Does the Christian God Exist?

In this argument, my opponent is asserting the proposition that “the Christian god exists.” Before assessing the truth value – or lack thereof – in his proposition, I am first going to outline a loose methodological framework by which we can examine the aforementioned proposition. My goal in outlining this framework is to make our debate more unbiased so that the conclusions we arrive at are more accurate. I will not have enough room to address my opponent's arguments here, though in my next post I will be able to.

The Methodology

Unfortunately, such an unbiased perspective is impossible to achieve due to inherent analytical flaws in the human brain. An entire field of science is devoted this study of biases and heuristics. Though I cannot give a remedial course to those not familiar with the science during the course of the debate, I will now explain in brief how these biases and heuristics come to affect our analysis of religious claims and what steps should be taken because of it. I encourage both my opponent and the readers of the debate to read the works I cite for a fuller understanding of this essential scientific field.

As a natural function of the human mind, all of us first believe what we were raised by our parents, community, and culture to believe. Regardless of the truth value of the assertion being inflicted on the child, the child will accept it. This process includes religion. To quote Dr. Jason Long's essay “The Malleability of the Human Mind”:

“It should not be a shocking discovery that parents pass on their religious beliefs through their children. Muslim parents tend to have Muslim children, Christian parents tend to have Christian children, Hindu parents tend to have Hindu children. A child's environment must affect his religious affiliation to an extensive degree.” (Long 66)

Thus – as John Loftus argues in his essay "The Outsider Test for Faith Revisted" – otherwise "[r]ational people in distinct geographical locations around the globe overwhelmingly adopt and defend a wide diversity of religious faiths due to their upbringing and cultural heritage” (Loftus 82). Loftus terms this the Religious Diversity Thesis (Loftus 82). More information on the precise psychological mechanisms and the anthropological/sociological proof of this is contained within the aforementioned essay by Dr. Long and the essays “The Cultures of Christianities” and “Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science,” written by Dr. David Eller and Dr. Valerie Tarico, respectively. The references for these essays are contained within my Bibliography.

Loftus continues his argument Religious Dependency Thesis that “[c]onsequently, it seems very likely that adopting one's religious faith is not merely a matter of independent rational judgment but is casually dependent on cultural conditions to an overwhelming degree” (Loftus 82). To clarify, this does not necessarily mean that all of our current religious, moral, and political beliefs are culturally relative, though this is argued by Dr. Eller in “Christianity Does Not Provide The Basis For Morality.” But, I do not need to go as far as Dr. Eller in this regard “because even if humans can and do rationally transcend their respective cultures, it changes very little about the odds of doing so” (Loftus 104).

Furthermore, given the Religious Diversity Thesis and the Religious Dependency Thesis, “the odds are highly likely that any adopted religious faith is false[....] So the best way to test one's adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism used to evaluate other religious faiths” (Loftus 82). This is the basic expression of Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith (OTF).

I apologize for what may seem to some like excessive quoting, but for this particular piece of the argument, it is essential that we hear the words of experts in numerous field. To summarize the Outsider Test for Faith so that I can confidentially move on to other aspects of the debate, I will quote Lotus on the OFT once more, this time from “"It's Time Once Again Boys and Girls for The Outsider Test for Faith”:

To put it in context, in order for my opponent to meet his burden of proof, thus proving his positive claim, thus winning the debate, we must examine his claim with skeptical eyes and accept it if and only when he can provide proof that would be enough to convince a rational person who is not a Christian beyond a reasonable doubt. What form would that evidence take?

First, my opponent must define his terms such as “Christian god?” and “exist?” While we all share the same fuzzy meaning of these terms, it is essential to have precise language.

Second, his proposition must survive deductive reasoning through formal logic. While we do not need the symbols of Kurt Godel, Greek syllogisms can suffice. By this I mean, his argument must be internally consistent and logically possible. If his claim is logically impossible, then we can disregard it since we know that what cannot exist does not exist.

Third, my opponent must provide empirical evidence in support of his argument. Citing as relevant sources, of course. Moreover, he must hold a preponderance of such evidence and – as I previously discussed – our certainty that his proposition is true is in proportion to the net favorable evidence he is able to provide. A systematic explanation of why this is logically the case cannot be done justice here, though for those interested, I suggest reviewing Probability Theory, specifically Bayes' Theorem.

Eller, David. "Christianity Does Not Provide The Basis For Morality." The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Ed. John W. Loftus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2010. 347-367. Print.

Eller, David. "The Cultures of Christianities." The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Ed. John W. Loftus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2010. 25-46. Print.

Loftus, John W. "It's Time Once Again Boys and Girls for The Outsider Test for Faith." Debunking Christianity. 10 June 2011. Web. 23 June 2011. <http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com...;.

Loftus, John W. "The Outsider Test for Faith Revisited." The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Ed. John W. Loftus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2010. 81-106. Print.

Long, Jason. "The Malleability of the Human Mind." The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Ed. John W. Loftus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2010. 65-80. Print.

Tarico, Valerie. "Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science." The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Ed. John W. Loftus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2010. 47-64. Print.

On my Opponent's Responses to the Outsider Test for Faith

My opponent said, “One thing I want to point out is the fact that, generally speaking, if you set out to find something you will find it.” I completely agree, which is why the OTF is so essential. The technical term for what he's talking about is Confirmation Bias: People tend to believe that they want to believe, people tend to want to believe what they already believe, and people come to their original beliefs for non-intellectual reasons. The OTF is expressly designed to counter this bias.

