Agnostic Atheism is more rational than an Agnostic Monotheist

It should be noted that I am arguing that an agnostic atheist"s position is more rational than an agnostic monotheist and not that the monotheist"s position has no rationality. For now, I will try to address the arguments for monotheism. In my next rounds, I will clear up any misinterpretations, provide any sources desired and further defend my position by showing why it is more rational. 1)Anthropic argument, also known as the natural-law argument, syllogism: p1. There are natural laws which govern the universe p2. All laws have a law giver c1. That law giver is God P1 is false. It uses the reification fallacy and relies on the fallacy of equivocation for the meaning of law. There are two types of law which are prescriptive and descriptive. Natural laws are descriptive because they are human concepts that describe how an aspect of the universe behaves, and not the entire universe. P2 is false. If descriptive laws are human concepts then we need not assume a law giver. However, granted the assertion, this premise open up the Euthypro Dilemma paradox. If God made these laws for his own purpose, then there is something not subject to law. If the reason was to create the best universe, then God was subject to law and uses the Homunculus fallacy. Any attempt to claim, this paradox as a bifurcation fallacy by stating the standard is internal to God and not external, results in a useless tautology, that God is law, given as the philosophical notion A=A. If we state that it is only a characteristic of God then that would simply be a case of special pleading. Finally, c1 is an argument from ignorance and a broken compass argument by assuming this cause must be divine. If by divine one means supernatural/transcendent, then it is safe to say we have no empirical evidence. All abstract objects would fall under naturalism, which encompasses Platonism and nominalism. To get around this Con must discuss the demarcation problem and any hypothesis given must be falsifiable, parsimonious, consistent, and reproducible to be scientifically sound. 2)Cosmological/Contingency Argument Syllogism championed by William Lane Craig: p1 Everything that began to exist has a cause of its existence. p2 The universe began to exist. c1 Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. P1" asserts that there are things that begin to exist. Everything that exists is the rearrangement of existing matter. If something always existed then everything that exists came from what always existed, and therefore nothing began to exist or everything is one, leading to a pantheistic view. Any argument against this will lead to an argument of creation ex nihilo, nihil fit. Though one can say it is senseless statement because nothing implies the absence of logic, I will digress. Therefore, the first premise is based on an inductive generalization and commits the fallacy of composition. If Con argues for an infinite regress, he will also have to argue for an infinite eternal future for God, especially if God can be both temporal and a-temporal simultaneously. However, simultaneous causality is another paradox but I will digress for now. Also, under the A-theory of time, if there is a finite series of future events and God became timeless again, he contradicts his own nature by being both eternal and temporal. Thus violating laws of non-contradiction. P2 " Despite unanimous consensus between cosmologists, which is an appeal to authority, the big bang singularity shows us that T=0. Even if all we observed had a cause, there's still much we haven't observed, no "a posteriori" evidence can be presented to this statement of nature. Seeing that it is only logical to conclude that something must have always existed, we have more reason to believe a Multiverse hypothesis is more plausible than an eternal unembodied mind preceding causality. If a cause is eternal, then the effect must also be eternal, if they are simultaneous. An eternal effect would render its cause as redundant. I am yet to see a good analogy for simultaneous causality, for even if we grant this, once can say all effects are simultaneous with the first cause. This paradox can only be rescued under a tenseless theory of time which the KCA is grounded upon. It also uses a false dichotomy by giving only two options: either the universe caused itself or a supernatural necessary being caused it. It could be an in deterministic, impersonal cause or two colliding "Branes" if M-theory is correct. Any hypocritical criticism of these alternatives would present the same dilemma for a disembodied mind. Also, Con would have to argue that nothing physical exists that is also necessary, but there is no way for him to do so. For example, if a material mind exists necessarily, then it must exist in space, which makes space necessary too. Even if I can't show that a disembodied mind is logically or metaphysically impossible, it is illogical to disprove a negative. If we grant there are disembodied minds, one must make an argument for an unembodied mind, until then it is an irrational presupposition. Antonio Damasio, one of the world"s leading researchers in neuroscience, argues not only that the mind-body is interdependent, but also that emotions are biologically necessary for making reasonable decisions: if a part of the brain needed for emotions is missing, decisions will not be reasonable. See link: . http://ruccs.rutgers.edu.... A disembodied mind also commits the fallacy of ad populum, due to its familiarity. I see no reason to believe anthropological dualism is true. Also, any time dependent concept such as before would be meaningless if applies to before time began. Minds think, thinking is a temporal process, temporal event. Therefore, thinking cannot be outside time. To rescue this, Con must show logically that God becomes temporal. In my rebuttal, I will explain the paradox if con wishes to show defend that contention. 3)Transcendental Syllogism: P1. Logic exists as a concept that requires a mind. P2. Logic transcends human minds P3. A transcendent mind must exist to hold that concept. C1. That transcendent mind is God This syllogism commits the following fallacies. 1. Equivocation 2. Division 3. False Dichotomy 4. Special Pleading P1. Abstract numbers would still exist as the concept isn't dependent on a transcendent mind for the real world underpinning of the concept to remain true. Therefore, it follows that objective concepts such as numbers or logic doesn"t depend on a transcendent mind, nor does it show that logic must be held by a mind. Also, concepts can"t transcend minds if it only exists as concepts that must be held by a human mind, which is conflated in premise 1 and thus premise 2 is false. 4)Teleological Argument Syllogism: P1. The fine tuning of the universe is either due to physical necessity, chance or design. P2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance. Where chance relies on: a. the existence of a specific world ensemble b. an observer self selection effect C1. It is due to design P1. uses vague terminology for design and there is no evidence that the universe is fine tuned. P2. is false. It also assumes that systems can't self-organize which is false. We have good reasons to think otherwise eg. planetary formation and ideas within the mind. C1. There is no way to distinguish design from non-design without experience or familiarity. Also, terms like perfection, complexity and design are all relative concepts. It is an argument from ignorance as there is no justification to show the probability of constants in nature, as we don"t know the available range of constants to determine its probability. Fine-tuning refers to circumstances when the parameters of a modal must be adjusted very precisely to agree with the observations but we know these parameters. The probability of general relativity shows a probability of 1 which is close as we"ve gotten. NASA is consistent with Alan Guth"s inflationary hypothesis which leads to more than one universe. We also have another probable explanation, which is in quantum cosmology. Conclusion There is no empirical evidence to suggest abiogenesis is improbable. Also beauty is subjective and apophenia proves human's tendency to look for patterns and connections in meaningless data, just as one may believe in ghosts. There are naturalistic explanations for the multiverse and modals where the Boltzmann brain problems and random fluctuations do not dominate such as the Caroll-Chen Model. This argument is a psychological manipulation by exposing a deep cosmic mystery arousing desires for cognitive closure in turn making the subject susceptible to premises effects easily satisfied by blanketed appeals to agenticity. After indoctrination, confirmatory observation is compiled causing them to reject alternative potential falsifications via empirical or testable predictions. Finally, it appeals to human vanity, patternicity, over-sensitive agent detection and tendencies towards anthropomorphism. One can find the full debunking of this argument by the following link: which shows there are testable hypotheses, more rational than making a transcendent designer speculation. Due to character restraints, I will post my arguments for Secular Morality and against the Ontological Argument for God in my next round.