God Probably Doesn't Exist
This debate is impossible to accept, if you wish to accept, let me know in the comments.
God:The Judeo-Christian-Muslim Sentient Tri Omni disembodied being (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, ect) who is the timeless Creator (or cause) of the Universe.
BOP (Burden of proof) is shared. I must show that God is improbable and my opponent must show God is probable.
Debate format is the typical Lincoln-Douglas format.
R2: My opening arguments followed by Con's opening arguments (No rebuttals by Con)
R3: Rebuttals to opening arguments
R4: Defense of your original arguments.
Since these debates tend to get long, you must limit yourself to a maximum of 3 contentions. This should be enough space for arguments and source lists. If there is not enough space to list sources, you may post them in an external link or in the comments.
72 Hours to Post Argument
10,000 Characters Max
10 Day Voting Period
3 contentions max
Follow the format.
Thanks to Chest for accepting.
Contention 1: The Problem of Evil
This is probably the most well known, used, and simple argument against God today. It simply states that since evil exists, God does not. I will be using Rowe’s inductive formulation .
Premise one is probabilistic. William Rowe gave his famous example in support of it
"In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering.” [ibid]
It is intuitively probable from everything we have seen. Premise two follows from the definition of what it means to be all knowing, powerful and good. The conclusion follows from the premises.
Not much needs to be said, it is a straightforward, simple and powerful argument.
Contention 2: Modal Argument for Atheism
This argument was proposed by Ryan Stringer. It is formed like so .
A. It is possible that p.
B. Necessarily, if it is possible that God exists, then it is necessary that God exists.
C. Necessarily, if God exists, then it is not the case that p.
D. Therefore, it is not possible that God exists. (from A, B, & C)
We can use various plugins for P, like
1. Minds are dependant on the physical world
2. An evil deity exists
3. The universe was created by some non-god being
4. Being morally perfect is impossible
5. Gratuitous evil exists.
6. All free non-god beings always produce evil.
7. Being omnipotent is impossible.
8. The Universe never began
Now, one could propose that theism is an analytic truth and thus P is not possible. However, since we can come up with more P plugins this makes P more plausible. There would simply be more ways for P to be true than God. So, while it may refute one P argument on its own, it does not refute the P arguments overall.
Contention 3: The Universe Never Began
God needs to be the cause of the universe. In order for this to be true, the universe must begin. It must at one time not have existed. Otherwise, God would not have been the creator, only a sustainer of something that has existed as long as he has. A clear definition of what it means to begin to exist is given by Christian Philosopher, William Lane Craig
e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact. 
This means most of the A theories of time are required for something to begin to exist. So, do theories of time in which the past and future exist hold weight? Experiments in quantum mechanics say yes. Particles can be entangled through time . The present can affect the past and the past can be affected by the future, meaning they must all exist. This implies either the B theory of time or the moving theory of time, but these don’t fit the given definition. Other experiments show time is an internal phenomena from quantum entanglement . An external observer would perceive all states of time.
Furthermore, time travel cannot happen for the universe to begin. Otherwise, the past and future would have to exist. But we have observed time dilation .
Take note, this does not reject current scientific models like the big bang. Under these theories of time the universe is indeed finite. However, it does not begin. It’s like inch one beginning on a ruler, or Canada beginning at its border.
To put this in a syllogism
1. If the Universe never began, God does not exist.
2. The Universe never began
C. Therefore, God does not exist.
Premise one is true by the definition of God. Premise two has just been justified. The conclusion follows.
The resolution is affirmed. Remember Con, in the next round you don’t address these arguments, you offer some in favor of your position.
Now to Con
 Rowe, William L. 1979. “The Problem of and Some Varieties of Atheism,” American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335-41.
There are many theories about the origin of the universe and all that is within it. All theories fall into two categories: "Special Creation", (By a higher being) and "Natural Origins", (By series of events, such as molecules colliding, or atoms exploding). However, I will show that it is more logical to believe that God exists, (and therefore created the universe), than the belief that the universe came about by natural processes.
