god

Problems with the idea god The word "god" can connote many meanings, but it is unclear from round 1 which meaning Pro wishes to use. So, I will start off assuming (please confirm) that my opponent is referring to the monotheistic Judeo-Christian god, and as such, my opening argument will be presented with this understanding. According to the Judeo-Christian monotheistic tradition, God is a singular omnipresent and omnipotent perfect benevolent being that supposedly created man and woman in his image (1). Moreover, this Judeo-Christian god has supposedly created the world for humanity (1), but has done so without ever giving direct explicit instruction--for all to understand--of his or our purpose. This begs the question: why not? Humanity would be more inclined to believe in a god and follow his will if we he would reveal who and what he is; and god should a priori know this to be true. In addition, it is generally thought that god has granted mankind with free will. But if god is omnipotent that he is aware of all future events, which makes any act man does predetermined and thus un-free (2) In biblical times, the story is that the god presented himself to Moses, but there is no way to confirm if this alleged incident is true. Through recorded history, there have also been numerous accounts of select people claiming to have been given the word of god; but again none of these claims can be substantiated. God has never been physically documented and verified and has never revealed himself to the entire human race. So, there is no direct evidence for his existence. The concept of god is only known from subjective interpretations that man has created from our limited understanding of the cosmos. Criteria of truth To prove that something exists is to give tangible evidence that it is real. To disprove that something exists is to demonstrate that the evidence for the affirmative is false. With this in mind, it is not known whether god is a physical being and thus can't be empirically measured. If the universe has a beginning and thus a cause, presumably the all-powerful god would have been the initiator of that cause. This would suggest that god is outside of this universe and therefore not governed by its laws. As a consequence, god may not be made of the baryonic (i. e. , physical) matter that makes up the 5% of our known universe (3), nor may he be directly interacting with our perceivable world--the alleged accounts not with standing-so we can't even generate or validate paradigms in with to test expected predications. Thus, this makes the claim that god exists unverifiable, which shifts the burden of proof with Pro to demonstrate that the claim that god exists is even knowable. Challenging Pro's evidence for the existence of god The evidence presented thus far has been indirect in the form of misapplying a natural law and a faulty logical analogy. To begin, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't lend any support for the existence of a god; nor does it posit that energy will eventually deplete in our universe. The second law of thermodynamics is founded on the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (4). This clearly contradicts Pro's assertion that energy will eventually deplete in a closed system. It can be deduced from the second law of thermodynamics that the energy is transferred from one form to another ensuring the certain phenomena are irreversible if the energy conditions favor it to be so (5). The complexity and design of the universe as evidence of god and the watch analogy that followed is fatally flawed. For starters, a watch can't be equally compared to the universe, because a watch doesn't provide a useful framework in which to explore the complexities of the universe; there is no reason to believe that man-made objects and natural objects have similar properties. Second, we know through fractal systems that complex shapes and designs can be created without having a ‘conscience creator' (6). Last, we know on earth that a watch has a maker (or makers), but if we suggest that the maker of the watch has a maker, then it stands to reason the maker of the maker of the watch has a maker, and the maker of the maker of the maker of the watch has a maker; and so on and so on ad infinitum. I am looking forward to my opponent addressing these criticisms of her evidence as well as providing more support for the existence of god. References 1. . http://www.biblegateway.com... 2. . http://plato.stanford.edu... 3. . http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. . http://en.wikipedia.org...