Atheism (Con) vs. The Existence of God (Pro)

Introduction I would like to begin my first argument by talking about how I have not stated "rational evidence disconfirming the existence of a supreme being." Though this may be true, I would like to point out that no one has seen, studied, or interviewed God, which brings to the point that there is no good, solid evidence proving or disproving God. My method of going about this task has been to relay certain facts that disprove stories talked about in the Bible. By doing that, I have: 1. Disproved the idea of Adam and Eve by giving evidence towards evolution. 2. Disproved the idea of God creating the Universe by giving facts about the Big Bang and how no time existed before the Universe for any supreme being to create it. Rebuttals The third point rests on a misunderstanding, God has classically been defined as a necessary being who is the ground of all reality. So he isn"t defined as self-created or self caused, rather he is uncreated (ungenerated) by definition. Pro stated that God was created by chance and that a being like God did not create himself, but was created without being created. As I stated in a previous argument, "Theism says that God created the Universe, but it does not explain who or what created God. It's the same paradox." When stating this, I explained that neither system can be thoroughly explained logically. One cannot explain where God came from without wondering how God was created. At the same time, however, one cannot explain where the Universe came from without wondering how the singularity came into existence. Pro seems to be arguing against an idea that doesn't make sense, while trying to explain it with an idea that is equally inaccurate. I believe we can come to the conclusion that if God can be created without a creator, then the Universe itself can be created without a creator, correct? "Hence Con (Hawking) would have to show that it"s impossible for anything to exist timelessly." According to Pro, I must prove that it is impossible for anything to exist without there being time. I shall do that. First, however, I would like to restate something: Time is what allows an object to progress forward. For something to truly exist timelessly, there would have to be no time at all, which would mean that this certain object cannot progress forward and perform an action of any kind. Unfortunately, that is not entirely accurate, because for something to exist without being capable of performing any actions, it would have to exist in only one plank-time unit, which would not be timeless, for there is only one unit of time. Without time, an object cannot exist. However, Einstein, when coming up with the theory of relativity, taught us that time and space are one, hence making space-time. Using that fact, saying that nothing exists timelessly would be saying that nothing exists in space, which is impossible. If nothing exists in space, then nothing exists period. Furthermore, God, even though he would be all powerful, could not exist timelessly because time is a fundamental aspect of being able to move, think, act, et-cedra. Even if God were to exist 'timelessly', he would have to exist in only one plank-time unit, which would make it impossible for him to do anything. With that, I think I have proven that nothing can exist timelessly, which would disprove the idea of God existing before the Universe. "As for the location of God, location is relative to objects in space, but God, an ultramundane mind, isn't in space, he is causally transcendent from it, and so at most this objection would show that God is immaterial, which is what the theist affirms." This defies what I have just stated, which says that nothing can be ultramundane and nothing can exist without space. ""The reason we can interact with our environment [and perceive it as beautiful] is because we have evolved to do so."" - "This explains nothing! That"s like saying that the reason we were naturally conditioned for such things is because we were naturally conditioned for such things. It"s circular." How does it not explain it? If humanity evolved within dark caves, we would find cave walls to be beautiful. If we came up onto the surface, we would find everything to be unsightly. The world would not be beautiful if we were not conditioned to think that way. Pro then went on to ask why we evolved to be this way. I have the answer: Natural selection. We evolved this way so we could interact with our environment in a good way. "why did that evolution take place in an arena finely tuned for embodied moral and rational persons"[?] Pro wants to know why we evolved to have morals. Here is the answer: We have morals because our brain works that way. The amygdala, the portion of the brain that allows for emotions to work, had a certain mutation long ago that gave us morals. "[T]he mind-like structure being consistent all the way from the observable universe to the human brain in the photo below and onto our creations, the internet." That really does not mean anything. The structure within the brain is logical, for it allows for good connections between portions of the brain. It is that way because it works. The Universe being that way correlates with the brain in one way: Physics. Physics makes things come together the way they do. The brain and the stars both run off the same laws of physics. "Con even admits that the notion of entropy creating the cosmos "does in fact lead to a dead end..."" Yes, indeed I did say it leads to a dead end. God does too. Pro fails to see how God also leads to a dead end. Because I explained this thoroughly earlier in this round, I will not do it again. "The theist"s answer is a reasonable one, that the cosmos was created by an uncreated (not self-created) being, and God is the best candidate for such a being." Something cannot be created by something uncreated. If something is uncreated, it does not exist. Now, I understand what Pro was saying about God being a necessary being rather than a contingent being, but have we actually proved that a necessary being could exist? Science has not given us proof of that. "God, as such, is perfect, and such a God only creates good things for good purposes. This cosmos is good, all things considered, why expect anything else on theism?" There are evil people on the planet. If God creates things for good purposes, then why are some people evil? Because it seems my response to Pro's challenge was incorrect, I will answer it once more: Pro's Challenge: Why would reasoning beings who apprehend logical manipulation emerge given only natural, and not rational processes? My Response: There are a few answers to this question, the first being evolution. Evolution, which has taken place for millions of years, has had plenty of time to work. Millions of years is more than enough time for brains to evolve to be able to think logically. The second answer is logic is relative. Here is an example: Pro believes God is logical, while I do not. What is logical to one man is not logical to another man. This is why it is difficult to answer this challenge, because what I find logical is not what Pro might find logical. However, it is an answer because everyone is logical to themselves. "Since God is a reasoning being, and physical processes are not reasoning beings, then it makes better sense that God ordered his creation so that humans would evolve to apprehend logic and reason. Reason comes from reason, not unreason. Therefore Con"s atheism is unreasonable." Yes, but humans have evolved to apprehend logic and reason on their own. They can do this on their own. All laws of biology and natural selection say that this can happen on its own. That is just the way the Universe works. Conclusion I believe I have concluded that a Creator such as God is not needed to create the Universe. I have shown that all aspects of Creationism, including Adam and Eve and instant creation of the Universe by God. I have explained that morals and logic can occur logically, and I have explained that God could not have existed before the Universe. Using those facts, I think we can come to the conclusion that there is not and cannot be an all-powerful Creator. I patiently await Pro's final arguments and rebuttals. Once he has done so, this debate will be in the hands of the voters. I have enjoyed this debate and hope to win. Thank you.