My adversary then made allegations about the Jesus Seminar and did not provided proof to substantiate them. Given his lack of citation, I can only take it as hearsay and ask the readers to regard it as such.

My opposition then made a lot of other uncited claims about translations of the Bible and whether or not Christians – unlike Muslims – have good arguments to justify their belief. The former is, of course, unsubstantiated and irrelevant while the latter I addressed in the seventh paragraph of my opening. If there is enough reason and evidence to show the existence of the Christian god, that is all good and well. But that evidence must overcome the standards of the OTF.

Rebuttals my Opponent's Arguments on the Existence of God

My opponent claimed, “I think that from an unbiased position even you will admit that, just threw that second round, there was more evidence for God than against God.” I do not agree with this. He certainly made many for arguments for the existence of god than I made for the non existence of god, but that was due to the necessity of establishing proper standards of debate and a limited number of words allowed. I will now begin to debunk my opponent's arguments. But I must say at the forefront, with all due respect to him, he has made several logical fallacies and even more unsubstantiated claims. Given that it takes much more time and space to debunk a claim than to assert one, I may not be able to address and fully debunk each and every one of them. This is not a reflection of the arguments, but a indicator of how many fallacious arguments he supplied.

Refuting the Cosmological Argument

This is a response to my opponent's argument that begins with, "How did the universe begin if it was not by God?" It's disappointing that my opponent here displays a lack of knowledge of physics and logical reasoning. In brief, the argument is that everything that exists has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause, the cause of the universe is the Christian god. This form of creationism fails on several levels. For example, it doesn't address who created god, and unanswered question which causes an infinite regress of "creator gods," not solving the initial alleged problem of infinite regress. Or if god doesn't need to be created, then the first premise that everything needs a cause is therefore invalidated. There are other fallacies within this argument as well, such as the false dichotomy of "everything came from nothing" v. "the universe is infinitely old." Such sophistic tricks - such as the argument from ignorance - are not positive evidence for the existence of anything.

But thankfully, due to the continual advances of modern science, we are increasing of knowledge of how the universe began. Like with biases and heuristics, this is not a place where I can properly teach a remedial course in theoretical Physics. For a brief primer on this topic, I recommend the lecture "A Universe from Nothing" by Dr. Lawrence Krauss. In short, to answer the question of how the universe began is a worthy pursuit, but has nothing to do with god. The lecture can be found here:

Refuting the Fine Tuning Argument

This is a response to my opponent's argument that begins with, "The complexity of the Universe." I say this with all due respect, but I am again saddened that my opponent is speaking about Probability Theory and Physics without having an understanding of these fields of study. Here, my opponent quote mines certain facts from legitimate scientists such as Dr. Hawking - assuming these scientists actually said those things, as he doesn't cite his works where he got this information - and throws big numbers around, and claims that all of these things happening together are improbable and thus impossible without god. This - another argument from ignorance - is absurd to anyone versed in the actual science. Furthermore, anyone knowledgeable how dangerous and deadly the universe is to human beings also knows this is absurd, especially if a loving god supposedly created it. This lack of scientific evidence is why my opponent has not cited any peer reviewed scientific papers to back his is supposed claims of science. As I said before, I cannot give a remedial course in Physics here. It isn't my burden of proof to teach my fields of study in order to correct his uncited assertions. For those interested in learning the facts of the matter, I recommend the work of Dr. Victor J. Strenger such as the paper "Is the Universe Fined Tune for Us?" in which he says

"The ancient argument from design for the existence of God is based on the common intuition that the universe and life are too complex to have arisen by natural means alone. However, as philosopher David Hume pointed out in the eighteenth century, the fact that we cannot explain some phenomenon naturally does not allow us to conclude that it had to be a miracle."

It can be found here: www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

Refuting the Resurrection Argument

Here, my opponent again makes allegation after allegation without providing any proof or citations. We know that – with the OTF – we must be skeptical of his claims, primarily that the character of Jesus existed at all, never mind that his supposed tomb was empty or the uncited argument from popularity about what “most scholars believe” to be the case. I cannot here give another remedial course in ancient history and the historical method, especially just in response to my opponents unsupported, generalized assertions. As I said previously, I simply do not have the room to debunk in full each and everyone of his allegations as it could take a paragraph to address each sentence. If my opponent would like to debate some smaller sub-section of his allegations in proper detail, then that debate can be arranged. But his scatter shot approach to trying to prove the existence of a deity is not effective. Rather, it is indicative of the Confirmation Bias which we discussed earlier. On this specific topic of the ahistoricity of Jesus Christ, I recommend the work of the expert historian and philosopher Dr. Richard Carrier in books such as Not the Impossible Faith.

Recap of the Debate Thus Far

With the space I have left, I do not have the room to delve into my arguments for why deities cannot and thus do not exist. This presentation will come in my next post in this debate. With the remaining space I have left, I will summarize the debate thus far.

• As expressed by the Outsider test for Faith, my opponent has the burden of proof in this matter and we must view his claims with skepticism in order to come to the most accurate conclusion.
• My opponent has provided three arguments for the existence of god which are riddled with logical fallacies (such as the argument from ignorance and argument from popularity), misinformation (such as his creation of false dilemmas on the beginning of the universe), and uncited scientific and historical claims.
• I cannot debunk these arguments in full given the space I have, though I have addressed the arguments in general and (unlike my opponent) I provided sources for my information and for further study.