There are no good reasons to think theism is true

I know that his work is cut out for him. Even if all of my arguments fail my opponent must somehow show that there exists no good arguments for theism. To meet such a burden will be difficult enough but I hope to make near impossible with just 3 contentions. Pro’s Positive Contention Rebuttal) I will be brief due to Characters- My opponent lays out a form for a logical problem of evil with a causality fallacy. The entire argument assumes the omni-max being ‘must’ solve evil by never allowing it to happen. If God is omnipotent, then God ‘must’ design a world absent of evil. Imagine my reaction when I read this! This ‘must’ does not logically follow at all! If we allow for the being to be truly omnipotent then said Being would be all-powerful ‘enough’ to eliminate any negative consequences of evil at a future time. Any harm caused by evil is rescinded by a future omnipotent action of the omni-max Being. There is no valid logical problem of Evil. (Different than ‘evidential PoE’ N. T. Wright spoke of) - Do we see any evidence for such a belief, that God will eliminate any problem caused by evil, as plausible or even highly likely? Do your own memories of pain and suffering fade? We completely see that time causes a slow fade to the memory of pain and suffering. How much more so when we consider the concept of how our relationship to pain and suffering would be viewed in an afterlife scenario? We have good evidence to verify the belief that God will be able to deal with suffering and pain in a competent way as our very experience of self-awarenss reflects this gradual lessoning. [1] This also barely scratches the surface of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Primal awareness of suffering, a clear distinction between animals and sentient humans. [2] ********************************************** So do we have good reasons to believe in theism? We will just take 3 basic, as yet, undefeated good reasons to present the fact my opponent is unable to make such a claim as the resolution: 1) Argument from Contingency 2) Teleological Argument from fine-tuning 3) Evidence of Interaction Contingency Argument: 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe exists. From 1 and 3 it logically follows that: 4. The universe has an explanation of its existence. And from 2 and 4 the conclusion logically follows: 5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God. *** P1: There are only two possible explanations of existing entities there should be little opposing doubt. P2: Here we see a logical validation. If an opponent disagrees with P2 he would have to assert a valid proof of a self-existent universe or valid proof that the cause of the universe itself was caused by a contingent cause and would be susceptible to infinite regression: - We can see it is far more reasonable to conclude: o The universe was caused and is not self-existent. For my opponent to disagree here would necessitate a powerful quality and quantity of evidence to buck the consensus of scholarship. o The cause of the universe needs to be self-existent to avoid infinite regression. It is far more reasonable to avoid self-contradictory explanations like infinite regression. o God is by definition a self-existent being capable of causing the universe. [3] Given that we have a powerful explanation for the universe (supported by Historical interaction with said Being) it is completely logical to conclude the veracity of this premise. My opponent might respond of “some unknown self existent force ‘could’ generated the universe, how could I know its God? ” To assert such a rebuttal would deny the mountains of claims of interaction with said intelligent self existent and the fact no such metaphysical self-existent force is known save the Mind of God. P3: Should be obvious. P4: With the concession of 1 and 3 as most will, this necessarily follows. P5 Again with the concession of 2 and 4 this necessarily follows. [4] Teleological argument) “That question is: why do design arguments remain so durable if empirical evidence is inferentially ambiguous, the arguments logically controversial, and the conclusions vociferously disputed? One possibility is that they really are better arguments than most philosophical critics concede. Another possibility is that design intuitions do not rest upon inferences at all. ”[5] Standford Philosophy dept. 1. The Fine-Tuning of the universe was due to physical necessity, chance or design. 2. It was not by physical necessity or chance. 3. Thus it was by design. The question the Teleological is trying to determine is the source of the pattern of the Fine-Tuning. If there is any doubts to the veracity of the fine-tuning my opponent would have to tackle a mountain evidence. Hopefully we can both leave that for another debate. P1. It could not have been Physical Necessity. The first physical cause of the universe could not have had a physical cause as is directly asserted by Hawking in Mindilow. [6] “It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle” – To contend Physical necessity generated the constants would be a massive burden. It is far more reasonable to reject a physical cause due to the logical contradiction as the scholars have done. P2. Chance by itself generates nothing. Without a physical impetus chance does not operate. Chance has yet to generate anything without a physical principle behind it. Chance behaves unlike actual at a mere level. [7] P3. This leaves Design as the only option. We look to understand that the preponderate evidence is concluded as valid when we review systems of design (not complexity). After having ruled out the first two possible causes we can easily conclude design as the most plausible conclusion. Evidence of Interaction: If there is a designer, is there evidence of his presence and interaction on earth? I submit, to start, evidence of the Testimonies for review. [8] Quality – We are not citing drug addicts, hucksters and social deviants claims of interaction with God but countless educated, well adjusted Pastors, Priests, Theologians and Monks claim this interaction. Quantity –You can haul in countless individuals and document their claims. You can examine both the recorded and present claims to then see the overarching consistency that permeates the claims. Disassociative claims – Any of the claims of other gods can be categorized and be easily delineated that indeed these people have encountered different gods as per the Christian claim of as a multitude of supernatural beings exist to thwart the Designers Plan. Summary: I cannot imagine how my opponent could meet such a burden of proof to the assertion that there are no good reasons for theism, but I am excited to see his review of my 3 basic contentions that build a cumulative case and represent very good reasons for a belief in theism. I also look forward to a positive case as the Logical Problem of Evil even if changed for the evidential PoE does not constitute valid support of my opponent’s resolution. [1]Marco Biagini PhD . http://xoomer.virgilio.it... [2]. http://ndpr.nd.edu... [3]. http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [4] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [5]. http://plato.stanford.edu... [6]A Brief History of time – Stephen Hawking Page 143 (P3) [7] . http://www.asa3.org... [8]. http://www.catholic.org... [9]. http://www.designinference.com...