God exists (pro) vs God does not exist (con)

Fine Tuning If some of the variables are changed, then local conditions in the Universe change. But we simply do not know how any of the variables could have varied, if at all, nor what Universe results or not. The mind bending calculations are pulled from nowhere. No explanation of why we should be amazed by the electron:proton mass, as opposed to say the early entropy of the Universe (which was far lower than it needed to be). It just seems convenient for theists to cherry pick some small numbers, multiply them by other small numbers and then stand back in amazement. It is snake oil. Take the expansion rate of the Universe. We are (or at least were) told by theists that it is 10 to 60th power tuned. But the rigorous derivation of the expansion rate (using the correct equations from General Relativity) turns out is not 10 to 60th power, but 1 (ie 100% likely). Do theists update their assumptions? Nope, they move on to their next apparently fine tuned number and off we go again. There are some things to explain about the Universe, but UNTIL the underlying Physics is more complete we have no grounds to conclude that any apparent fine tuning is present. The explanation of these effects may just be waiting a more fundamental view of the Physics. So the very best this argument can ever be is inductive, ie the Universe is probably designed. But it cannot even get us that far. There is a false trichotomy in Premise 2 as it automatically rules out the possibility of evolution and anthropic principle, or the conjectured Multiverse. It is not in my burden to show that the alternatives are true, but Pros to show that they are false if he wants to conclude that the Universe IS designed. If it is designed we would expect a well engineered, self-contained, neat, tidy, newish, life friendly Universe where humanity appeared early on (we are the purpose after all). Instead we observe a chaotic, vastly old, incomprehensibly large and 99.999..% deadly Universe where just the sheer size ensures there are billions upon billions of continual, physical and biochemical experiments. Why is the emergence of humans so different? Physicists also say that our Universe is the perfect for the appearance of Black Holes. Given the vast majority of matter and energy in the Universe is contained in Black Holes, it seems a safer conclusion that they were the purpose. When taken together I would not be the first Atheist to point out that this is an argument for Atheism. The whole attempt underestimates god. Why would a god care what the ratio of the electron:proton mass are. If he wanted x to be true with a 1:100 ratio or a 1:50 ratio, it would be true. A god does not need to be tinkering, tweaking and footling like some mad old professor, it should just be. Instead we find ourselves living on a knife edge, unable to step off our own planet, which is on the edge of freezing or burning. Meaninglessness of the God-concept Pro misunderstands the argument, creates his own strawman and then attacks it. It is not an issue of comprehension, it is an issue of meaninglessness. The argument shows that if a term is meaningless, then it points to no actual thing in reality. Theists only give us negative primary attributes (eg immaterial). This is what a thing is not, not what a thing is. There are plenty of things that have meaning, but lack comprehension. Pro mentioned Consciousness. Consciousness is the ability of the mind to perceive reality. It therefore has an identified positive primary attribute, consistent with its qualities. It thus has meaning. What it is exactly, remains a mystery (and thus we lack comprehension). But the mere fact that we can perceive reality, means that Consciousness does exist (at least in an emergent sense). We cannot say the same for gods can we? His other examples fail the same test. In the previous round I proposed a thought experiment using a YQW. Is Pro an agnostic on the existence of a YQW? If not, why not? Attaching more reverence to a term like god does not make it more likely to exist. Worse still for Pro is that his rebuttal reinforces Atheism, given that he admits that Humans cannot comprehend a god. If true we are unable to conceive fully of his attributes, and the Anselmian Ontological argument fails. Which as Kant noted is vital for the success of his Cosmological arguments. Ironically, given all Pros admitted uncertainty and hedging, on a day to day basis, Theists seem to know all about god. Quite how they know this is of course utterly mysterious. Alone Diety Again Pro fails to grasp with the argument. Although it maybe clearer for Pro if I re-stated 1. to be: 1. if Theism is true, then the PoC is true. I apologize to Pro, if it misled him. However Pros reformulation is incorrect. I am not imputing circularity, but a flat out contradiction (it does state that). Pros reformulation is debunked by Pro himself and he attacks his own strawman again? The rebuttal of his