The Proof that God exists IS Mans unique existence.

Firstly I would like to offer my thanks to Pro for an opportunity to debate this topic with him. In this response I do not intend to bury Pro with links to the scientific literature that refute his rather strange interpretation of the science. Notwithstanding that, the refutation of his argument seems rather trivial, given the problems with it. Specifically Pro: 1) makes bare assertions, eg about the existence of souls; 2) he begs the question from the outset by applying a "human standard" to the animal kingdom; 3) he provides only a subjective basis by which we can appraise his argument (only his rationale of what he finds important markers of the divine but ignores superior quality of other animals); and 4) his arguments run counter to Occams Razor, because there are superior and simpler explanations I have taken the liberty of trying to summarize Pros argument: P1) If god exists, humans would have unique traits, which could only come from a supernatural source; P2) Only humans have the unique trait of [insert claim here eg speech, sentience, bipedalism etc] to a "standard of human quality"; P3) These traits are so unique they could only come from a supernatural source; and therefore C1) God exists P1) Is an arbitrary and subjective perspective. We already know that animals possess some measure of all the traits already posited by Pro and possess some "arguably" superior traits to humans that we do not possess at all (eg the ability to grow a limb back, the ability to fly unaided, the ability to breathe underwater unaided etc). Pro has merely taken what he considers favourable attributes. He has not explained why these are objectively important in comparison to other traits held by other animals. For example he cites our speech as important, but human speech is useless in an aquatic marine environment, where the communication abilities of other mammals are superior to ours. Granted we are not marine dwelling, but that is not the point. The point is that Pro must provide the objective context by which we can assess human vs [other] animal differences with a view to assessing whether supernatural intervention is the best explanation. But it is worse than that. Pro is also presumably committed to a view that the entire animal kingdom was "poofed" into existence. Thus on his view every animal would in reality be some sort of evidence of a god, which would totally undermine his main argument in this debate. P2) Begs the question. By qualifying any ability as having to meet "to a standard of human quality" he smuggles his conclusion into the premise. Pro tips his hand when he states: "BUT only ONE that is sentient to Human standard". Thus any objection raised by his opponent (say the well documented and researched conscious ability of chimpanzees), will immediately be dismissed by Pro, as not meeting his arbitrary standard because it does not fit the conclusion he seeks. Pros argument is effectively circular > humans are special > because nothing else measures up to human standards > which makes humans special. P3) Even if it could be demonstrated that humans have objectively unique traits which indicate supernatural intervention, how could it be objectively demonstrated that these can only come from a supernatural source? There are perfectly adequate explanations from the sciences that demonstrate the power of natural processes in the development of animal life. These should be preferred given their explanatory power, scope, simplicity and the fact that all evidence fits into these natural frameworks. Pros claim means that on top of the natural processes, that we know exist, we are now required to imagine the intervention of an infinitely sophisticated being (that doesn"t meet the definition of a being), existing outside of existence in an unknowable realm, using a unknown process to create effects in a way that equates to magic ("poofing" things into existence). The simplest explanation by Occams Razor is in favour of naturalism. C1) Is therefore unsafe So building the alternative case for naturalism would entail the following: 1) human traits are emergent features of our evolved anatomies 2) these anatomies have occurred through well understood purely natural processes Comparative studies of a number of disciplines (morphology, phylogeny, taxonomy, genetics, evolutionary development, social anthropology, palaeontology etc) all coalesce around some key points: 1) other animals demonstrate similar abilities 2) the abilities in other animals become more sophisticated in relation to the level of higher brain function available to that animal (with few exceptions) 3) given the anatomy of our higher brain function, humans demonstrate higher abilities in some areas than the rest of the animal kingdom 4) given the anatomy of certain animals, they demonstrate higher abilities in some areas than humanity We are therefore safe in a tentative conclusion that even though humans have a level of sophistication that other animals do not, they are nonetheless part of that same animal kingdom. Finally Pro, rather predictabley, then moves onto a mixture of biblical arguments and arguments from ignorance/incredulity to back up his rather desperate case. I can only say that I find quoting the bible as deeply unimpressive demagoguery. Does it come as surprise to anyone that a religion would seek to flatter humanity and elevate humanity's place in the natural world? Infact it seems to be the defining characteristic of a religion. Any religion needs to simultaneously advise its adherents that they are both important and meaningless at the same time. If it fails to do that, the clerical classes of the various religions have nothing to sell, nor any leverage of control. Christianity, Scientology, Hinduism etc all seem to offer their adherents some cosmic reward for admitting their depravity (souls, thetans, khama or whatever). The price you are asked to pay is to abjectly surrender your mind and reasoning faculties to an invisible and ultimately unknowable authority, that just happens to have earthly representatives with earthly power who can interpret their wishes for you. Therefore it is unsurprising that the bible states that we are born worthless, but are secretly the most important objects in the universe. Or perhaps put more tersely by Fulke Greville the Elizabethan poet (himself a Calvanist): "Created sick, commanded to be sound". As for the other points: 1) if Pro is claiming that humans are imbued with a spiritual force (soul etc), the Pro is advocating a form of substance dualism. Pro will need to offer a reason why anyone should take this (17th century), view seriously given it is (at best) a naive view, and has largely been discredited. Whatever the truth of the mind/brain interaction it is not going to be substance dualism. 2) Pro is claiming only humans can speak to a god (I maintain there is no such entity, but saying there was for the purpose of discussing this point) - how does Pro know this? Does Pro have a means of knowledge available to him, and able to inform him that animals and god do not communicate? It is nothing more than an unsupported claim. Can a god only speak yiddish, aramaic, greek? Can god not communicate with a dolphin for example? 3) Pro adopts a psuedo-scientific stance by claiming that our DNA is uniquely different (using the example of flesh). I think this attempt to clothe himself in science betrays the "gee-whizz" incredulity of this and the overall argument. Surely if you look at any one animal species you will see a set of unique character combinations (especially down at the level of the molecular biology). These will make a species unique (otherwise it would not be a species). To then say "Gee-whizz look at that! Thats is proof of something mysterious", rather misses the point that these unique character combinations only exist inside a nested set hierarchy. It is the nested set hierarchy that refutes Pros position and shows how all eukaryotic life is linked (through the tree -bush if you prefer- of life), and is why, for example, a whale with its own unique character combinations and specialisations, is still a mammal and not a fish (even though the bible seems not to know this (Jonah 1:17)). In summary there is no case to answer here. Pro blindly asserts things he does not know, that he cannot prove, then begs the question in favour of a conclusion he wants. He ignores the evidence which refutes his conclusion and offers a subjective and arbitrary scheme by which we can apparently tell that humanity is specially created by a god. Unfortunately Pro has a higher burden of proof than that. If Pro thinks the bible gives a better insight into biology and therefore proves god, than actual biology, then he is already deeply committed and entrenched in a supernatural, mystical and magical interpretation of nature. Thus Pro will continue to offer poor arguments like the one presented. Pro would be on much firmer ground if he can offer an argument: 1) providing an objective meaningful standard and context by which we can appraise the differences between humans and animals 2) refraining from using unprovable and most likely false evidences (such as souls) 3) providing a falsifiable hypothesis on why these differences are necessarily supernatural in origin Until Pro can do this I do not need see how he can move the debate forward in his favour, without further resort to arguments from ignorance, mining creationist websites and/or question begging. Thanks once again for this opportunity and good luck with the rest of the debate.