God Exists

Good and Evil It is evident that Pro is trying to dodge the Problem of Evil early by making the common Theistic claim that one has to presuppose evil exists to run the argument. Since evil can only exist if God exists then this would make the Problem of Evil self-refuting and void. There are two huge issues with this line of reasoning:(i) Evil does not need to exist under the Atheistic worldview to run the Problem of Evil(ii) This begs the question against Atheistic morality The Problem of Evil can be run even if one assumes that rape is only wrong if Theism were true. Thus, (i) is devastating to Pro's case. All one needs to do is show that rape would be wrong if Theism were true and show a contradiction in the idea of God. It is not necessary to assume evil actually exists for the Problem of Evil to work, and this is not a rare misconception. My opponent also begs the question against Atheistic morality while claiming that objective law requires an external law giver. However, this law giver is the human species ourselves and is not external. We have a law of Chess for example that states a knight must move in an "L" shape, but we do not need a "gaming" deity for this. Humans can create our own objective rules. Many moral philosophers simply reject the notion that God is required for morality:"A common outlook amongst moral philosophers that I share, is that people have been doing moral philosophy without appealing to God for thousands of years. " - Philosopher, Shelly Kagan [1]Pro still has not even ruled out any Atheistic moral frameworks and just presupposes Theism is necessary for this. However, as philosopher Stephen Law states:"The onus is on [The Theist] to show that all such atheist-friendly accounts are wrong, even the ones we haven't thought of yet. " - Philosopher. Stephen Law [2]My opponent has not even come close to having a compelling argument against Atheistic morality. This "Good and Evil" section does not stand as valid. Existence of MatterThe universe most likely has a total energy sum of zero and many calculations demonstrate this [3]. This view is held because the negative energy of gravitational attraction and the negative energy stored in space, exactly offset the positive energy in the universe to equal zero. This is hypothesis is no fiction either; as negative energy has even been experimentally verified between two Casimir plates [4]. If there was no universe there was be a sum of zero energy; we we have the same sum with a universe. This means that no additional energy is required for a universe. This makes this argument from Pro rather trivial:"We know that there are conservation laws. Usually this means that if you have something you cannot have nothing; it takes energy. However, it turns out that if you have a closed universe. .. the gravitational energy, which is always negative, exactly compensates for the positive energy of matter. " - Physicist, Alexander Vilenkin [5]Nietzsche's ProphecyAn Atheist converting to Theism does not support the notion that Theism is true. This argument can be made on both sides (take a look at Dan Barker [6] for example). Pro states that Nietzsche predicted World War 2. However I can predict World war 3. It will happen in the next 50 years and involve the United States, China, Iran, and Israel. Am I a prophet? No. It is not hard to predict things like this and to actually have them turn out true. None of my opponent's arguments stand. Argument from Temporal Minds P1: If God exists he is/ has a functioning atemporal mind P2: Mental processing is required for a functioning mind P3: Temporal duration is required for processing P4: A functioning atemporal mind cannot exist Conclusion: God does not exist P1 The claim that God is/ has an atemporal mind should go uncontested, as he is adhered to as the mindful creator of time itself. Also, the claim that this mind would be functioning seems obvious. God certainly would not be a vegetable without mental capabilities as far as Classical Theism is concerned. P2 This is as natural and self-evident a truth as the notion that a moving vehicle is required for a car ride, or the notion that arm lifting is required for bench pressing. P3A process requires an order of events with a series of steps; and thus a change from state ‘A’ to state ‘B’. This change means that a process at its most generic metric necessitates some sort of temporal emergence in order for a transition of states to be feasible. This is a widely accepted philosophical principle: “So construed, the notion of change is obviously bound up with notions of cause, time and motion” - Change and Inconsistency (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [7] “Change is intimately bound up with time. ” – What is philosophy? (University of Florida) [8] P4 This premise follows from the preceding premises. Conclusion The conclusion follows from the preceding premises. - The Argument from Temporal Minds establishes the non-existence of God. The Argument from EvilI am going to present William Rowe's version [9] of the Argument from Evil. Here are two scenarios which the argument involves:(E1) Lightning strikes a tree in a forest, causing a forest fire. A fawn is caught in this fire, and suffers intense agony for an extended period of time before finally dying. (E2) A five year old girl is, by her mother's boyfriend, severely beaten, raped and strangled to death. The argument is as follows:(P) No good state of affairs that we know of is such that God, by bringing it about, is morally justified in permitting E1 and E2. Therefore, probably:(Q) No good state of affairs is such that God, by bringing it about, is morally justified in permitting E1 and E2. Therefore, probably:(R) God does not existThe inference from Q to R should be rather obvious as these things in question are self-evidently permitted if God exists (which the Problem of Evil establishes is a contradiction). The inference from P to Q is justified based on the principle of induction [10]; it is clearly prima facie [11] warranted. It is safe to say that P is actually true because we have no good reason why God allows these instances to occur. To say God has morally sufficient reasons we just may not know about delves into radical epistemological skepticism. If we were consistent with the logic, then if I set up a bomb to blow up in an elementary school then skepticism would be warranted with regards to whether I was evil or not. It would have to be more reasonable to assume that I had morally sufficient reasons than the notion I did something evil according to this response to the Problem of Evil. If the Theist claims that is "different" without valid reasoning, then we are dealing with a classic case of special pleading. Also remember that one does not necessarily have to assume these acts of suffering are genuinely evil given Atheism. All we have to do is assume that these acts would be evil if God exists to show the contradiction in the idea of God. Pro has given us no good reasons to doubt Atheistic moral philosophy as well, so his "Good and Evil" section undermines the Problem of Evil in no way. - The Problem of Evil establishes the probable non-existence of God. Conclusion Pro has failed at showing that Theism is true, and I have succeeding in showing that Atheism is true. As it stands, the resolution has been negated. Sources[1] . http://www.youtube.com... (Video Source)[2] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[3] . http://arxiv.org... [4] . http://www.universetoday.com... [5] . http://www.closertotruth.com... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] . http://plato.stanford.edu...[8] . http://web.phil.ufl.edu...[9] . http://www.iep.utm.edu... [10] . http://www.conservapedia.com... [11] . http://en.wikipedia.org...