God doesn't exist.

Con is actually Pro on the resolution, but I will refer to him as Con regardless. Do not confuse our positions: he is Pro on the resolution "God does not exist," while I am Con.

Definitions:

God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. [1]

In other words, God is the maximal being, and there is nothing like unto Him.

Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. [2]

-- Rebuttals --

R1: Heavy BoP

Con ultimately stated that "God does not exist." This puts a heavy burden of proof on him. He has made no argument in favor of his case, except mentioning the existence of Satan and the fundamental truth of science, all of which is completely irrelevant to this debate. If Con said that God 'probably' does not exist, or there is not scientific evidence that God exists, then we'd have a wholly different resolution to debate. Yet, Con merely stated that God exists as much as Satan, and science is true. Nonsensical comparisons.

R2: Irrefutable claim

Con asked whether or not one believes that a girl ate an apple because a snake told her to. The Biblical / Qur'anic narrations of this event are irrefutable. One cannot disprove this claim because there is nothing which can be used to tell that his story did not take place in Heaven. I'm not saying that because one cannot disprove the claim, it is thereby true. At best, one can argue that this event probably happened, because if a Holy Book is probably from God, then whatever it says is probably true.

R3: Con mistakes scientific theories

Con claims that he believes in evolution, and that is how the world was created. That's nonsensical. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the world. Evolution is about how life on Earth evolved throughout millions of years through national selection, mutations, etc. [3] Prior to evolution, the science of how life even started on Earth is called abiogenesis. "Abiogenesis is the proposal that life originated from non-life." [4] And billions of years prior to abiogenesis, the event known as the "Big Bang" occurred. [5] Thus, Con falsely attributes evolution to the origin of life, and the creation of the world, while clearly those are very different scientific theories, and even belong to different fields of science (astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).

-- Arguments --

Contention 1: Science and God are not mutually exclusive

Science deals with observable phenomena that occur in the universe. For something to be scientifically verified, it must be observable; and for it to be fully observable, it must also be repeatable, otherwise it is hardly science. Moreover, any claim must also be falsifiable. Science cannot deal with philosophical concepts and questions, unless these philosophical concepts deal with physical phenomena. Questions like 'What is the purpose of life?' cannot be scientifically explained. You cannot observe this question as a phenomena; you cannot take it into a laboratory; you cannot falsify it.That being said, there's no doubt that the definition of God falls into the category of philosophy, not science. God cannot be tested scientifically. Do you see God? Do you have any empirical evidence to suggest that God cannot exist? Can you take the concept of God into a laboratory? Absolutely not. Therefore, science cannot disprove God, nor are these mutually exclusive.

Contention 2: Science is not sole evidence

The belief Con endorses is known as scientism. "Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientific worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth." [6] Scientism should, however, not be confused with naturalism, which is the view that whatever phenomena occurs, it is due to physical phenomena, i.e., nothing supernatural. [7]

There is much to say about this concept 'scientism,' but one thing is clear: it is self-refuting. How can you scientifically prove that scientism is correct? Surely you'll need to bring logic and philosophy into question, all of which presuppose science. Additionally, the Christian philosopher and renowned apologist, William Lane Craig, says concerning scientism, "Truths like 'If p implies q, and p, then q'or '2 + 2 = 4' are to all appearances necessary truths, not merely empirical generalizations. And what about science itself? Science is permeated with assumptions that cannot be scientifically proven, so that an epistemology of scientism would destroy science itself." [8]

Contention 3: Kalam Cosmological Argument

Although I can live with simply negating Con's case, I will present one for my side, i.e., that God probably exists. The philosophical argument for God that I find to be very valid is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The argument can be complied into a syllogism:

1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2: The universe began to exist.
3: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4: The cause of the universe is God.
C (from the above premises): Therefore, God exists.

Due to connection issues, I will now haste to post this round and continue respectively in the next rounds. I'll get into religious textbooks leading to the belief in God. Sorry for the haste, I cannot risk not posting the argument on time due to Internet messing up.

References:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://www.iscid.org...

[5] http://science.nasa.gov...

[6] http://www.pbs.org...

[7] http://plato.stanford.edu...

[8] http://tinyurl.com...

Most lovely blonde and dark-haired women. Enjoy!