God almost certainly exists

Thank you for your arguments, and sorry for taking so long to reply; it's been a busy week. Overview: I would like to clarify the BOP here: Pro, quite literally, has to prove that God exists. "Almost certainly exists" is not cognitively distinct from "certainly exists," and, if it somehow is, Pro will have to elaborate on the difference. Either way, as Christopher Hitchens and others have elaborated, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and Pro will have to present this in order to win the round. I am not going to spend too long with the constructive here, as most of my work, with the Con position, is simply disproving the arguments that Pro has put forward. Moreover, most of my constructive material is in direct response to the two arguments presented by Pro, and, as such, will be presented as a rebuttal. With that in mind, however, I would like to present one argument against a likelihood of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God. I. Problem of Evil Everybody knows and expects this argument, so I am not going to spend too long explicating it [1]. Essentially, evil exists in the world, in myriad, horrible forms. We see this manifested in genocide, detestable crimes, poverty, starvation, etc. The God that Pro is defending is perfectly good (perfectly moral), but also all-powerful. Thus, in order to act morally, God would have created a world where evil was not present, where destruction is, at the minimum, minimized. However, we see that this has not been the case. We are, then, faced with two options, neither of which supports Pro's side: 1) God does not exist, or 2) He is not in the same conception as Pro has presented (e.g., not omnibenevolent). To make response to this point simple, I challenge Pro to answer this question: why would a perfectly good, all-powerful God refuse to stop the Holocaust, the killing of (according to the Judeo-Christian tradition) his "chosen people." That is all I have for independent points for now, as most of my work, as stated earlier, will be in refutation. Rebuttals: I. Argument from Creation ("Creation has a creator") This argument is, quite clearly, fallacious, but I will first attack the overarching principle. The universe certainly does have an explanation, and scientists are searching for it everyday. The lack of a currently-known explanation is not an excuse to substitute a "God of the gaps," whereby Pro has created an infinitely complex, unknowable, timeless and spaceless being that cannot be proven or disproven by his very nature. God, in the past, has been used to explain things like the Solar System, natural disasters, disease, etc., until the scientific community was able to dispel these ridiculous notions. We face a similar situation here. P1 Moving on to the premises given by Pro, I would like to first quibble with P1. While everything in existence does have an explanation, surely, that does not necessarily mean that there is an external creator. For instance, we see that, on the extremely micro scale of quantum physics, that particles do, in fact, sometimes create themselves from a vacuum [2]. If this can occur, then it would seem at least plausible that the energy which matter manifested from to cause the Big Bang could, quite literally, spontaneously appear. Pro claims that nothing could exist without an explanation; this is certainly true. However, his definition of explanation as an external force goes completely unjustified in his defense. P2 This premise is absolute nonsense. Firstly, as I previously stated, an external explanation is both 1) not necessary, and 2) not known currently by the scientific community. I will, of course, not be arguing that the universe is somehow changeless. However, the second part of this premise is completely unjustified. One possible explanation, other than God, and actually substantiated by findings from science is the inflationary model's gravity wave/primordial energy conception [3]. Pro claims that the cause of the universe must have several qualities: necessity, transcendence, and omnipotence. None of these things must be the case, as I will demonstrate. "The cause must be necessarily existent...[if not] we immediately go into a regress of causes." It is completely unclear, then, how a God that has no creator makes sense, but a universe/energy/space that has no creator does not. What created God, then? Moreover, Pro has presented the idea that God is changeless. If this is the case, then why did God decide to disrupt the status quo and create the universe? That, certainly, is a huge change. "The being must transcend the universe realm" Something that can do that? Quantum waves, as shown by string theory [2]. "A being must be extraordinarily powerful" Why? Simply because the universe exists does not imply that what created it is all-powerful. For instance, my parents created me, but they are certainly not all-powerful over me. Moreover, this premise is hopelessly circular; a true explanation for a God is not given, only appeals to authority and more circular logic. P3 Yes, the universe exists. Maybe [4]. We at least perceive that it exists; I might perceive that my imaginary best friend Rufus exists, but does that mean he is real? P4 Again, the universe certainly has an explanation, at least in the semantic form, but Pro has not justified why this must be an external force in the conception presented. It could have created itself [3]. P5 Already attacked this in my refutation to P2. This is hopelessly circular and ludicrous, as a commenter on this debate has demonstrated. This entire argument is incredibly circular and reminiscent of "God of the gaps." Pro will have to do better. II. Morality This argument is also comically circular; exactly how Pro can possibly prove the existence of morals, a necessarily intangible concept, is unclear. Where do morals come from, then? Well, to put it simply, psychology and evolution [5] [6]. A study [6] from the University of Iowa has shown that part of the prefrontal cortex is responsible for moral development. The prefrontal cortex developed through natural selection, as man evolved from ape to human, to facilitate growth in collective societies and to ensure competitiveness with larger, faster, stronger creatures. It would be bad for the cohesion of a society for murder or rape to routinely take place; thus, our brains instinctively instruct us to not murder or rape. These instincts have been developed through time as a result of evolution and cultural shifts. P1 No binding objective morals exist. Morals are a result of natural, necessarily subjective processes. There is a reason that the Aztecs thought that child sacrifice was perfectly acceptable, but we find it abhorrent. Exactly how are morals genuinely binding? I can say, "Wow, it is wrong to lie to your mother," but what, exactly, other than base intuitions, binds this? Moreover, if God is, indeed, strictly a moral being, then I suppose we can see that, since God has permitted genocide, that genocide is moral. P2 "We act as if objective morals exist." See my explanation above as to why we do this. "Categorical imperative" Thus, we should literally never, ever lie; yet, humans generally lie when circumstances dictate that it would be in their best interests to lie, for instance, if lying would save a family member. This entire point can be summarized as follows: Humans often have moral instincts. Therefore, binding morals exist. Therefore, God exists. I do not think I really need to explicate any further as to why this is ridiculous. Conclusion: Most of Pro's arguments are incredibly circular and appeals to authority; they generally go, "trust me, the explanation of the universe is God," or "trust me, objective morals exist." Unfortunately, Pro must do significantly more work to meet the BOP of this round. Thanks, and I look forward to reading Pro's forthcoming arguments. Sources: 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://profmattstrassler.com... 3. http://www.cfa.harvard.edu... 4. http://discovermagazine.com... 5. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... 6. http://now.uiowa.edu...