Does god exist

HI. I look forward to this debate. I will be arguing against the existence of a theistic god only, rather than non personal higher entity. I will begin by addressing my opponent's points and then will conclude with evidence against. 1. Big bang, causation theory Two statements: There was a big bang, we don't know what did it. Therefore god must have. Primitive islanders also used to witness volcanic eruptions. Their reaction was, we don't know what did it, therefore god must have done it. Ignorance of a cause does not imply god. It is an intellectually lazy argument. Volcanic eruptions are the result of the buoyancy of magma, the pressure from the exsolved gases in the magma and the injection of a new batch of magma into an already filled magma chamber. ( 1 ) We can accurately predict eruptions because we understand why it has occurred. We do not understand the big bang. That is a fact. We do not know if this is the first manifestation of the universe. We do not know if the big bang was the true beginning of time and space. We definitely do not know if it came from nothing. To say it was god is ridiculous and almost certainly false. Furthermore there are real world consequences for using faith instead of logic - if we take the approach that is was god, then we lose the opportunity to understand fundamental reasons behind the big bang and what processes caused it. Faith denies knowledge because it refuses to look. 2. Argument from biological evolution My opponent states that because something is unlikely, it therefore follows that it must be designed. To say the universe was created demands something even more complex to have created it. That is even more unlikely. An argument to incredulity is not an argument to logic. Regardless of how improbable the universe's existence, it exists. We only need go outside to see that. What matters is that we understand the process behind it. Furthermore, it is a testament to mankind that we not only understand the improbable, we can also predict it. One need only investigate genetics to observe our command of it. Evolution is hardly irrelevant to Christianity. It utterly disproves the origin stories of the Old Testament, and provides a natural and logical solution to the complexity of life. Understanding evolution has allowed us to accurately track the origins of mankind and our common ancestry with other species in the animal kingdom. These are not trivial facts, they are essential to any earnest study of history. Furthermore, if creation in genesis need not be literal, we are left in the unbearable situation of guessing as to which parts of the Bible are literal or not. Pertaining to my opponent's next point, Is the resurrection of Jesus therefore not "literal"? 3. Resurrection of Jesus Sources please. The only consensus among the secular community is that Jesus was a real individual, was baptised, and then crucified. This is one of the most hotly disputed areas of history in existence - it is hardly in consensus. For the sake of the debate though, I will take my opponent's side for a moment and assume that historians agree with him/her. Notwithstanding the failed prophecies, lack of modern evidence, and the abundance of other messiah figures in that time ( Ceaser, egyptian and babylonian gods, etc ) why should anyone believe that Jesus was unique from an objective viewpoint? It was hardly uncommon back then. Both Julius Caeser and Augustus gave birth to cults depicting them as gods. Julius Caeser in particular after his murder was used by the Imperial Cult as a figure of divinity. Sound familiar? ========================================================================================== It is impossible to disprove or prove with 100% any subject, including god. However, religion is predictable. It is this predictiveness that shows it is a human construct, which I will attempt to support below. Christianity is not why so many believe in a god. Religion is a masterpiece of the human mind. It stems from fear and wonder. Religion is also in many respects, an emotional reaction, just like fear or love. It is the mind's attempt to understand the world with what information it has available. We can predict belief in god through a number of variables. 1. Great suffering, and a lack of information and personal empowerment. A desire for justice without a means to enforce it 2. A lack of control over our environment and factors far beyond our control. Take the volcano from my first point and the native islanders who believed that gods had caused it Belief in god is normal. It is something we use as a construct to try and make sense of our lives, especially when we are in great pain or have absolutely no control. In respect to my opponent's arguments on the resurrection of Christ, I have little doubt that the story would have inspired martyrdom in future believers, including a form of temporary sacrifice for the reward of heaven. The point though, is that it is predictable. We understand why religious belief inspires its followers. And if it is predictable, then it is controllable, as political leaders have known and used for their own benefit. The promise of unconditional love plays on our suffering and offers a hope for the naive. We can predict con artists by their appeal to emotion and their demand on us to hurry "before it is too late and the offer expires". In addition we are tempted by things, that in hindsight, are obviously too good to be true. Religious leaders, eternity in heaven, and a great fear of hell if we refuse at imminent death, all fit this perfectly. If god is a predictable belief, and something that we can understand, then there is little reason to believe that it is supernaturally inspired. The argument is not whether god exists, it is apparent, at least in a theistic form, that he does not. The question is whether we are courageous enough to accept it and move on. I will now add some classic arguments for god's non-existence, from a theistic Christian sense. 1. Lack of miracles and lack of fulfilment of the prophecies mentioned in the Bible. In addition, failed prophecy of Ezekiel concerning Tyre, and inconsistencies in virtually every book. A rehash from previously, if one part can't be taken literally, than what can be? 2. Scientific errors in the Bible, the mustard seed is not the smallest seed, value of pi incorrect from 1 Kings 7:23, hares chewing the cud ( they don't ) Lev 11:6, etc etc there's plenty more on freethoughtdebate.org 3. NT translations, the final verses in Mark which were added long after the book was written - Christians sources generally don't dispute this. The number of original books in the bible, the 4 gospels were whittled down from a total of 59, Revelation was taken from a list of 8 other apocalyptic books ( and Revelation wasn't even added until 419 CE ( A.D. ) 4. No modern evidence whatsoever to corroborate miracles in scientific circles. Children dying from their parents praying for them rather than taking them to hospitals, Christians not being supernaturally protected where they are persecuted and hurt in spite of promises of deliverance and hope. 5. The now universal usage of "understanding the context". This is not a mark of confidence in a firm and unshaken rock of belief, this is a result of obvious error and an attempt to brazenly salvage a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. Can you imagine a science teacher ever using this phrase when referring to a science textbook? 6. Evil exists. No matter how much we don't want it to, evil, or things that disagree with us, exist. There can never be an explanation for why a theistic god allows it to happen. Why would god allow adam and eve to suffer? People don't want to suffer, its not a question of free will. Sources: 1. http://www.scientificamerican.com...