first Premise, fails by his own admission. I quote: "However, admittingly this does raise the same question of who was God expressing his consciousness on before the creation of these supernatural entities?. Read on". Yes it fails for exactly that reason. The "Read on" element then goes on to suggest that god could infact be conscious of his own consciousness by (I guess Pro hints at) self-reflection. Again the argument makes clear why this cannot be the case. As Ayn Rand stated: "...before it could identify itself as conscious, it had to be conscious of something". God has no means by which this can be true. By Pros own admission his god is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial entity in a spaceless, timeless, immaterial existence (a void, in a void). What can a god be conscious of exactly, to reference his own existence? If a child from birth was placed in a flotation tank and deprived of all sensations for 20 years, then he would be mentally impaired, but would at least recognise his own existence through some physical appreciation of water, the tank, his heart beat etc. But a theistic god does not even have these mechanisms. To quote a fellow atheist: "The problem as it arises, then, is two-fold: not only a) do the implications of the description which Theists give of their god suggest it could have no object to be conscious of prior to creating anything distinct from itself, but also b) that description also indicates that it would have no means by which it could be conscious of anything. Thus both aspects of the subject object relationship are fundamentally undermined, which means the believer commits the fallacy of the stolen concept when he points to a conscious being as the creator of the universe. The theistic god in its pre-creative state at best resembles a nonconscious nonentity stranded in a void." Pros reply seems to be an attempt to put up a smokescreen by retreating into the utterly vague. Hiddenness of God The rebuttal of Premise 2 is that it is a non-sequitur, ie that an all loving god would want to provide enough evidence to prevent non-belief. I am open to this being true, but they are the only implications I can deduce from the vague and meaningless god-concepts presented. If we were always part of an unchanging, all loving plan by a god, then it seems to me a straightforward interpretation that god had no choice but to create us and yield up some non contentious evidence of his existence. Pro then goes onto to reheat old soup of other "so called" evidences. I am not a hard skeptic, and I would simply state that I do not find that evidence remotely compelling. All of it has been refuted. And I do not appear to be alone in this view. Pro then makes a rather poor attempt to claim atheists might be "close minded". My own view is that there are a lot of brilliant and deep thinkers on both sides. I disagree with theists on at least one topic, and I expect a discourse based on reason to ensue. However, Pro seems to suggest that the alternatives with this Argument are that: 1) he is right, or 2) I am wrong. Hardly a debate then it seems. Just a bare assertion that Christianity is true, and if Atheists can not see it we are unreasonable for not seeing how obviously true it is. It is a rather clumsy ad hominem, to not accept reasonable non-belief. As for there being no direct evidence against (or for) god. Both observations are only consistent with their being no god, and not with the existence of a god. As Theists have already defined him out-of-existence (spaceless etc), there can be no direct evidence either way. Lastly taking Pros reformulation, to reverse the argument on me, can be used to prove the existence of fairies as well. Which again, makes it a poor reformulation. The Problem of Divine Freedom I find the rebuttal a little bizarre. My response is the same as the first paragraph above to the Hiddenness of God. Mind-Brain Dependence I agree with Pro that I did not validate Premise 1. I will do that now (borrowing from F. Tremblay): 1.Evolution demonstrates that brain development corresponds with mental development. Corliss Lamont: "We find that the greater the size of the brain and its cerebral cortex in relation to the animal body and the greater their complexity, the higher and more versatile the form of life". 2.Brain growth in individual organisms. "The developmental evidence for mind-brain dependence is that mental abilities emerge with the development of the brain; failure in brain development prevents mental development" (Beyerstein). 3.Brain damage destroys mental capacities. Clinical evidence cases of brain damage from accidents, toxins, diseases etc, result in irreversible losses of mental function. 4.Empirical evidence for mind-brain dependence is from experiments in neuroscience (EEG etc). Mental states are correlated with brain states; via electrochemical stimulation. 5.The effects of chemicals and drugs show correspondence between brain and mental activity.