I will be arguing that God exists, and Dre. will be arguing that God does not exist. Let the debating begin!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. As it has been pointed out in other threads, there was an EXTREMELY small chance the universe would have survived after the big bang. Many scientists, such as Stephen Hawking, have stated that the chance of the universe not collapsing back into itself was less than one trillionth of a percent. Seems convenient that the Big Bang just happened to work out the way it did. Really, an intelligent designer is really the only likely reason the universe could have started this way.
2. What started the big bang? It surely didn't come from nothing. Something must have caused it. And where did the cause come from? Essentially, something must have started it, and the only real explanation is that a God created those particles.
My first premise is that if I can successfully articulate a positive atheist argument, logically disproving the existence of God, then I do not need to contest scientific claims in favour of theism, for they suggest only what is probable given current scientific knowledge. Furthermore, I need not a scientific explanation for the origin if the unvierse to logically sustain my belief, if I have successfully displayed that it is logically impossible for God to exist. I will provide these arguments later on in the post.
3. There are modern miracles that cannot be explained as science. I'm sure you've seen some of the videos of people being paralyzed but then being healed fully. How can you explain these without any God? Additionally, consider the thousands upon thousands of people who have spoken to or seen God.
The burden of proof lies on you to provide substantial evidence of these occuring. You are yet to do so.
4. The human brain and eye are irreducibly complex and therefore could not have evolved. God must have created them.
The development of the brain and eye have been adequately explained by science. Again, I need not contest this point if I can successfully articulate a positive atheist argument. And without futher ado, here is that argument/s-
The downfall of many atheists in these debates is that they simply ask questions that theists have prepared answers for. For example, it is insufficient for the atheist to merely propose the argument from evil, or the argument from non-belief, because these are merely straight forward questions that the theist has prepared answers for. Instead, what I intend to do is to anticipate common theist responses to these questions, and subsequently refute them.
Now in case you decide to go with a non-personal, deistic God, my first port of call is to prove that if God were to exist, He must be personal. It is fair to say that if I can prove that God freely chose to instantiate creation, then God is a personal God. If God was omnipotent, then He must fave freely chosen to instantiate creation, because He would have had the option to do otherwise, or create differently. Therefore, to argue God is impersonal, one must argue that God is not omnipotent, but rather a set of initial conditions that allowed for the instantiation of the unvierse. This issue with this is that God is relegated to a mechanic, designed for a specific function. However, God cannot be design, for design implies something prior to God. Secondly, this nature means that the effect (the universe) is necessary, which it can't be, because then God would be dependant on the effect He causes, which is illogical. As such, God must be omnipotent, meaning He must have freely hcosen to instantiate creation, meaning He must be personal.
Now that I have shown that if God were to exist, He must be personal, I move on to the argument from evil. As you would know, the problem of evil pertains to whether an omnipotent, omniscient omnibenevolent God would permit evil, and we know evil exists. A common objection is the free will defence. That is, that god bestowed free will upon humanity so that we could choose to love Him, and thus free will is where evil ocmes from. So I pose the question, are God's motives really good here? It appears that God is willing to allow for global suffering, most notably that of the innocent, simply for personal gratification, that He can have rational beings freely choose to live Him. If a scientist were to create mutants, giving them the option to love him, or cause destruction, the theist would not look kindly upon him.
Secondly, the argument from non-belief, the fact that there are several people who do not believe in God. The theist once again resorts to free will, saying that God bestowed free will upon humanity so that we can freely chose to find and love Him. To that I reply, why is not inquiry into God rewarded with absolute and undeniable knowledge of His existence? Several people have inquired, but have not found. So even once someone make sthe inquiry into God's existence, God still leaves open whether He exists or not. Now the theist will respond that one must have faith in His existence, but faith in existence is not a moral issue, it's a logical question. The faith required here is not to have faith that He will save you, after you know He exists, that is a moral question, the question is merely whether He exists or not. The answer to the latter question is achieved through inquiry, an exhibition of reason, not of faith or morality. So it seems illogical that God would not reward inquiry with undeniable belief in His existence.
Finally, as I have proven that God is personal and perfect, there is an issue with the first cause being a perfect being. The problem is, what is required for one's perfection is designated to them prior to them existing. For example, the role of a coffee mahcine is to make coffee, this was decided by humans. The role of humans is to nourish themselves, procreate through sex etc., this is determined by our nature, which existed prior to our intellects, we do not chose what constitutes our perfection. Now if perfection is deisgnated prior to being, God cannot be perfect, for nothing can be prior to God. But as I have shown, God must be personal, and to be personal, He must be omnipotent and have free choice, meaning He would be perfect. Now the theist may respond by saying that God defines perfection with His actions, rather than adhering to a prior concept of it with His actions. The problem is, if action A defines perfection, what made God decide to do action A instead of B or C? God's will could only be perfect, but that would mean His will is adhereing to a prior concept of perfection.
