Does God exist

The UniverseThe logical conundrum that my opponent raises is what's known as "Turtles All The Way Down," so named because there was once an ancient belief that the world was a disc on the back of a turtle that was standing on the back of another turtle, and another turtle, all the way down an infinite chain of turtles that never ends. In more scientific terms, this is known as infinite recursion. Con is also very much correct in stating that it's ridiculous and unfeasible as an explanation. So how do we stop infinite recursion? Well, the buck needs to stop somewhere, and because everything that has a beginning must logically have a cause, there needs to be something that does not have a beginning. God, according to most religions, is eternal, and therefore fulfils that requirement—He does not have a beginning. But if God can be eternal, why can't the universe? The universe operates on a system of entropy, meaning that everything is winding down or decaying indefinitely. If the universe has existed forever, and yet still operates on properties of entropy, it raises the question why we haven't already reached a point where entropy is at its maximum and nothing can wind down any further (a state known as thermodynamic equilibrium). The fact that the universe as we know it has not reached a state of maximum entropy is evidence that it hasn't been around forever. But if the universe can't be eternal, how can God? Entropy is a law that governs the natural world. God, by definition, is a supernatural being, meaning that he is beyond or outside of nature. The laws that apply to nature, therefore, do not apply to God. Moral AuthorityMy opponent brings up the concept of hell. Because the societal idea of hell is based off of the Christian doctrine, I will address it from the standpoint of Christianity. I cannot speak for how other religions may handle the subject. First of all, this idea that God will cast you into eternal flames if you have the audacity to sin is crass, and does not accurately represent the issue. Biblically, “all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and “the wages of sin is death,” (Romans 6:23). This means that because we've all sinned, we all deserve hell. But God is not the one to send us there. Hell is what happens when we say say “I don't want God,” and God lets us have what we asked for. C.S. Lewis has explained this issue much, much better than I could ever hope to in chapter eight of his book The Problem of Pain. I would certainly direct anyone with an objection to hell to read the full chapter, but I will quote a few sections here for the purposes of this debate: “If the happiness of a creature lies in self surrender, no one can make that surrender but himself (though many can help him to make it) and he may refuse. I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully “All will be saved". But my reason retorts, “Without their will, or with it?" If I say "Without their will" I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self surrender be involuntary? If I say "With their will", my reason replies "How, if they will not give in?"”And:“In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: "What are you asking God to do?" To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not [accept forgiveness]. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.” I would also note that just because a person believes their actions to be right doesn't mean their actions are excusable. Hitler, for instance, despite his belief that he was doing the right thing, still did unimaginable evil. If we as people can't condone his actions in light of that fact, we shouldn't expect God to either. Omnipresence and the Problem of Evil Con states that God sees countless horrors and atrocities and does nothing to fix them. But here's the thing: so do we. Poverty exists even though there's more than enough money. Starvation exists even though there's more than enough food. Homelessness exists even though there's more than enough shelter. The problem isn't that we don't have the means to solve the world's problems, it's we've built a civilization that either profits off or ignores these problems, and now we're so stuck in our ways that the smallest sacrifice on the part of those who have more than they need seems like an injustice. This is not God's fault. This is our fault. God intervening and fixing everything wouldn't get rid of them for good, either, because these atrocities are symptoms of the the underlying disease: human greed and selfishness. Unless we cure the disease, we'll be right back where we started before too long, and God cannot force us to be selfless without violating our free will. Which brings me to my second point: We have chosen to abuse our free will. I can kill someone because free will gives me the ability to make that choice. This is also not God's fault. Now, it's true that God could step in and stop people from committing evil, but there's a problem with this: if He stops us every single time we're about to do something evil, therefore eliminating evil's existence, we don't truly have free will. Now, I suppose he could only stop us some of the time; He could allow some atrocities and prevent only the worst ones from occurring. But how do we know He hasn't already done this? Maybe the horrors we have in our world are nothing compared to what we'd have if God wasn't actively stopping us. Nature vs. Nurture It's true that morality produces a better society, so I can certainly understand the argument that morality evolved for survival. But there's a problem: Selfishness is in my best interests, but not society's. However, I should l put society's best interests over my own because it aids the species' survival (thus why selflessness is considered “good” and selfishness is considered “bad”). Why should I care about the species' survival? Because if the species doesn't survive, neither will I. So it's in my best interests to be selfless. But as we've already established, it's also in my best interests to be selfish. Which should I choose? Well, nature invariably chooses the short-term goal of helping oneself. A tiger that makes a kill doesn't share that kill with other tigers because it cares about itself as an individual animal, not about tigers as a species. An inferior male tree frog will take every chance it gets to pass on its genetics even though those genetics are inferior because it cares about itself as an individual animal, and not tree frogs as a species. So why have humans always seen the long-term goal of helping the species over helping themselves as "good?" Because it's the only option that considers the needs of others, and somewhere deep down at the core of humanity, there is the belief that helping other people is "right." In other words, a moral law.