I would simply like to start with the question, "Is God real?" I am, of course pro, meaning I believe in God, and I argue in his favor. So, do I have any proof of God? Scientifically, there is more proof for God, than there is against him. Firstly, look out a window. You see trees, people, animals, etc. All of that had to start somewhere. Personally, I think it takes more faith to believe that everything outside of your window started as "nothing" than to believe that a greater power put it all there.
Thanks to pro for starting this debate.
I want to open up with a basic argument: the BoP is on him to prove that the Christian God exists/more probably exists since
- He's the one making the affirmative claim, therefore placing the burden onto him.
- The resolution doesn't ask me to disprove God's existence, rather just show that there's no reason to believe he exists. This may not seem like a big difference, but it means I only have to disprove the affirmative's arguments to show that there's no reason to believe in a God, rather than posit my own for why he doesn't exist (I'll do so anyway just for fairness, but it's not necessary for me to win the round).
This means that all I need to do to win the round is to disprove his argument. So let's get to it.
Pro's sole argument is that everything around us had to come from something, so God must exist. There's numerous problems with this argument.
- It's the God of the Gaps fallacy by definition. Even if everything did have to come from somewhere, that doesn't mean that God exists. There are dozens of other plausible explanations for existence, not to mention multiple other deities that explain existence. To say that because existence, therefore the Christian God exists therefore is illogical.
- Moreover, even if the other explanations don't make sense, that still wouldn't mean that the Christian God existed. There could easily be other possible explanations for existence that we have yet to come across that are more valid than the Christian God
- This works against Christianity as well; if something cannot come from nothing, God could not have simply appeared and existed to create everything we see today. He'll try to answer this by saying that God is uncaused, and has always existed, but that doesn't make sense logically. It's answering an infinite regress with another infinite regress and saying "Hah! I made it stop!" This would put my opponent in a really interesting position: either something can't come from nothing, in which case where did God come from, or something can come from nothing, and his argument is refuted.
Because of this, it becomes really hard to believe that there's a God out there just from looking out my window. I see the side of my neighbor's house, personally. I certainly don't see Jesus.
As this was his only argument, and the inner debater in me hates leaving character space unused, I shall use the rest of my space to present arguments against the existence of the Christian God.Argument One: The Paradox of the Stone
This argument is structured rather simply in a single question: "Can God create a stone so large that even he cannot lift it?"
This simple question poses major issues to an omnipotent God, such as the Christian God. For if he makes a stone that he cannot lift, something would exist that he could not do, therefore making him not omnipotent. But if he could lift any stone that he attempted to make, regardless of how large he made them, then he wouldn't be able to make a stone large enough that he couldn't lift it, which would mean there existed something that he couldn't do, which, again, disproves omnipotence. Since both options disprove an omnipotent God existing, the Christain God cannot exist.Argument Two: The Universe Never Came into Existence
I'm going to let n7, a debater on DDO, explain this one since he will be able to explain this one far better than I ever will:(1)
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.
Argument Three: The Argument from Evil
This one is rather simple. It goes a little something like this:
- P1) There exists gratuitous suffering in the world.
- P2) An omni-potent, benevolent God would not allow gratuitous suffering to occur.
- C) An omni-potent, benevolent God cannot exist.
P1 is true simply by watching the Weather Channel. Most natural disasters (such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes) occur and cause entirely unnecessary suffering.
P2 is true by the definition of benevolence. If God simply cared, he wouldn't allow us to needlessly suffer for no reason or no benefit.
But since there is unnecessary suffering in the world, the conclusion is true.
I'll pass it back over to Pro here.
(1) - http://www.debate.org...