CHALLENGE: PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENTS
FOR:
the NON-EXISTENCE of GOD
Define GOD...the spiritual PERSON revealed in the Bible...ONLY.
DEFINE "ARGUMENT"
An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion.
A SOUND argument must meet two conditions:
(1) it is logically valid
(i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and
(2) its premises are true.
We also need to have some REASON to think that the premises are true.
The premises have to have some degree of JUSTIFICATION or warrant.
The premises don’t need to be known to be true with CERTAINTY
(we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!).
The premises need to be PROBABLY true in light of the "evidence".
A "sound argument"...the premises are more plausible / probable than their opposites.
1. PROOF of spirit and soul by empirical scientific evidence is impossible.
2. God as described in the Christ-followers' Bible is pure, good, and perfect spirit.
3. PROOF of this God by empirical scientific evidence is impossisble.
NON-BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE of GOD (as described in the Bible)
A.
The Cosmological Argument from Contingency
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature OR in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
REF:.
The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God | Reasonable Faith
B.
The "Kalam" Cosmological Argument Based on the Beginning of the Universe
NOTE: for medieval Muslim proponents (kalam is the Arabic word for theology):
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
PREMISE ONE (1.)
TRUTH: something cannot come into being uncaused from nothing.
...literally worse than magic.
...if things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing,
then it’s inexplicable why just anything and everything do not come into existence uncaused from nothing.
...constantly confirmed in our experience as we see things that begin to exist ...being brought about by prior causes.
PREMISE TWO (2.) : OBSERVE the expansion of the universe and the thermodynamic properties of the universe.
(entropy / energy from matter)
in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin proved that
any universe that is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past
but must have an absolute and finite beginning.
Opposing arguments? The universe created itself! Something came from nothing! Order comes from randomness!
C.
The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
Values have to do with whether something is good or bad. (WORTH)
Duties have to do with whether something is right or wrong. (OBLIGATIONS)
“objective”= “independent of people’s opinions.”
“subjective” = “dependent on people’s opinions.”
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists
D.
The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
"Intelligent Design" focuses on examples of "complex" design in biological systems.
ADD: the remarkable "fine-tuning" of the cosmos for life.
a. When the "laws of nature" are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain CONSTANTS (e.g. gravity forces...pi)
b. there are ARBITRARY quantities that are put in
just as INITIAL CONDITIONS upon which the laws of nature operate,
(for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe)
c.>>>
all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values!<<<
i.e. >>>the range of life-permitting values is incomprehensibly narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values!
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
5.
The Ontological Argument from the Possibility of God’s Existence to His Actuality
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
MY DEBATE RULES:
TOPIC = the OP = The NON-EXISTENCE of GOD
Opinion FOR = the "affirmative' = non-believers in God
Opinion AGAINST = the "negative" = believers in God
The affimative goes FIRST and must present its ARGUMENT as defined above.
ANY References to PROOF...EVIDENCE...OBJECTIVE REALITY and the like are prohibited.
Scholarly references on the web are encouraged.
The negative goes SECOND and attempts to rebut the affirmative and present its ARGUMENTS.
I will both MODERATE and POST for the negative.
The debate will continue until there are UNREBUTTED ARGUMENTS...lack of posts...inactivity.
REF:
Debate Rules & Techniques | Synonym
