God Probably Doesn't Exist

The purpose of debate is to come to a fuller, deeper, richer understanding of the truth. That is the goal, at least, and it is to that goal that I strive. I hope Pro feels the same. I. Focusing on What Matters I have made it clear that ours is a debate about the existence of a very general, theistic God (theistic because God is separate from the universe, and general because God is not identified with any particular religious tradition). In a word, God is that being who is the morally perfect, personal Creator of the universe. This is not a difficult point to understand, so there is no reason why so much space has been wasted trying to hash out the proper definition of God. Indeed, Pro himself agreed to debate me on the premise that God, understood according to my definition, does not exist (round one, note three). It is improper debate etiquette for him to argue definitions after agreeing to use them, and I do not appreciate it.Fortunately, Pro dropped his criticisms of the Bible, and I trust he will not resurrect them. II. Case for the Affirmative Pro fails to give any good argument for the resolution. Consider his two arguments: (1) God is undefined, and (2) God’s existence is unfalsifiable. With respect to (1), I have consistently and repeatedly defined God in an intelligible and meaningful way, and Pro just does not get the point. This failure should be clear from the fact that instead of dealing with my responses to two loosely related objections, Pro takes issue with my phrase “loosely related”! Moreover, I have already indicated how the above definition sets limits on what God is and places Him in the appropriate categories, and Pro does not care to disagree. Regarding (2), a few comments from Pro provide some necessary detail: If we are going to talk about any deity, regardless of which one, we need to have an array of tools in which to go up against it...I don’t argue with things that can’t be proven, tested or seen; you have invoked a god because you don’t see any other situation, I don’t because I do. I will debate assertions and claims made from a god, from someone who speaks for god as well as scripture. Since they have been asserted, I can now try and test it; assuming the assertions are falsifiable. The implication is that God so-defined makes no assertions about the world. His existence is therefore untestable. My response, however, should be clear. First, if God’s existence cannot be disproven, then Pro cannot establish the resolution. He does himself no favors by proclaiming the untestablility/unfalsifiablility of God, for that just is to admit failure. Pro’s counter-response is clearly a straw man. I am not arguing that atheism is a lie because there is no reason to think that God does not exist. Rather, my point is that theism is not disproven by a lack of evidence in its favor. Why? Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Second, God’s existence is testable. If a contradiction could be demonstrated in the concept of God, for example, God could not exist. If unjustifiable evil exists, God does not exist. If human freedom is shown to be inconsistent with divine foreknowledge, God cannot exist (assuming humans are free). If evolution is shown to be unguided, God does not exist. Further, even given a general concept of God, if God is the personal Creator of the universe, the universe must have begun to exist. If Pro could give some evidence for the eternality of the universe, then God does not exist. In all these ways, God’s existence is testable. Of course, if Pro’s point is merely that God’s existence has not been falsified, then he and I are in agreement. In short, Pro’s argument is based on a false premise and in any case does not establish that God does not exist. Beyond this, we have seen no reason to affirm the resolution. III. Case for the Negative It is worth reiterating that giving evidence for God is completely extra-credit on my part because considerations of arguments for theism are beyond the scope of the resolution. Pro has the burden of proof, not I. 1. The argument from contemporary cosmology- This is the so-called kalam cosmological argument. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 4. If the universe has a cause, there exists a transcendent, personal Creator. 5. Therefore, there exists a transcendent, personal Creator. Pro gives two general responses. First, the argument apparently commits a whole host logical fallacies (e.g., begging the question, complex cause, false authority, false cause and effect, hasty generalization, moral equivalence, etc.). Pro, let me ask you a direct question: do you take this debate seriously? Do you take me seriously? Listing a series of logical fallacies prefaced by “argument X commits these” is a lazy, unsophisticated debate tactic, an indication of your unwillingness to engage seriously and responsibly with what I have to say. Now, if you had actually explained how the argument commits these falacies, that would be a different situation. But this you haven not done. Suffice is to say, the kalam cosmological argument does not commit these fallacies, and Pro gives no reason to think otherwise. Second, the cosmological argument, in addition to the above, commits the god-of-the gaps fallacy. In response, it needs to be pointed out that science is only used to establish premise (2). I am not arguing that science proves the existence of God, but only that scientific evidence implies the beginning of the universe. Theological implications only follow when (2) is seen in light of a broader philosophical argument for God. So we go from science to the beginning of the universe, and from there, philosophy to God. This is a perfectly valid procedure that does not commit the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. Moreover, the atheist's protest that evidence for an eternal universe may one day be found reflects nothing more than the faith of an atheist.2. The argument from objective moral values and duties - This is the moral argument as developed by philosopher William Lane Craig. 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. It should be obvious that using an argument from a Christian apologist does not entail that I am attempting to prove the existence of the Christian God. William Lane Craig might give me cooking advice, suggesting that I cook steak for ten minutes on both sides. Does the fact that Craig is a Christian mean he is giving me Christian cooking advice? Hardly. Craig’s argument only establishes that a personal, morally perfect being exists; it does not attempt to show that this being is Yahweh or Jesus Christ (i.e., the Christian God). 2.1 If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist - I distill three objections from Pro: (i) in my defense of premise one I commit the fallacy of prejudicial language, (ii) “the person who invented this system was a creationist that was Christian”, and (iii) the Christian has no moral advantage over the atheist, as Hitler so pointedly demonstrated. With respect to (i), this fallacy occurs when “words used are calculated to conjure up an attitude more favorable or more hostile than the unadorned facts would elicit” (Madsen Pirie, How to Win Every Argument: the Use and Abuse of Logic, 106). But because Pro does not bother to give any examples of my prejudiced word choice, we are left wondering what he has in mind. Concerning (ii), here is a textbook example of argumentum ad hominem, attacking the person giving the argument instead of the argument itself. So, fine, Craig is the worst gosh-darn Christian creationist there ever was. And? Regarding (iii), I agree. Premise (1) does not assert that atheists are less moral than theists, but rather that the atheistic worldview lacks any explanation for objective moral values and duties. The atheist who sees that these things exist (and I think most do) should therefore abandon his atheism. For the philosophically initiated, the distinction here is between moral epistemology (i.e., how we come to know moral truth) and moral ontology (i.e., why moral truths exist); premise (1) concerns the latter, not the former. In sum, Pro's objections either misunderstand the argument or commit basic logical fallacies.2.2 Objective moral values and duties exist - No objections from Pro. 2.3. Therefore, God exists - The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, premises we have been good reasons to accept and no good reasons to doubt. God’s character serves as the standard of moral value, and His commands form our moral duties.In short, cosmology and moral experience come together to give us good reason to believe that a morally perfect, personal Creator of the universe exists. IV. Conclusion I am growing weary of so seriously engaging Pro’s arguments and failing to receive the same treatment in kind. A case in point: Pro writes that only “intellectually dishonest people can justify a god”, implying my own intellectual dishonesty. Never mind the intellectually honest philosophers writing today who all attempt to justify belief in God (Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Douglas Groothuis, Timothy McGrew, J.P. Moreland, etc.), the point is that I most certainly am intellectually honest, Pro’s attack notwithstanding. I understand that I have issued some pretty severe personal criticisms myself, but all of them are appropriate and justified. I am frustrated and finished with trying to be professional and cordial, only to have my arguments and objections dismissed with the wave of a hand or ignored completely. In the last round, I invite Pro to take up the challenge to engage responsibly, honestly, and genuinely with what I have to say.