The Evidence Favors Theism Over Atheism

I: KCA 1: Whatever begins to exist has an efficient cause. A: Out of nothing, nothing comes. This really has little to do with the proving the truth of the premise. B: If this were not the case, we should see examples of it in nature. The thing is, we do see examples of the premise not being true in nature. A prime example of things coming into existence uncaused are virtual particles, which pop into and out of existence for a extremely short periods of time. [1][2]. Additionally, there is no reason to believe that something can come uncaused from a state such as one lacking in matter and energy, as such a state has never been observed. My opponent really has offered no evidence or reasoning at all to back up this premise. 2: The Universe began to exist. Let us define what we mean be “began to exist. ” I propose that the following definition: Something, x, begins to exist if there is a time at which x exists, preceded by a time at which x did not exist. So if I am talking about a pancake that I am making for breakfast beginning to exist, we can clearly see that there was a time at which the pancake did not exist, followed by a time at which the pancake did exist. The pancake began to exist. But, things become trickier with the Universe. This is because there was no time at which the Universe did not exist because time did not exist before the Universe. Therefore, we must conclude that the Universe did not begin to exist. Just because there is a finite amount of time, does not mean that the Universe began to exist. 3: Therefore, the Universe had an efficient cause. Because I reject the premises I reject the conclusion. 4: The nature of the cause. While I reject that there must have been a cause, I will still address Pro’s arguments here. I concede that this cause would have immense causal power and that it would have to exist outside of time, however I reject that it must exist outside of space and matter and that it must be personal. C: Pro offers no reason to believe that there could not exist matter outside of time that caused the Universe. D: Pro offers no reason to believe that there could not exist laws governing whatever could exist outside of the Universe that could have caused it, and I don’t really see why a non personal cause could not bring about a temporal effect. I hope Pro will clarify this. So: Pro has not demonstrated that the Universe needed a cause and that the cause must be God. II: Origin of the Universe #2 This is basically a rehashing of the KCA. I reject that the Universe began to exist, that if there were something transcendent beyond the Universe that it would have had to have the properties Pro attributes to it. III: Time and Contingency Pro has not demonstrated that the Universe is not necessarily existent. IV: Fine-Tuning 1: The existence of intelligent life in the Universe depends upon a highly complex, delicate, and improbable balance of initial conditions, simply given in the origin of the Universe itself. This premise presumes that the conditions of the Universe exist with the future existence of intelligent life in mind. On the contrary, life exists in the way it does because of the way the conditions are. Therefore, we cannot really determine whether these conditions are improbable or not. 4: Chance is not a logical option. I am not satisfied with this probability calculation. I would like to ask my opponent for more specificity regarding the odds he mentions. Against what alternatives was this probability calculated? Also, what weights did the various options receive? Additionally, I would like to point out that science does not attribute the existence of intelligent life solely to chance: Natural selection does not just function from chance. I would also like to point out that due to the vast scope of the Universe, it would seem likely that life would arise some place. V: Evolution I’d like to see Pro’s source that says abiogenesis would have been impossible. Pro’s argument here regarding abiogenesis is basically an argument from incredulity and from ignorance. It is important to point out that abiogenesis is not part of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, so the heading is a misnomer. I’m going to say it again: Evolution does not rely on chance in the way my opponent makes it seem. I’d also like more information on how Page calculated these odds. Was it taken into account that vast numbers of trials would have been occurring simultaneously? Additionally, there are several hypothesizes regarding abiogenesis today, with varying degrees of support [3], as well as the Miller-Urey experiment which produced some evidence supporting abiogenesis [4]. VI: Logic Pro’s final conclusion does not follow from his premises. While I agree that the laws of the Universe are not dependent on human minds, he has not justified his conclusion that there must be a non-human mind which is the foundation for these. There is no reason to believe that a transcendental mind is necessary for these concepts to remain true. VII: The Moral Argument 1: Without God, objective moral values could not exist. Things that are independent of human minds do not necessarily need a transcendent non-human mind. With atheism, objective moral values can be determined by looking at amounts of suffering caused by various courses of action. 2: Objective moral values do exist. Pro’s arguments here are worse than W. L. Craig’s to prove this premise, and his arguments is pretty bad. It basically boils down to this: We feel that there are objective moral values, therefore, objective moral values exist. I don’t have to point out how ridiculous this argument is. VIII: Abstract Entities The final conclusion does not follow the premises. IX: Ontological Argument The concept of a maximally great being is a paradox, therefore I reject that it is possible to exist: A maximally great being cannot be greater than itself meaning that there is a limitation as to how great this being can be, therefore a maximally great being cannot exist. I also present this Gasking’s Proof as a counter argument to the Ontological Argument: The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable. The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator. The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement. The greatest handicap to a creator would be non-existence Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing. Therefore, a maximally great creator does not exist. [5]. My argument: The Problem of Evil If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. Evil exists. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore, God doesn't exist. [6]. Conclusion Pro has not sufficiently shown that the evidence favors theism over atheism. Sources: [1]- . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]- . http://www.scientificamerican.com... [3]- . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]- . http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]- . http://plato.stanford.edu...