The belief that the universe could come about naturally, without a higher being's (God) intervention is fatally flawed. Although scientists have multitudes of theories as to what occured to make the universe come about, they all have a basic presupposition: there was something. A dense mass was there, and exploded. Two molecules collided, and exploded. A universe divided and made two. Regardless of how it is packaged, there was something to begin with. All natural laws are based on this one: matter cannot be created or destroyed within the natural realm. A molecule cannot suddenly spring into existance. Therefore, it is impossible that, 1) Something sprang into existance, to become an ingredient in the big bang, and 2) Even if it had, an explosion could not have resulted in the creation of new materials. Scientists have no explanation. Here is Richard Dawkins explanation of what made the universe: "Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe." Brilliant right? He just admitted that God could exist. Here is what the Bible says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." Now on to why this makes God probable.
Because of the reasons listed above, something had to be eternally existant. This something had to be intelligent. Matter cannot be created naturally, therefore that something had to be outside of the natural realm. I propose that this is thorough evidence for God. He was the one who started the universe. Whether He created everything by His Word, or created a particle which exploded is not the point of this debate, the point is something greater than the natural has existed forever, therefore, God is probable; not only probable, but I suggest required.
Contention 2: The Conscience
Within every human being there lies a conscience. What is the conscience? In its basis, it is the sense of right and wrong. At birth every human has it. Children know right and wrong. Generally people know murder is wrong. Generally people know that stealing is wrong. There are universal laws, ingrained in every human being. Yes, the conscience can be seared or warped by multiple factors, such as culture, religion, sanity, and sin nature, but at the base, everyone can discern plain evil, from plain good. Where do these universal laws come from? How could such and abstract concept, yet concrete in nature, exist without an ultimate spiritual force? This force, I contend, is God. He has given each of us a knowledge of right and wrong, yet we choose whether to respond to it, or ignore it. Because the conscience exists, we can know God exists.
Contention 3: Laws of Nature/Science
Similar to Contention 2, yet this one deals with nature. The fact that there are uniform scientific and natural laws which govern nature points to something greater than itself. Gravity always works planet earth. It does not matter how many times you jump off of an object, you will always go down, unless something else propels you up. An object will continue in a straight line, unless acted upon by a greater force. Light travels at a constant speed, unless blocked by a certain opacity. Many more examples could be used, yet it is safe to say that these are sufficient. Random natural events could not produce an order like this. When a tornado passes through a city, it does not become more uniformed and streamline. No natural event gives more order than there was in the first place. The order has to be made. There must be an intelligent being who created laws to govern the earth, this, I contend, is God. Thank you for reading, back to you Pro.
Thanks to Con
Con’s First Contention: The Creation of the Universe
Con’s first argument is essentially the cosmological argument. He argues God is the best explanation for the universe. Since my third argument in R2 was about the universe’s non-beginning, I will for argument purposes assume it did begin when refuting this contention. Con criticized atheistic explanations because they all have the basic assumption of something coming from non-existence. This is false, not all explanations have this assumption. The universe could have been brought about via simultaneous causation. In which cause and effect happen simultaneously. For instance, atoms A, B and C come into existence simultaneously. Atom A, causes B and B causes C in which C causes A, all at the same time. Everything has a causal explanation of its event. Con could somehow reject the possibility of SC, but this in turn would be rejecting the possibility of God creating the universe .
Retrocausality has been demonstrated to exist . So the universe could easily be the result of retrocausality.
It is much more likely for there to be a natural cause than a supernatural one, since it’s much more parsimonious.
There is something else deeply wrong with trying to derive attributes of some transcendent cause. It assumes the experience you have in this universe extends to the transcendent cause. However, there is no reason for this assumption. Imagine a portal, in which on the other side is something more than our universe. We have no experience of this world and thus all arguments for what's in that world are speculation. This is the same as trying to derive the attributes of a transcendent cause. We have no knowledge or experience of this transcendent world and this makes it wrong to try to calculate the probability or assert what it is. Of course we can say the cause is not transcendent and therefore not subject to this argument. However, this means the cause is a natural one.
Again, this all assumes the universe began to exist. This has not been justified by Con, making his argument incomplete. This means, even if all my objections to this argument fail, Con’s argument is still incomplete and his BOP cannot been fulfilled with this argument alone (since he cannot add arguments in R4). His other two arguments must survive attack in order to fulfill his BOP. However, I do feel as if I have refuted this argument.
Now to his next contention
Con’s Second Contention: Argument From Morality
Con argues since there are universal laws of morality, there must be a God that gives us those laws. I must ask Con what he means when he says “right” and “wrong”. If Con is talking about the laws which God gives us, then the argument is question begging. You use the word conscience or morality, but morality refers to something God commands. It’s essentially saying, rape is wrong because God says so, therefore God exists. On the other hand Con can say right and wrong mean something like maximizing well being. But then he would refute his own argument, since no link to God can be made. Either the argument is circular or the argument cannot be linked to God. Both ways fail.
