god

Before I begin, I would like to clarify a potential problem that can arise in this debate: my argument is by no means meant to disparage religion or my opponent's belief system. My only intention is to demonstrate that the god of the bible, the conscious creator, can be disproved with evidence that is often used to prove him. Some of this evidence I have presented thus far comes from the bible. If at any point my opponent believes that I misinterpreted a biblical passage, than it is important for pro to properly interpret it for me: show me why it has been misinterpreted; don't just tell me I have done so. What I hope to do this round is rebut my opponent's criticisms and provide additional evidence to disprove the claim that the god of the bible exists. Rebuttal My opponent suggested that god allows unequal treatment of man so that ‘free will' can happen. My contention is that if this is true, than the action we ‘choose' has already been determined, thus our ‘free will' to decide is not free. For example, if god knows that I am going to debate David77, then my "decision" to do so has already been established and thus I didn't actively make a choice; I just followed what was destined to be. Also, I didn't pull select words out of context, I provide multiple passages to demonstrate that there are aspects of biblical scripture that appear contradictory. In my view, the contradictions I established are evidence that the biblical god doesn't exist and is a product of man's imaginative mind. My opponent also contends that a benevolent god would not stop bad things from happening to god people, because it would hamper ‘free will'. But to me, this is a post hoc rationalization to provide a reason for why a benevolent god would allow evil; and this does not provide any evidence that god exists. Moreover, if god we truly benevolent and omnipotent he would have the wherewithal and impetus to prevent malicious acts, especially on those who faithfully adhere to his commandments. But even more intriguing here is why god even wanted his creation to have free will, if his intention is for us to follow his commands. One very salient point proposed by my opponent is that demonstrating weakness in ones argument does increase the strength of another. While I agree that this is a true statement, what I have done in the preceding rounds was, in part, to demonstrate the weakness of the evidence and the reasoning that has been provided as means to show to that my opponents' conclusion isn't well supported. Further, I then used that evidence to show how it can actually lead one to an opposite conclusion. And I agree that there may be a third argument here but that is not relevant to the position I am taking in this debate. My position is that the god of the bible can be shown not to exist by the very nature of the evidence used to establish his existence. And I would be very grateful to my opponent if she would explain more about how god can be both interventional as seen in the parting of the red sea and non-interventional as see with giving humans ‘free will'. To me this contradiction is evidence that the god of the bible is merely a man-made idea, and thus doesn't exist outside of man's mind. Additional argument In the preceding rounds there has been some discussion regarding the complexity and the design of nature as evidence of god. But this very notion begs the question of whether the design we have is optimal from an engineering standpoint. For example, Chlorophyll is green pigment that plants use to generate energy for life, but black chlorophyll would be more advantageous because it can absorb more radiation than green chlorophyll (1). So, if a conscious designer existed why would he place such a limit on the ability of plants to produce food for its self; especially since man needs to eat plants to help sustain his life? Another example of a sub-optimal design is the female fallopian tube. During an ectopic pregnancy, the fetus attaches to the fallopian tube killing the developing baby and often times damaging the fallopian beyond repair (2). If a conscious creator does exists then why would he have established the reproductive system with such an obvious flaw? These examples clearly demonstrate that natural design is not optimal and would suggest that god is either not omnipotent or he just doesn't exist. For me, this is evidence suggests a conscious creator doesn't exist. And it should be noted that the apparent suboptimal design of animals has sparked a very interesting discussion regarding evolution on this very site: http://www.debate.org... In closing, I sincerely hope that this debate doesn't denigrate into a battle of emotional wills. Our subjective opinions are not a factor in this discussion nor should they be used to weigh the validity of the evidence presented. This debates hinges on the objectivity of facts and the logic used to support them. References 1.http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.http://www.mayoclinic.com...