that it would contradict the transcendent nature of God for mere humans to define him. Robert Barron explains by analogy that it seems impossible for a two dimensional object to conceive of three dimensional humans.[3] (1) Or as professor Gottlieb puts it, God himself cannot be described "We describe what god does, not who he is." All "descriptions of god" are not descriptions of God's self, but rather describe how he interacts with us. For example, "God is all powerful", means anything can happen, if god wills it. but we cannot describe gods self. Pro says: Every religion emphasizes faith, which he defines as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". That is simply false anti-religion propaganda. There may be some with that attitude, but there are many that are not that way. 1 of the most famous examples is Dr. William lance Craig & his organization "Reasonable Faith" for Christianity. (2) ( professor Dale Gottlieb in Judaism (3).) There are 100s of books & organizations that teach (a) rational approach(s) to belief in god. Some are better than others, & many people personally don't agree with any of their arguments, but to say "Every religion emphasizes faith" which you define as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Is simply ignoring millions (if not billions) of believers. Pro mentions the famous rock paradox. The best answer to this is that it's not even a question. The term "a rock god can't lift" has no meaning, it CANNOT exist. The term "a rock god can't lift", is an internal contradiction, analogous to the term square circle. There is no such thing as "a rock god can't lift", so you can't ask if he can create it. Analogy: Can god check mate with just a king? Is not a question, because there is no such thing as "check mate with just a king". (I give credit to Prof. Dale Gottlieb for this answer.) Pro writes: "Being omniscient would suggest that god knows everything that is going to happen, thus free will is nonexistent..." 1 simple answer is that the assumption is not necessarily true. God knowing what someone will do, doesn't logically mean that he does not have free will? We think this way because of association. Any time we know something will happen, it's because there is no free will involved. For example watching something that already happened, or someone under hypnosis, something being dropped, the only way we know what will happen is because there is no free will involved. Thus we associate knowing what will happen with determinism. Pro has not proved that gods foreknowledge negates the possibility of there being free will. If my opponent does so, I will provide a slightly more complex answer. My opponent rejects the possibility of answering his question by listing a number of reasons and conditions for why such a god would do something like this, because of occams razor. (It's interesting to note that Ockham himself was a theist. - http://en.wikipedia.org....) There are a few problems with using Ockhams Razor: 1) It is not used to disprove something, it is used to chose between 2 equal theories. It's more of a pragmatic tool, than a logical proof. 2) Occams Razor itself is not by any means a universally accepted tool. There are philosophers who have created what are called Anti-Razors. (4) 3) It ignores all the assumptions that are required to explain a world without god. For example punctuated equilibrium, & many other scientific theories. Standard Evidence used for proving god: 1. The Cosmological Argument from Contingency: a) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. b) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. c) The universe exists. d) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from a, c). e) Therefore, the explanation of the universe"s existence is God (from b, d). Pro will probably challenge b, when doing so he should provide an alternative. Thomistic variation of cosmological argument: a. What we observe in this universe is contingent (i.e. dependent, or conditional) b. A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite c. The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument: a) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. b) The universe began to exist. c) Therefore, the universe has a cause. d) That cause is god. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 3.The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties a) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. b) Objective moral values and duties do exist. c) Therefore, God exists. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning a) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. b) It is not due to physical necessity or chance. c) Therefore, it is due to design. Examples of Fine Tuning: 1. If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as one part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. (As John Jefferson Davis points out, an accuracy of one part in 1060 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.) (5) 2. A change in the strength of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe"s expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang"s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010(123). Penrose comments, "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010(123)."23 And it"s not just each constant or quantity that must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers. (2) 3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 1040, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Collins 1999, 49.)[37](5) More complex examples: http://www.reasonablefaith.org... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Thomistic Cosmological Argument #1 (TCA1) 1. Whatever is in motion is moved by another. 2. There exist beings in motion. 3. There cannot be an infinite regression of moved beings. 4. Therefore, there must be a first mover. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are many more, but these are the basic ones, & I'm running out of room. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.reasonablefaith.org... (3) http://www.dovidgottlieb.com... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor#Controversial_aspects_of_the_razor (5) http://plato.stanford.edu...