God Probably Doesn't Exist

Thankyou Con, I would like to get some things first as we have gone off on the wrong foot. Also, before we get into it, I am on the side of Atheistic, Agnostic and Nothing. I am not debating whether or not the Abrahamic god of the bible is true or not, I am simply attacking it. I am arguing whether god in general is true or not. However I clearly made the argument that you need defined limitations and understanding of who this god is, what this god can do and many other approaches before we could even comprehend whether a god could even be real. Now, I have accepted the burden of proof, but I don't know what I am proving or disproving because of the lack of limitations and boundaries of what 'a god' could have. For example, if I made my own assertions and claims that god was capable of a variety of things, if I asserted that the god in question made the earth roughly 3 billion years ago. I could see how old the earth is and test it; if it came back true, that does not prove a god, that only proves that the claim was accurate. However you could later simply suggest that this does not disprove the god, and this is not the limitation or boundaries of the capabilities of the god. It is your job to tell me what the god is, the limitations, extent and boundaries of the capabilities of this 'god'. If I was to make a claim about the future, if I said that in 3 years I will win the lottery. If, in three years I do win the lottery, it does not prove I am psychic, only that I have accurately described an event to take place in the future without knowledge of it. The same thing applies to assertions of a god, if you claim a god told you that the earth is 3 billion years old, and you find out it's true (it's not though, this is an example), that doesn't prove your god true, it proves that you were right. "1. Inappropriate Definitions - Kryptic claims at the outset that he will be arguing against "the Abrahamic God of the [B]ible." I never agreed to this. In point of fact, we are debating the existence of a general theistic God, as my introductory remarks above make clear. Even if the God of Christianity does not exist, perhaps the God of Islam exists, or the God of Judaism. Maybe all three great monotheistic religions are false, but the God of milk-and-water deism takes the day. This observation is significant, because failure to argue against these concepts of God amounts to failure to argue one's case in this debate." Although an unneeded paragraph, we can establish where we both are with understanding this debate. If the way I addressed the issue of the Abrahamic god of the bible was interpreted as my basis for critiquing and suggesting it does not exist (as well as my entire argument) I do apologise. I was only using it as a well informed example of what needs to be taken place in the time of suggesting a god does not exist. "2. Irrelevancy of Kryptic's Case " Following off the heels of the above, at least 60% of my opponent"s case for atheism is completely irrelevant. Showing that the Bible contains contradictions, for example, does nothing to suggest that God does not exist. Indeed, all Kryptic's case proves is that the Bible is not inerrant. But of course, we are not debating the inerrancy of the Bible. For what it is worth, Kryptic has not even shown that the Bible contains errors. His one example is Mark 16:18, a passage the vast majority of New Testament textual critics reject as part of Mark's gospel; verse 18 was probably a later addition. And the point is, inerrancy only applies to the Bible as it was originally penned. More generally, it does not matter how "unpleasant [and] unstable" the God of the Bible appears to my opponent, because that God is not under debate today. Moreover, concerns about how "personal" certain Christians' faith is to them is clearly irrelevant. Even if all Christians were fundamentalist, legalistic, and close-minded, stating that fact does not go a single inch in suggesting that Christianity is false, much less that God does not exist. In these two ways, we see Kryptic trying to "sneak in" inappropriate, irrelevant issues. But I will not take the bait. Instead, we must stay focused on our goal of assessing the arguments for and against the existence of God." In fact this is not true at ALL. I did not show the bible false because I am not debating about it. I am quite informed on the bible and my small example only gave a method to see if the bible could be right through testing. As my premise on this matter is, I am trying to find boundaries and limitations of this 'god' in question. I need to know them before I make rash claims, because if I do suggest that a god has limitations or boundaries. Then all you need to do is say that's not the god we are talking about. Or you will say it's an inappropriate definition. As we have already established you have done. Another thing is, you are not putting the god into any category which means it can fit into every category simultaneous. I used the Abrahamic god of the bible as an example and you said, well it could just as easily be the Islamic god. However if I used the Islamic god, which I would have if I had extensive knowledge within it, you would have said; why not the Abrahamic god of the bible? "science is not the only way of coming to a knowledge of what is real, and what is not real." Science by definition is observing. So yes, it is the ONLY way of coming to a knowledge of what is real. "For these three reasons, Kryptic's principle argument fails to establish that God probably doesn't exist." Due to the lack of limitations of boundaries, I could not 'prove' that a god doesn't exist, HOWEVER.... Because of the lack of proof a god does exist, all I would have to do is claim the EXACT SAME THING. I could just say I had a dream of darkness, and there was no god. I knew my dream was different because I was simultaneously awake. I knew what I saw and I am telling the truth. If I say "now go prove it to be false, otherwise it is true and there is no god" The lack of falsifiable evidence in both cases here; the example of the dream asserting there is no god, and the assertion that there is a god but fall under the same principle as... NO WAY TO OBSERVE. By that definition, I have just shown god not to be true. However I want to be realistic, understanding and respectful to the scientific method. Two great minds have shared knowledge over the years making into some incredible logic within just a few words. I will show them and show them why they are to be true. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." ~ Christopher Hitchens. Since the topic of God has always been an issue of debate, it has come to a point over time where there is literally nothing to suggest a god does exist. If you want to assert a god is real, then apply limitations and boundaries, say what it can and can't do. At this point we can test it, think about it and conclude. Just because something is not yet known doesn't mean it is not yet proven, the higs boson theory was a phenomena for years, but we finally got something to test and sure enough, it's real. "If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that's how you want to come at the problem." ~ Neil Tyson. Neil Tyson is talking about the God of the Gaps argument here and it refers to peoples lack of understanding and asserting certain things. God of the gaps definition - 'The phrase "god of the gaps" is used to describe the attempts by some people to justify the rationality of theism by relying upon "gaps" in scientific knowledge. In other words, because science cannot explain some event or object, then it is reasonable to believe that a god is responsible for the event or object.' [1] Now don't get me wrong, thinking there is a god at all is not a logical fallacy, it's a human right. it's a normal thing to do and a majority of people are either religious, agnostic or deistic. I am in no way attacking the ability or right to believe or respect / acknowledge a god. I do as well to an extent. However, to infer a god at the point of scientific illiteracy is simply unreasonable; and I will show you why. In the past, we used to think having a seizure meant being possessed by a demon, we used to think that being angry meant having a bad spirit over you, we used to think that being a homosexual meant literally being a satanic worshiper. We asserted these things to be true, we could not show them to be false, however when modern medicine and research came into the equation, we now know many are not 'supernatural / spiritual / unexplainable' but very simply common situations. Unfortunately, this keeps happening. Izaac Newton and Albert Einstein both suggested at the limitations of their knowledge and work that 'This must be where god literally intervenes'. But sure enough, it's not. We are still yet to see God manifest. Or show evidence of something that is not otherwise possible by nature. In summary. So far we have no seen evidence for a god, that does not mean we have been looking in the right place. The 'God' in question in this debate still needs to be properly addressed for me to make any other claims. I am also aware that I have no talked about every detail about this and have missed a lot, I would have continued, however the maximum character limit is only 10,000 and I am about to run out. I have two more times to address issues and want to conduct it with respect. I do apologise if anything I have said has either been taken offensively or inappropriately. I do respect people for having belief; I am just trying to address this issue as best as I can. I now leave it over to Con. References: http://atheism.about.com... [1]