Another problem with theistic morality is called the Euthyphro dilemma.
Socrates asks "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" 
In modern day language, the question is
"Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?"
If one accepts the first horn, then that means there is a moral law above God. In which even atheists can account for morality by cutting out the middle man. If the second horn is accepted, then this means God could command rape is moral and it would be. Everything is essentially arbitrary based on God’s will. This also makes theistic morality subject to the is-ought problem. You would be deducing oughts from the “ises” of God's commands. Some have tried to sidestep the dilemma by saying God is good because his nature is good. However, Michael Martin pointed out
“In any case, appealing to God's character only postpones the problem since the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of His character. Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character?” 
Finally, morality can be accounted for under an atheistic point of view. We all have an innate survival instinct. This instinct would give us morality, because we can survive better in groups than alone. Because we are social beings who will deal with both the social and survival consequences of acting immoral, we act moral. Simple as that. As Sargon has pointed out before, we have prima facie reasons for accepting atheistic morality. Theism gets it’s morality from a supernatural realm, one that is heatedly debated. However, atheistic moral realism says morality comes from the natural world, one that we’re pretty sure exists.
The argument is refuted
Con’s Third Contention: Argument from Order
Con here says, since there is ordered laws in our universe, an intelligent being must have created them. I don’t think there is any reason to assume an atheistic universe can’t produce ordered laws. What does it mean for something to be an ordered law? It must do the same thing over and over again. However, that hardly seems to need an intelligent being. It seems to be the very opposite of intelligent. His tournado analogy is false because tournedos themselves supervene on laws. However, atheists can explain the existence of physical laws easily.
In physics, the physical models must be observer-independent. Victor Stenger explains how this principle leads to the laws of physics
“The laws of physics were not handed down from above. Neither are they
rules somehow built into the structure of the universe. They are
ingredients of the models that physicists invent to describe observations.
Rather than being restrictions on the behavior of matter, the laws of
physics are restrictions on the behavior of physicists. If the models of
physics are to describe observations based on an objective reality, then
those models cannot depend on the point of view of the observer. This
suggests a principle of point-of-view invariance that is equivalent to the
principle of covariance (or cosmological principle, or Copernican
principle) when applied to space-time. As Noether showed, this leads to
the principles of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum
conservation and essentially all of classical mechanics. It also leads to
Lorentz invariance and special relativity. When generalized to the abstract
space of functions such as the quantum state vector, point-of-view
invariance is identified with gauge invariance. Quantum mechanics is then
just the mathematics of gauge transformations with no additional
assumptions needed to obtain its rules, including the superposition and
uncertainty principles. Conservation of electric charge, isospin, and other
quantities follow from global gauge invariance. The forces in the standard
model of elementary particles are fields introduced to preserve local gauge
invariance. Gravity can also be viewed as such a field. Thus practically all
of fundamental physics as we know it follows directly from the single
principle of point-of-view invariance.” 
The argument is refuted.
Con’s first argument fails, as it contains an unjustified premise, among other reasons. Con’s second argument fails because of the problems with theistic morality and the success of secular morality. Con’s third argument fails because what it means to be an ordered law isn’t that intelligent in the first place and the laws of physics follow via point-of-view invariance.
Thanks, now to Con.
Remember, Con, you don’t address anything I’ve said in this round yet. You address my arguments in round 2. Only in round 4 will you address what I’ve said in this round.
Rebuttal to Pro's First Contention:
There are several important inconsistencies to note about Rowe's theory. According to his statement, God is bound by human logic and knowledge. For example, he implies God must not be omniscient if he allows suffering that humans cannot understand. He also claims omniscience himself, "There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse." Notice how he claims to know God's mind. "There exist" is a statement, leaving no room for the possibility that there may be, "A greater good" or an "evil equally bad or worse". What if that "intense suffering" was part of a plan, which was and has been taking place over centuries? The omniscient God would know that, because He is sovereign.
Second, Rowe assumes innocence. He assumes the fawn was good. How can an animal be good? Everything in the earth is tainted by evil, therefore everything deserves to be condemned to Hell. The God we are debating spoke through a man named Paul and said, "...the wages of sin is death..." Each one that is born is naturally and totally evil, therefore God has the right to destroy it if he so desires. Therefore, Rowe's example is invalidated, because he first assumes everything is naturally good, and second denies God's omniscience.
