God exists

Mr. Daley, Thank you for creating and posing this intriguing debate. I am excited to engage and deconstruct this topic together and see where we end up. You stated in the comments for this debate that you would like to debate a "theist or agnostic" here. I am an atheist (that is, I do not possess a belief in a god, not that I possess a belief that no god exists), but I don't reckon it necessary to use atheism in this debate. The basis for my argumentation will come from epistemology. I simply do not see it possible to prove definitely the existence of god based on the evidence you provided. I may believe in god, and you may too, but I shall argue that it is our belief, not ancillary evidence that can confirm a being that no sane person has ever empirically observed. You must do here what nobody has ever done: prove beyond reasonable doubt to someone (our voters), without revelation, that a god irrefutably exists. If I can reveal the flimsy assumptions of your argumentation, then god exists no more than before this debate had begun. One more note before I proceed to enter the debating process proper: I don't want to appear to be merely attacking your arguments and not providing my own (as many on this site often do), but this debate is different, as I have no interest in disproving the existence of god, but rather in disproving the notion that one can know or prove the existence of something they haven't experienced empirically and inductively. Therefore, much of my debate will consist of attacking your arguments, followed by providing my own. You begin by stating that since "life has never been proven to come from nonliving matter" that "therefore, life never came to be by chance." Your argument stands on this problematic foundation. To begin, just because something has not been proven doesn't necessarily allow us to confirm that it is impossible. Just because we don't know does not mean we know not. Furthermore, the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrates that organics compounds could have emerged from inorganic ones, and from organic compounds the formation of a single cell is possible.[1] While we cannot be certain that life originated from this hypothesis, we cannot also be certain that it "would have to be a supernatural act" which you asserted. You may use "god" as an hypothetical causality, but insofar as using this causality to prove existence goes, the evidence is fatally flawed. As part of the same argument, you state that "life comes only from life" implying that life on earth needed a start from supernatural "life", but this becomes problematic as soon as you must justify the origins of your god's "life", as you stated, it must have come from prior life. In the case of the Nazi party and the Holocaust, I wish you were right- but unfortunately the argument of an "objective morality" is simply not viable. With all due respect, your argument that god must exist because good and bad are so black and white is so outrageous that I doubt many people would buy it. The case of the Holocaust may be simple and thus effective, but it in no way represents the complexity of other moral questions. For example, Hitler was, according to you, objectively evil. But so is murder. So would murdering Hitler be good? You could argue yes, or you could argue no, the point isn't which one is correct- the point is that neither can be correct because morality itself is so complex, nuanced and subject to the individual to act as though morality is somehow uniform. Throughout the next three paragraphs, you investigate different aspects of morality contending that they are all proof of a god. In many of these cases, simple biology can answer many of your inquiries. For example, you ask why humans help our strangers even if we "get nothing out of it." Well, I would contend that we do get something out of it: the feeling of helping someone, which is a positive and rewarding feeling. As an article in Psychology Today said "Is virtue really its own reward? When it comes to altruism, the brain seems to pat itself on the back. The choice to cooperate stimulates pleasure centers in the brain and can even overcome the urge to strive for increased financial gains. This reward circuitry may provide a biological basis for altruism, selfless behavior that is unique to humans." [2] Now this is speculation on my part, but this could arise from the fact that 100,000 years ago, before civilization, people were socially tribal, and in a tribe, benevolence and altruism would be "good" for the entire tribe, and thus benefit one's self. So our urge to help out a stranger is an vestigial instinct we developed before cities and faceless strangers. Again, you may use a "god" to help yourself understand this, but there are perfectly decent "a-theistic" explanations that answer the same questions without a Prime Mover. As for your point that only humans can "rape" and "murder", this is a semantic argument that merely involves language and meaning and definition- not the man upstairs. Strangely, after dismissing science and discovery, you proceed to the "argument from complexity" and use the complexity of DNA and RNA to prove that be must be designed. And I will admit, the workings of complex chemistry are far beyond my comprehension and ability to explain. But I find it arrogant to assume that just because you or contemporary scientists do not have the answers, it must be divine. For example, if I could take a multi-variable calculus problem to 4th Century BC Athens, they would have no chance in solving the problem. The greatest mathematician might proclaim that: "this is impossible! Only almighty Zeus could solve this!" But in reality, any average engineering major in college today could work the problem out. It is the lack of intellectual infrastructure that inhibits our ability to understand. Without the system of calculus, the Greek has no chance. So just because modern genetics are infinitely complex to our scientists, to dismiss it to "the gods'" workings is absurd. It's a Hegelian problem: your argument assumes that we are in some sort of golden age where everything we understand is common sense, and everything we don't is Godly. I am only interested in preaching the gospel of "I don't know", I have heard Bill Maher say. I agree with this. I am not willing to surrender to complexity and point upwards. I am not willing to accept simplistic, opportunistic, deductive thinking, and attribute ever notion of difficulty to a Creator I have an interest in promoting. 1. Campbell and Reece, "Biology" 7th ed, p. 58-59 2.http://www.psychologytoday.com...