God Probably Doesn't Exist

Contention 1: The Problem of Evil Con says God’s omnipotence is not doing something contrary to logic. However, in order for Con’s rebuttal to hold he must demonstrate it is logically impossible for God to bring about greater good G without evil E. This is entirely conceivable. For example, a child’s mother dies and the child must spend many unhappy years in an orphanage(E), but a rich Christian family adopts him and he lives his life successfully and happy(G). It is possible that said child became just as successful and happy without this suffering. God can’t do things like create a square circle, but this scenario is entirely possible and consistent with logic. All Con does is ask us to imagine two scenarios where evil is necessary. This to me sounds like question begging, because the goal is to show all evil is necessary. Con ignores my evidential rebuttal showing his explanation is unlikely. His position is an ad hoc, he says God is infinite and takes things we cannot into consideration. Then goes to say it is plausible some greater good came about. However, this acts as though my second rebuttal is based on certainty, not probabilistic. So, it’s not relevant. Sure it is possible some greater good came about, but it’s likely the evil is gratuitous because it seems as such. The argument remains standing. Contention 2: Temporal minds Con defends a static mind by claiming it means the ability to grasp concepts or ideas. However, “ability” has can have no coherent atemporal definition. “possession of the means or skill to do something” [1] A static mind doesn’t do anything, otherwise it would need time. No, I didn’t shift to a new argument. It’s been the very same from the start. He goes to say what God will is not necessary. He says God’s will is to manifest his good and this can be done through a variety of means. However, with the universe, there is only one way for him to manifest his good. That’s with the creation of it. Not creating it would not be the good thing to do. This makes the creation of the universe a necessity. If the universe could possibly not exist, then this means God is possibly not good. Which makes him contingent. The part about God being contingent if he can be different in this sense was left untouched. This argument still stands. Contention 3: The Argument from Physically Dependant Minds I would like to remind everyone that the debate resolution is not “God definitely doesn’t exist” The resolution is "God Probably Doesn't Exist” All I have to do is show God is improbable. Not that God is impossible.Yes, it is possible that a mind can exist without a brain, but from what I've presented, it is unlikely. Con claims if he shows a counterexample, the argument is refuted. I’m unsure if Con understands what a probabilistic argument is. If we notice a child is next to a broken vase upset, it is likely that the child broke the vase. When you ask the child he can state that when he has a friend in china who clapped his hands causing the wind created to cumulate in which it hit his house at the same time he opened the window. Sure, this is theoretically possible, but it is unlikely. Providing a counterexample doesn’t refute the argument that the child broke the vase. If Con is correct in saying counterexamples refute probabalist arguments, then the entire mathematics of probability are in error. He claims my genes parody is false because genes can be seen. However, using MRI machines we can read thoughts and even digitize them [2] Con’s case After three rounds Con finally talks about my necessary contingent argument. However he misunderstood it. I’m not saying they are necessary in the sense that they’re a necessary being, but necessary similar in the way a computer is used to type. In order for something contingent to not exist, it may be the case that something else contingent must exist. This doesn’t mean it’s a necessary being, but it eliminates the need for a necessary being. So, no equivocation is committed. Since Con left this main idea untouched, it remains standing. Since this is the last round, his case is therefore invalidated. I can stop here since I have already invalidated his case, but I’ll continue to defend my other possibility. His objection to the idea of raw information existing in a non-sentient force commits the fallacy of composition. Even if it was true that all information in the material world needs a mind to interpret it, this doesn’t follow that all parts of information need the same thing. There can be possible information that doesn’t need a mind to interpret it, but is still information. He continues to ask how can an immaterial thing contain information in the form of something else other than ideas. One can ask, if information is contained in the Hippocampus, how can God contain information? Of course, Con would claim God is a special unembodied mind. One can say the same about this force. I brought this up last round and Con left it untouched He then goes to say God must have intellect or else he would be limited. You could use this to say God cannot have intellect. If God caused the big bang, then he must have the effect of the big bang within him. However, the big bang is not a conscious entity, so if God has consciousness he’s limited with respect to the big bang. It works both ways. Furthermore, I would say the computer is not limited because it still has all the information of the worm. Conclusion Con’s rebuttal against the POE was that God could bring about some greater good. I said that if God is omnipotent he can do this without the need of evil. Con claimed this was logically impossible, but never demonstrated it was. He only gave a thought experiment showing that if evil without a greater good is impossible, God must take that route. But this doesn’t show that G without E is impossible. Indeed it bares no incoherently like a square circle or a married bachelor. I furthermore argued that it is more likely that gratuitous evil exists. Con said it could still be the case that God has some hidden purpose, but this is irrelevant because I argued that it probably exists. The problem of evil was successful and is standing strong In my next argument Con argues that God is a static mind. I showed no definition fits this, even with Con’s other definition it still assumes time. Con essentially argued that the objects God wills aren’t necessary. I said that if this is true, God’s essence can be different and thus contingent. Con never replied to that making this argument stand. In my last argument (which I think Con could have done better on), Con essentially critiques this argument because it’s a probabilistic argument. Throughout the debate he said God is still possible, which I agreed, but he is unlikely given the argument. Con never attempted to argue from probability, instead he argued from possibility, which is irrelevant. This means I have fulfilled my burden of proof in showing that God probably doesn’t exist. Con’s only argument is based on Thomas Aquinas’’ contingency argument. I argued that there are two equal alternatives. One in which a necessary immaterial force caused contingency and one in which contingent things themselves are necessary because these contingencies didn’t exist, another contingency can exist. Con brushed the second alternative off because it doesn’t fit the description of a necessary being. However, this misses the point. It eliminates the need for one. Making his case invalid, as he failed to take down the main point. My first alternative was that this force could contain all information making intellect not necessary. Con said it had to be intelligent because it can only contain information in the form of ideas. But this was never justified. I pointed out that the same can be said about ideas and the brain. Showing the same special pleading can be done with the force. He failed to rebut that and went on to claim all information we know needs a mind to interpret it in order for it to be meaningful. However, this is a fallacy of composition. His argument from limitation works both ways and something can contain all of the information without being limited. His case failed to prove God is probable. Thanks Con. Remember, since you went first, in the next round you must post "For an equal number of rounds, nothing will be posted here, as agreed." Sources [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://techland.time.com...