The second paragraph of Rowe's argument is invalidated because of the first being invalidated. Yet I will reiterate, Rowe claims to know the mind of God, (Therefore claiming omniscience). This argument does not make God improbable.
Rebuttal to Pro's Second Contention:
This is immediately nullified, for as you mentioned, "P" could stand for many things, which, I propose could include, "God Exists" which would invalidate any other points filled in the place of God.
A. It is possible that God exists.
B. Necessarily, if it is possible that (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) exists, then it is necessary that (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) exists.
C. Necessarily, if (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) exists, then it is not the case that p.
D. Therefore, it is not possible that (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) exists. (from A, B, & C)
Does this make God any more probable? No. Does this make Him any less probable? No. By the logic behind it, this argument refutes itself.
Rebuttal to Pro's Third Contention:
I really hate to say this, but the belief in an eternal universe is nonsense. Universal expansion tells us that at one point there was either a)Nothing, or b)A supercompressed molecule, and either, a)"God created the heavens and the earth" or b)It exploded. By using the ruler and Canada examples, you admit there was indeed a beginning. Time is a concept only viewed and followed on earth anyway, so the fact that it is effected as one passes the speed of light hundreds of thousands of miles away from the earth should not be surprising. Besides, you claim it has been, "observed", yet no one has ever made a, "deep space trip at 95% the speed of light" so no one can actually know if this is really the case, it is simply a theory.
Great arguments Pro, but there are loopholes in every argument. Back to you.
 Rowe, William L. 1979. "The Problem of and Some Varieties of Atheism," American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335-41
Defense of C1: Evil
Con’s first response misunderstands the inductive problem of evil and inductive reasoning in general. The evidential argument isn’t attempting to prove gratuitous evil absolutely exists, it looks at theism as an explanatory theory. It allows some unknown possibility of allowing evil, but concludes it’s unlikely. Iep.edu put it really well.
“Evidential arguments, therefore, claim that there are certain facts about evil that cannot be adequately explained on a theistic account of the world. Theism is thus treated as a large-scale hypothesis or explanatory theory which aims to make sense of some pertinent facts, and to the extent that it fails to do so it is disconfirmed.” 
Con claiming some unknown reason may exist doesn’t support his case. It supports mine because it shows the lack of an explanation. However, if God is all powerful, he could bring about whatever greater good without the use of evil. Him claiming the statement “there exists” leaves no room shows a misunderstanding of inductive reasoning in general. The statement is supported by inductive evidence, so yes there is a possibility that the statement is wrong, but it is probably true because of what we have seen.
Con in his next rebuttal attempts to explain evil. He says nothing is naturally good because of original sin. However, this has to do with the fall of man and sin. A fawn is not responsible nor could be responsible for either. A fawn is not intelligent enough to understand a deities intentions. How can God punish animals for the fall of man? The article Con cited said this
“Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man” 
So at the very very best Con only explains human suffering. However, I argue that it doesn’t even explain human suffering. God either created Adam and Eve perfect or imperfect. If they were imperfect, then the blame is still on God. If they were perfect, then they could have never became imperfect, by definition. Con’s argument seems to be an incomplete argument from free will. You have to introduce free will into the equation to account for the perfect/imperfect paradox. However, we can have free will with limitations. If you believe we do have free will, then you already believe we can have free will with limitations. I cannot jump over a big building or turn something into a unicorn with my mind. It is perfectly coherent for there to be free will with limitations.
Essentially, Con makes a common fundamental misunderstanding of the evidential argument and presents an incomplete argument from original sin. Which doesn’t touch upon the problem of animal suffering.
The argument remains standing
Defense of C2: Modal Argument
I don’t actually have to respond to anything. I could just tell everyone to reread my round 2. Because I already responded to this argument. I’ll quote myself
“Now, one could propose that theism is an analytic truth and thus P is not possible. However, since we can come up with more P plugins this makes P more plausible. There would simply be more ways for P to be true than God. So, while it may refute one P argument on its own, it does not refute the P arguments overall.” -DDO user n7
Stringer put it in a little more technical way
“Since the truth of this proposition only requires that one of its disjuncts be true, and since each one is just as plausible as P, it has a much higher probability of being true than P—especially if DA (set of modal P arguments) has an infinite number of disjuncts. So DA is more plausible than P. Consequently, it is more plausible that at least one of the modal arguments for atheism is sound and that the modal ontological argument is unsound than that the modal ontological argument is sound while the modal arguments for atheism are unsound. Thus the modal ontological argument does not undermine the entire set of modal arguments for atheism.” 
