God Probably Exists

I am sure this will be a fascinating debate. Clarification:First I would like to remind my opponent and those reading what this debate is not about. This debate is not about the social impact of religion. It is not about the ethics of the Bible or Koran. It is not about religion at all. This debate is simply about the existence of God. That is to say the existence of a “Supreme Being . .. includ[ing] attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, intelligence, and eternal and necessary existence. .. the creator of the [contingent] universe” I will show that such is likely. I would also like to be clear that my arguments are not entirely or even mostly my own. I will be citing argumentsmade by people much more intelligent than I. I will do my best to articulate and defend these arguments. The main source of my arguments is from Dr. William Lane Craig. Here is a link to his website. (1)Sam Harris, one of the main figures for “new atheism” has said of Dr. Craig that he is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheist. ” Argument 1: Kalam Cosmological argument (KCA)(Heavily influenced by Dr. Craig’s presentation on the subject)P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause “Nihil fit ex nihilo” That is to say that nothing comes from nothing. Things do not just pop out of nowhere. Believing in magic performed by a magician is more practical than believing that out of nothing comes nothing. At least with a magician the rabbit pulled from the hat is claimed to have come from a hat as opposed to have justmaterialized. This first premise is rationally intuitive and a fundamental principle of science. Thus we see thefirst premise is true. P2: The Universe began to exist There is consensus in the scientific community that the universe is not eternal, that is to say has not always existed. Rather it is clear that the universe had an absolute beginning around thirteen billion years ago in theevent known as the Big Bang. Thus the second premise is true. As both P1 and P2 are indisputably true it is only logical to conclude,C: The Universe had a causeThere must have been a cause that brought the Universe into being. As Dr. Craig puts it “Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power…. Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind. Thus, the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the universe. ”(2)Thus we see that the KCA provides a compelling argument for the existence of God. The resolution is affirmed bythis argument alone. For Con negate this argument he will have to disprove either P1 or P2. Argument 2: Fine Tuning1. The fine-tuning (or appearance) of the universe can be explained through physical necessity, chance or design.2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.3. It is due to design. “From galaxies and stars, down to atoms and subatomic particles, the very structure of our universe is determined by these numbers:” (3) In other words, fine tuning is evident. “* Speed of Light: c=299,792,458 m s-1 * GravitationalConstant: G=6.673 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 * Planck's Constant:1.05457148 x 10-34 m2 kg s-2 * Planck Mass-Energy:1.2209 x 1022 MeV * Mass of Electron,Proton, Neutron: 0.511; 938.3; 939.6 MeV * Mass of Up, Down,Strange Quark: 2.4; 4.8; 104 MeV (Approx. ) * Ratio of Electron toProton Mass: (1836.15)-1 * GravitationalCoupling Constant: 5.9 x 10-39 * CosmologicalConstant: (2.3 x 10-3 eV) * Hubble Constant: 71km/s/Mpc (today) * Higgs VacuumExpectation Value: 246.2 GeV”Dr. Craig asks “What is the best explanation for this astounding phenomenon? There are three live options. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. Which of these options is the most plausible? ”(3)Physical necessity: “Is a life-prohibiting universe impossible? Far from it! It's not only possible; it's far more likely than a life-permitting universe. The constants and quantities are not determined by the laws of nature. There'sno reason or evidence to suggest that fine-tuning is necessary. ” (3)Chance: “The probabilities involved are so ridiculously remote as to put the fine-tuning well beyond the reach of chance. ” Dr. Craig then concludes “Given the implausibility of physical necessity or chance, the best explanation for why the universe is fine-tuned for life may very well be it was designed that way. ”Fred Hoyle, a famous astrologer seemingly agrees with this conclusion having stated that “ A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect monkeyed with the physics… and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. ” To refute this my opponent must show that fine tuning is the result of chance or physical necessity. We see this is not the case. The Fine Tuning argument shows the likely hood of a designer all but evident. This argument by itself shows God’s existence probable. Argument 3: The Moral ArgumentImmanuel Kant, the central figure in modern philosophy, is credited with formulating this argument. (4)P1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. P2) Objective moral values do exist. C) Therefore God. “that objective values do exist and deep down we all know it. In moral experience, we apprehend a realm of objective moral goods and evils. Actions like rape, cruelty, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior. They are moral abominations. Some things, at least, are really wrong. Similarly, love, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good, but then it follows logically and necessarily that God exists. ”(5)This argument like the first two is sufficient on its own to affirm the resolution. Objective morals exists. Thus God exists. Conclusion:The resolution states “God probably exists. ” Each of the arguments I have presented affirm this on their own. Collectively it becomes clear that the resolution is affirmed. Con will have to negate all three arguments to negate. This is quite the task to undertake. With that I turn it over to Con. Sources:(1) . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...(2) . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...(3) . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...(4) . http://plato.stanford.edu...(5) . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...