God is unlikely to exist

Argument Exposition: The foundation of my argument coincides with the popular atheist notion that there is no substantial evidence to advocate any characteristics, the existence, or the presence of a God. This contention will be further elucidated by various assessments that both support this case and attack those presented by CON. The Burden of Proof is on CON to scientifically prove the likelihood of God’s existence using logic and substantial evidence that follow the criteria of scientific theory. For a theory to be considered scientific, it is expected to be: (1)1. Consistent (internally and externally)2. Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities, explanations)3. Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)4. Empirically testable and falsifiable5. Based upon controlled, repeated experiments6. Correctable and dynamic (changes are made with new data)7. Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have done and more)8. Tentative (admits that it might not be correct, does not assert certainty)Arguments:Religion is man-madeThe Bible, Tanakh, and the Al-Qur’an are all man-made scriptures manifesting artificial qualities and characteristics of a God whose existence is dependent solely on faith. God’s attributes were appointed by men whose perspective was void of scientific knowledge, resulting purely in an unsubstantiated conjecture that was appropriate for the time period. The fact that religion’s foundation is synthetic and scientifically unjustified further protests the validity of God’s existence, and almost guarantees its artifice. Faith was the only method of establishment during this primitive and rudimentary era. However, there is still no objectified explanation for why humans would embrace a concept that has no evidence supporting its validity. In an article he published in the L. A. Times, J. Anderson Thompson, M. D. , suggested:“For example, we are born with a powerful need for attachment, identified as long ago as the 1940s by psychiatrist John Bowlby and expanded on by psychologist Mary Ainsworth. Individual survival was enhanced by protectors, beginning with our mothers. Attachment is reinforced physiologically through brain chemistry, and we evolved and retain neural networks completely dedicated to it. We easily expand that inborn need for protectors to authority figures of any sort, including religious leaders and, more saliently, gods. God becomes a super parent, able to protect us and care for us even when our more corporeal support systems disappear, through death or distance. ” (2)God is only an object of psychological attachment, a figure of our imagination that provides emotional security in times of need. Both God and religion are consequences of neural psychology and composition; elements of cognitive belief that enable humans to work effectively in small groups and restrain human instinct. Belief in God is a form of mental self-preservation for those who are indoctrinated by a religious childhood or religious influence. God exists only in our minds. God is a psychological mechanism that acts as an object of attachment and psychological self-preservation; it exists only mentally, not physically or metaphysically. Evolution surpasses Intelligent DesignBiological evolution and abiogenesis are two scientifically reinforced theories that respectably predict how life may have begun and how a species develops over time. Intelligent Design, however, is a religious assertion that all life was created by an Intelligent Being, such as God. Not only does this unjustified belief defy methodological naturalism, it fails to follow procedures of scientific discourse. Because it lacks empirical support, offers no tenable hypotheses, and attempts to relate the origin of life and natural history with scientifically unverified supernatural causes, Intelligent Design can only be considered a pseudoscience, and is not in any way substantial evidence for the existence of God, nor is it a reputable scientific theory. Biological Evolution: The change in inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations (3). Abiogenesis: A natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds (4). These two scientific disciplines are the most consistent, effective, and empirically testable theories concerning the origin and development of life, unlike Intelligent Design. Although no theory or belief, despite scientific justification, can be truly disproved, Intelligent Design is the most unlikely of all theories. Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific or logical argument for the existence of God. The Omnibenevolent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent God does not existFirst and foremost, it is important to address the logical integrity of God’s “omnibenevolence. ” All monotheistic religions credit God with being infinitely good, all-loving, and supreme, yet evil still exists within society. If God is omnibenevolent and omnipresent, evil should not exist whatsoever. Evil is logically incompatible with God's attributes, thus God cannot be omnibenevolent. However, a theist may argue the following:1. An aspect of morality is observed.2. Belief in God is a better explanation for this morality than any alternative.3. Belief in God is thus preferable to disbelief in God. I would argue that morality is relative to the society around it, and is thus not objective. It is impossible to distinguish between good and bad because each individual perception of it is unique. For example, one may believe that murder is bad, and another may think otherwise. Thus, all humans are both evil and moral, and the choices dependent on these traits are relative to one’s own free will, not the supposed omnibenevolence or omnipresence of God. Morality is not universal, it is relative to individual perception; thus, God cannot be omnipresent. Addressing God's "omniscience" with the use of empirical logic suggests:1. God is omniscient.2. God has a free will.3. Entities with free will have non-determinate futures.4. Omniscience entails foreknowledge.5. If an entity knows the future, the future is not non-determinate.6. From 3, 5: Hence, there are no omniscient epistemic agents who have free will.7. Hence, God is not omniscient and/or God does not have free will. An Omniscient God does not exist due to empirical logic and contradictory attributes. The validity of God being “omnipotent” is not as susceptible to scientific scrutiny as it is to a logical paradox. The Omnipotence Paradox states: “If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task it is unable to perform, and hence, it cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if it cannot create a task it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do. ” (5). Thus, an Omnipotent entity cannot exist. An Omnipotent God does not exist because it is paradoxical. Creationism is scientifically unsupportedCreationists have a very opaque and naive understanding of natural selection, contesting that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of God, without strict scrutiny or acknowledgment of modern scientific disciplines and theories. My argument, “Evolution surpasses Intelligent Design,” has already established that natural selection is most likely responsible for the creation of life, but the question regarding the origin of the universe (and Earth as a result of the universe’s existence) is still open for discussion. The most common argument for theism is the “Cosmological Argument,” which states:1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.2. The universe began to exist.3. Thus, the universe had a cause. Although sequentially these three points may be true, but the certainty of the third point is still debatable. “The Big Bang Theory” is the most prevalent astrological theory to date, but is commonly perceived to be paradoxical. If the Big Bang Theory caused the universe, what caused the Big Bang? According to modern scientific theory, the universe may have had an “uncaused cause. ” For example, spontaneous quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising from Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (6). The foundation of this principle states:ΔEΔt ≈ h/2πMeaning, that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This scientifically reinforces the notion that “something can be created from nothing,” which could subsequently lead to the Big Bang. Creationism fails to recognize modern scientific theory, which ultimately remonstrates any conception of God's involvement in the creation of the universe. Another inconsistency in this “proof of God” is the committal of logical fallacy, known as “infinite regression. ” If the universe had a first cause, what caused the first cause? Or, if God created everything what created God? If God is of purely metaphysical properties, then quantum fluctuations or any other scientific explanations do not apply to God. The existence of God commits multiple logical fallacies, including infinite regression. ConclusionBold and italicized statements are the points that CON has to refute in order to shift the Burden of Proof. I challenge CON to disprove these points with scientifically, empirically, and logically reinforced rebuttals. Sources: (1): . http://en.wikipedia.org...(2): . http://articles.latimes.com...(3): . http://biology.about.com...(4): . http://en.wikipedia.org...(5): . http://www.princeton.edu...(6): . http://abyss.uoregon.edu...