God Probably Doesn't Exist

I. Preliminary Comments Two general observations undercut my opponent's remarks. 1. Inappropriate Definitions - Kryptic claims at the outset that he will be arguing against "the Abrahamic God of the [B]ible. " I never agreed to this. In point of fact, we are debating the existence of a general theistic God, as my introductory remarks above make clear. Even if the God of Christianity does not exist, perhaps the God of Islam exists, or the God of Judaism. Maybe all three great monotheistic religions are false, but the God of milk-and-water deism takes the day. This observation is significant, because failure to argue against these concepts of God amounts to failure to argue one's case in this debate. 2. Irrelevancy of Kryptic's Case – Following off the heels of the above, at least 60% of my opponent’s case for atheism is completely irrelevant. Showing that the Bible contains contradictions, for example, does nothing to suggest that God does not exist. Indeed, all Kryptic's case proves is that the Bible is not inerrant. But of course, we are not debating the inerrancy of the Bible. For what it is worth, Kryptic has not even shown that the Bible contains errors. His one example is Mark 16:18, a passage the vast majority of New Testament textual critics reject as part of Mark's gospel; verse 18 was probably a later addition. And the point is, inerrancy only applies to the Bible as it was originally penned. More generally, it does not matter how “unpleasant [and] unstable” the God of the Bible appears to my opponent, because that God is not under debate today. Moreover, concerns about how "personal" certain Christians' faith is to them is clearly irrelevant. Even if all Christians were fundamentalist, legalistic, and close-minded, stating that fact does not go a single inch in suggesting that Christianity is false, much less that God does not exist. In these two ways, we see Kryptic trying to “sneak in” inappropriate, irrelevant issues. But I will not take the bait. Instead, we must stay focused on our goal of assessing the arguments for and against the existence of God. II. Defining God Do not think from the above that I find all of my opponent's remarks insignificant. Kryptic's principal argument for atheism is that in order to argue against the existence of a generic God, we must have a clear definition of a generic God. But we do not have one. Therefore, one cannot argue for atheism. Now, I completely agree that God must be defined. That is why I provided a definition above: the morally perfect, personal Creator of the universe. I understand the definition, at least, so what's the problem? Kryptic himself provides a similar definition, so surely he knows what God refers to. Therefore, he must present his case against the existence of God. But perhaps I have not been fair to Kryptic. Perhaps his argument is better stated like this: we must define God under the limitations set by the Abrahamic/biblical definition, for otherwise, the atheist does not have “any assertions to test. " That is to say, there are no predictions of the “generic God hypothesis” that someone might try to falsify, and therefore such a hypothesis is impossible to disprove. The biblical God hypothesis, however, does make predictions. So in the course of this debate, we must restrict ourselves to considering God biblically understood. This argument is even less impressive than the first. First, God’s existence can be disproved even if the “generic God hypothesis” does not make any concrete predictions. For example, Kryptic could argue that the concept of God contains a contradiction; perhaps omniscience is inconsistent with omnipotence (e. g. , “God does not have the power to learn”). In general, entities are immediately consigned to nonexistence if they have contradictory properties (e. g. , a square circle). In short, “observation of the natural environment” (i. e. , science) is not the only way of coming to a knowledge of what is real, and what is not real. Second, even a general understanding of God ostensibly makes predictions about the world. The problem of evil, for example, is predicated on the understanding that if God existed, evil would not exist. This is a bone fide prediction of the theistic hypothesis. Or again, the argument from evolutionary theory assumes that God, if He existed, would specially create life on Earth. Now, I do not think either of the above is a sound argument, but the point is that atheists can and do create arguments against a general theistic God based on possible predictions of the God hypothesis. Third, and this really the main point, even if my opponent could not disprove the existence of God generally conceived, what would that show? Would it excuse him from giving arguments for atheism? Nope! If God’s existence cannot be disproved, then no one should be an atheist. Take his “rainbow-monkey” illustration, a hypothesis that makes no claims about the world, but merely asserts that a rainbow-monkey spoke to Kryptic (an assertion we could never disprove). Now, if this hypothesis cannot be disproved, then we ought to remain agnostic about it, not conclude that some monkey did not talk to Kryptic. What could be more obvious? For these three reasons, Kryptic's principle argument fails to establish that God probably doesn't exist. III. The Case for God So we are left with no reason to think that God does not exist. But let me go the past what the debate requires of me and suggest some reasons to think that God does exist. In this round of the debate, I will outline one such argument: the kalam cosmological argument, an argument that attempts to demonstrate the existence of a personal Creator of the universe. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause (from 1 and 2). 4. If the universe has a cause, then a transcendent, personal Creator exists. 5. Therefore, a transcendent, personal Creator exists (from 3 and 4). 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause – We know through mere reflection that something cannot come into being out of nothing. Why? The argument can be stated intuitively like this: when a wooden boat, say, comes into being, the potentiality for that boat first had to exist in a heap of wood. Only then could that potentiality be turned into actuality by a carpenter. But for a boat to come into being without any cause whatsoever - including (a) the previously existent pile of wood and (b) the carpenter - it would have to come into being without even the potentiality of its existence, a feat nearing contradiction. As such, a boat cannot come into being out of nothing (i. e. , without any sort of cause). And what is true of the boat is true of everything else. 2. The universe began to exist - Modern Big Bang cosmology supports the conclusion that the universe came into being at some point in the past. The argument has two steps: (1) demonstrating that the standard Big Bang model predicts a beginning to the universe, and (2) demonstrating the Standard Model is indeed correct. Turning to step one, the Standard Model certainly predicts a beginning to space and time. As cosmologist P. C. W. Davis has written, “An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself. ” [1] The initial cosmological singularity is part and parcel of the Standard Model, so I’ll simply leave it as given that the big bang theory does indeed present us with a beginning to the universe. Turn, then, to step two: the big bang theory is correct in its prediction of a beginning to space and time. First, alternative models proposed to avert the standard Big Bang model have all failed. For example, the Steady-State Theory crumbled when the cosmic background radiation was discovered. Or again, the Oscillating Universe Model has largely been abandoned due to observations of mass-density much lower than that predicted by the model. As each successive attempt to avert the beginning of the universe fails, the Standard Model is reinforced. Second, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that any model of the universe, whether the Standard Model or otherwise, that represents the universe as expanding throughout its history must entail a beginning to the universe. [2] This is the only assumption of the theorem. Indeed, it is not even assumed that general relativity holds at the beginning of the universe; the theorem is therefore applicable to quantum gravity models. And the point is, all models that deny this assumption of average expansion fail. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.4. If the universe has a cause, then a transcendent, personal Creator exists – The cause of the universe must be transcendent (i. e. , beyond space and time) because it created space and time. But now a problem arises: the only two entities conceived of by philosophers that could be timeless and spaceless are (1) abstract objects (like numbers, sets, and properties) and (2) unembodied minds. But it belongs to the very definition of abstract objects that they lack any causal powers. They cannot be the cause of anything, much less the universe. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be an unembodied mind. In short, a personal Creator of the universe exists. Notes [1] P. C. W. Davies, "Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser. [2] A. Borde, A. Guth, A. Vilenkin, “Inflationary Spacetimes Are Incomplete in Past Directions,” Physical Review Letters 90 (2003).