God Probably Doesn't Exist

Defense of C1: Evil Con’s first response misunderstands the inductive problem of evil and inductive reasoning in general. The evidential argument isn’t attempting to prove gratuitous evil absolutely exists, it looks at theism as an explanatory theory. It allows some unknown possibility of allowing evil, but concludes it’s unlikely. Iep.edu put it really well. “Evidential arguments, therefore, claim that there are certain facts about evil that cannot be adequately explained on a theistic account of the world. Theism is thus treated as a large-scale hypothesis or explanatory theory which aims to make sense of some pertinent facts, and to the extent that it fails to do so it is disconfirmed.” [1] Con claiming some unknown reason may exist doesn’t support his case. It supports mine because it shows the lack of an explanation. However, if God is all powerful, he could bring about whatever greater good without the use of evil. Him claiming the statement “there exists” leaves no room shows a misunderstanding of inductive reasoning in general. The statement is supported by inductive evidence, so yes there is a possibility that the statement is wrong, but it is probably true because of what we have seen. Con in his next rebuttal attempts to explain evil. He says nothing is naturally good because of original sin. However, this has to do with the fall of man and sin. A fawn is not responsible nor could be responsible for either. A fawn is not intelligent enough to understand a deities intentions. How can God punish animals for the fall of man? The article Con cited said this “Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man” [2] So at the very very best Con only explains human suffering. However, I argue that it doesn’t even explain human suffering. God either created Adam and Eve perfect or imperfect. If they were imperfect, then the blame is still on God. If they were perfect, then they could have never became imperfect, by definition. Con’s argument seems to be an incomplete argument from free will. You have to introduce free will into the equation to account for the perfect/imperfect paradox. However, we can have free will with limitations. If you believe we do have free will, then you already believe we can have free will with limitations. I cannot jump over a big building or turn something into a unicorn with my mind. It is perfectly coherent for there to be free will with limitations. Essentially, Con makes a common fundamental misunderstanding of the evidential argument and presents an incomplete argument from original sin. Which doesn’t touch upon the problem of animal suffering. The argument remains standing Defense of C2: Modal Argument I don’t actually have to respond to anything. I could just tell everyone to reread my round 2. Because I already responded to this argument. I’ll quote myself “Now, one could propose that theism is an analytic truth and thus P is not possible. However, since we can come up with more P plugins this makes P more plausible. There would simply be more ways for P to be true than God. So, while it may refute one P argument on its own, it does not refute the P arguments overall.” -DDO user n7 Stringer put it in a little more technical way “Since the truth of this proposition only requires that one of its disjuncts be true, and since each one is just as plausible as P, it has a much higher probability of being true than P—especially if DA (set of modal P arguments) has an infinite number of disjuncts. So DA is more plausible than P. Consequently, it is more plausible that at least one of the modal arguments for atheism is sound and that the modal ontological argument is unsound than that the modal ontological argument is sound while the modal arguments for atheism are unsound. Thus the modal ontological argument does not undermine the entire set of modal arguments for atheism.” [3] My argument remains standing. Con’s rebuttal was refuted from the start. Defense of C3: Universe’s Non-begining. Like in contention one, Con misunderstands the argument. He says “belief in an eternal universe is nonsense”. Yes it is, but that’s a straw man fallacy. In round 2 I said the universe is finite. It can still be finite and still not ontologically begin. He then says universal expansion shows it has a beginning and claims I admit there was a beginning. However, the universal expansion is compatible with my argument. Same thing with the universe starting out very small. Because the states of time existed equally as these states. If Con says the universe began like a ruler begins at inch one or Canada at its border, then I have won. Canada begins at its border, but Canada doesn't ontologically begin at its border. The rest of Canada exists just as its border exists. Canada doesn't come into being or become actual from nothing when a person reaches its border. Just like the universe, it doesn't become actual at its starting point, but has existed equally with other states of time. The big bang is like inch one on an eternal ruler. Speed of light time dilation has been verified. Muons are easier to detect when they're moving near the speed of light, because it will decay slower [4]. It is not the only type of dilation that can happen either. If an object is affected less by gravity, its clock will run slower. To give specific examples of this is the Hafele and Keating Experiment [5]. Conclusion Con's rebuttal round was unfortunately full of misunderstandings. His first objection the EPOE does nothing since it's evidential. His second doesn't explain animal suffering and suffers many flaws leaving it improbable. His objection to Stringer's modal argument was already answered, yet went ignored. His objections to the universe's non-beginning misunderstood the theories of time and what it means to begin to exist. All my arguments remain standing against Con's rebuttals. The resolution is affirmed. Remember Con, you don't address what was said in this round. In your last round you defend your original arguments. Sorry for the constant reminders, but many people mess up the format in the last round. Thanks for keeping up with the debate by not forfeiting. Now to Con for his final. [1] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://infidels.org... [4] http://home.fnal.gov... [5] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...