My argument remains standing. Con’s rebuttal was refuted from the start.
Defense of C3: Universe’s Non-begining.
Like in contention one, Con misunderstands the argument. He says “belief in an eternal universe is nonsense”. Yes it is, but that’s a straw man fallacy. In round 2 I said the universe is finite. It can still be finite and still not ontologically begin. He then says universal expansion shows it has a beginning and claims I admit there was a beginning. However, the universal expansion is compatible with my argument. Same thing with the universe starting out very small. Because the states of time existed equally as these states. If Con says the universe began like a ruler begins at inch one or Canada at its border, then I have won. Canada begins at its border, but Canada doesn't ontologically begin at its border. The rest of Canada exists just as its border exists. Canada doesn't come into being or become actual from nothing when a person reaches its border. Just like the universe, it doesn't become actual at its starting point, but has existed equally with other states of time. The big bang is like inch one on an eternal ruler.
Speed of light time dilation has been verified. Muons are easier to detect when they're moving near the speed of light, because it will decay slower . It is not the only type of dilation that can happen either. If an object is affected less by gravity, its clock will run slower. To give specific examples of this is the Hafele and Keating Experiment .
Con's rebuttal round was unfortunately full of misunderstandings. His first objection the EPOE does nothing since it's evidential. His second doesn't explain animal suffering and suffers many flaws leaving it improbable. His objection to Stringer's modal argument was already answered, yet went ignored. His objections to the universe's non-beginning misunderstood the theories of time and what it means to begin to exist. All my arguments remain standing against Con's rebuttals. The resolution is affirmed.
Remember Con, you don't address what was said in this round. In your last round you defend your original arguments. Sorry for the constant reminders, but many people mess up the format in the last round. Thanks for keeping up with the debate by not forfeiting.
Now to Con for his final.
Defense to Rebuttal of Contention One:
Simultaneous causation has never been observed, it is only a theory, originally proposed by Stephen Hawking,  who claimed time never existed before the Big Bang, which, (If the theory held any weight ) would be true. Yet Stephen Hawking is not even sure if the Big Bang occurred. (See quote in my opening argument) The argument that A caused B which caused C which caused A is obviously circular, and therefore self-refuting.
Retrocausality is purely a hypothetical mind exercise for philosophers. "Retrocausality is primarily a thought experiment in philosophy of science based on elements of physics, addressing the question: Can the future affect the present, and can the present affect the past?"
You also said that it has been demonstrated to exist, which neither of those references backed up. Even if such a thing could exist, it is not observable, because we cannot go back in time. Therefore, it is really a useless citation.
You claim, "There is something else deeply wrong with trying to derive attributes of some transcendent cause. It assumes the experience you have in this universe extends to the transcendent cause. However, there is no reason for this assumption." This can be turned back on you. If this is the case, there is something "deeply wrong" with trying to derive attributes of a natural cause. For no one has actually experienced the past, yet we know there was a cause. Therefore, since we have no experience or knowledge of the past it "...makes it wrong to to calculate the probability or assert what it is."
Defense to Rebuttal of Contention Two:
I believe Pro has missed the entire point of this contention. My assertion was that each of us has a conscience. Which is defined, "the part of the mind that makes you aware of your actions as being either morally right or wrong " It is innate as it has been viewed in children, animals do not have it. Pro set up a pretty straw man, which he quite nicely destroyed, but his attack was not at my assertion, but at good and bad in general.
Defense to Rebuttal of Contention Three:
When has destruction and chaos produced order? Why are there repeatable patterns in the world around us? Why is gravity present? Why does life exist on this planet and not on any other known planet? Why do humans have the ability to consciously do good or evil? Science cannot explain any of these things, it can only observe and interpret them. A higher force, (God) is required to make all of these things run. Something had to put everything into motion, and science cannot explain what without assumptions. Yet the Bible has the clearest account of origins, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." To have a universe without God is like having a building without a constructor, it is impossible.
Great debate n7, thank you for allowing me to take you on. Great arguments, yet they can all be deconstructed, and exposed. Thanks to anyone who read this debate and thought about the big issues. Great debate n7, thank you for remaining professional and not going into name-calling and the like. Adeo ut mox publicis!
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|