The existence of the Christian God is logically indefensible.

Hi Pro! Sorry for the late reply. I will respond to each point you make. EVIL Thanks for clearing it up. Put simply, the answer is that we are not omniscient. With our limited minds, we cannot say with any sort of certainty that one particular piece of suffering is evil. For all we know, the effect of one piece of suffering may not arise hundreds of years from now. To give an example: Pro cites earthquakes as evil that God could prevent. However, for all we know, an earthquake that kills 100,000 people could prevent famine from overpopulation in 100 years that would have killed 2 million people. In fact, I would stress that it is likely that this would be the case. So, we just don't know what the effects of one piece of suffering could be. We are not omniscientfoot is likely that God could have a morally sufficient reason to permit suffering. FREE WILL Merely because God forknows what we will do, by no stretch means that we do not have free-will. Regardless, the murderer still freely chose to murder. Whether God foreknew this or not, he still freely did it. I guess it is almost as if the murderer has already made the choice. If the murderer had chosen to do differently, then God would have foreknown differently. This is called molinism. [1] COSMOLOGICAL Pro says that the same rules may not apply to the external universe, where there is nothing. But what qualities does nothingness have that means that the causality principle is abolished? Nothingness is just that - no matter, no energy - nothing. If something could and did come from nothing like that, it is extremely unlikely that it would produce something as huge as the universe. The likelihood is, it would only be a single atom that comes into being from nothing; or a couple of atoms. Not a whole universe. It is entirely up to you to prove that the same rules of causality do not exist outside of the universe. Because we are appealing to inductive reasoning. You are just guessing, and so you must provide proof. Pro then says that because the 1st premise refers to things inside of the universe, we can't be sure that they are the same outside of the universe. However, I would say that we have independent reasons to suggest that the universe has to have a cause, that I have already explained - namely, something cannot come from nothing. I have already explained why this is correct in the previous paragraph, and how it does not committ any sort of fallacy. TELEOLOGICAL Pro says that evolution rules out the need for God. However, i would argue to the contrary. Because in the time period that we have been on earth, evolution by the means of natural selection could never have occurred. I would say thay this perfectly illustrates the need for a God to guide the process. To give examples: the Origin of life, the Origin of Consciousness, the Origin of Sexual Reproduction, Biological Complexity just to name a few, are so improbable on a naturalistic worldview, that by the time it happened, the sun would cease to be a main sequence star and incinerate the earth. [2] Secondly, scientists have tried for more than 100 years to recreate life using only amino acids. But, to no aveil. It is just not possible. (by the way, 32 amino acids is ALOT to construct - and, there is a lot more to life than just amino acids. I hope this clarifies my point. Even if Pro is reffering to the universe as a whole, i would barely call finely tuned gravitational constants that keep planets in orbit, the beauty of stars, and the meticulous arrangement of gases within the stars themselves that allow nuclear fusion to take place, keeping the star 'alive', a cabbage. Sure, it isn't perfect but for a being with infinate creativity, the universe is his canvas. For all we know, the beauty and order of the universe is exquisite. Pro then mentions evil and surfering on earth, but i responded to that earlier in the debate. Next, pro says that the Multiverse theory removes the need for fine-tuning. But, the Multiverse theory is entirely guesswork. There is no evidence for such a thing. Nevertheless, the 'mother verse'; the physical reality that contains the multiverse, would still have to come into being, requiring a further cause and further fine-tuning to occur. ONTOLOGICAL Pro gives an alternative Ontological argument. However, premise 1 is inherently flawed - It is not possible for ANYTHING to stop a maximally great being from existing. A maximally great being is just that - maximally great. Nothing can stop it from existing. If you wrote a list of everything that makes something 'maximally great', 'preventing a machine that stops a Maximally Great Being from existing, from existing' would be a property. FAITH Pro carries on with his teapot analogy, and says that collision of rocks in space or an alien race formed the teapot. Is that more plausibly true than not? I don't think so. I think that it is entirely unreasonable. I also think that you cannot compare the existence of a creator of the universe with such a thing. Faith is based on a personal experience of God. So, it is entirely reasonable to rely on faith to believe in God - much of it is based on personal religious experience. Of course, I wasn't expecting a response for the resurrection, I just thought I would put it out there for viewing. God Bless Sources: [1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [2] Barrow, J. and Tipler, F.J. (1986), The Cosmological Anthropic Principle