God Probably Doesn't Exist

Thanks Pro, here are my rebuttal's to your opening arguments. Rebuttal to Pro's First Contention: There are several important inconsistencies to note about Rowe's theory. According to his statement, God is bound by human logic and knowledge. For example, he implies God must not be omniscient if he allows suffering that humans cannot understand. He also claims omniscience himself, "There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse."[1] Notice how he claims to know God's mind. "There exist" is a statement, leaving no room for the possibility that there may be, "A greater good" or an "evil equally bad or worse". What if that "intense suffering" was part of a plan, which was and has been taking place over centuries? The omniscient God would know that, because He is sovereign.[2] Second, Rowe assumes innocence. He assumes the fawn was good. How can an animal be good? Everything in the earth is tainted by evil, therefore everything deserves to be condemned to Hell.[3] The God we are debating spoke through a man named Paul and said, "...the wages of sin is death..."[4] Each one that is born is naturally and totally evil, therefore God has the right to destroy it if he so desires. Therefore, Rowe's example is invalidated, because he first assumes everything is naturally good, and second denies God's omniscience. The second paragraph of Rowe's argument is invalidated because of the first being invalidated. Yet I will reiterate, Rowe claims to know the mind of God, (Therefore claiming omniscience). This argument does not make God improbable. Rebuttal to Pro's Second Contention: This is immediately nullified, for as you mentioned, "P" could stand for many things, which, I propose could include, "God Exists" which would invalidate any other points filled in the place of God. Therefore: A. It is possible that God exists. B. Necessarily, if it is possible that (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) exists, then it is necessary that (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) exists. C. Necessarily, if (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) exists, then it is not the case that p. D. Therefore, it is not possible that (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) exists. (from A, B, & C) Does this make God any more probable? No. Does this make Him any less probable? No. By the logic behind it, this argument refutes itself. Rebuttal to Pro's Third Contention: I really hate to say this, but the belief in an eternal universe is nonsense. Universal expansion tells us that at one point there was either a)Nothing, or b)A supercompressed molecule, and either, a)"God created the heavens and the earth" or b)It exploded.[5] By using the ruler and Canada examples, you admit there was indeed a beginning. Time is a concept only viewed and followed on earth anyway, so the fact that it is effected as one passes the speed of light hundreds of thousands of miles away from the earth should not be surprising.[6][7] Besides, you claim it has been, "observed", yet no one has ever made a, "deep space trip at 95% the speed of light" so no one can actually know if this is really the case, it is simply a theory.[8] Great arguments Pro, but there are loopholes in every argument. Back to you. [1] Rowe, William L. 1979. "The Problem of and Some Varieties of Atheism," American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335-41 [2] http://www.theopedia.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.biblegateway.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://www.phy.olemiss.edu...