Instigator / Pro
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
8
YouFound_Lxam
1472
rating
33
debates
46.97%
won
Topic
#3993

God Most Likely Exists

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Double_R
Tags
Religion
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Double_R's avatar
12
Double_R
1485
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Description

Definitions:

God: "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
Exists: "have objective reality or being."
Most Likely: more likely than not: probably.

Rules:

Both Pro and Con must stay on the topic.
Only factual evidence is to be used, not opinionated.
Claims must be backed up with evidence.

Round 1
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
Pro
#1
Thank you Double_R for accepting this debate.

I have already provided my definitions in the description, so Con already understands which definition we are to use.
I shall prove my case using 6 proofs for why God probably exists:

1. The Universe must have a cause.
2. Design demands a designer. 
3. Life demands a supernatural "life-giver". 
4. Moral law demands a moral law giver. 
5. Free will exists.
6. Human reasoning. 


Let's go ahead and start with #1:


The Universe must have a cause

One of the most fundamental laws of science, is the Law of Cause and Effect.
This law states: "...every single action in the universe produces a reaction no matter what. Every single effect within our world, upon our earth has a cause, an original starting point." law of cause and effect - Google Search. 
The Universe is an effect within our world; therefore, something must have caused the Universe to exist. Now some atheists will argue that the cause of Universe is because of something called a singularity, but what is a singularity? Or rather, a bigger question, is what caused a singularity to come into existence itself. Atheists will suggest that a singularity, is something that popped into existence from nothing. Atheism as an Extreme Rejection of Rational Evidence for The Existence of God (cuny.edu)

If there was a time, where there was absolutely nothing, that's what we would have now, because something cannot come from nothing. The idea that something came from nothing, is not a scientific idea. If scientists are claiming that singularities exist, they are suggesting that something (the singularity), natural, is behaving supernaturally. That singularity wouldn't have followed the laws of nature.

So, what are we left with?

A singularity is something supernatural, and if that is the claim for how the universe came into existence, then that would mean the universe came into existence supernaturally. So, if the universe is supernatural, and something cannot come from nothing, then that goes to prove that the universe must have had a supernatural creator. 



Design demands a designer

It is a commonly known fact, that this universe looks designed. Evidence of the Design of the Universe through the Anthropic Principle (ideacenter.org)
When we look at nature, and see animals, like birds and dogs, and plants like shrubs, and trees, and all of the systems that they all have that works so well, we as humans try to copy natures designs. Most of the time though, we don't do as well at copying natural aspects of nature, then nature itself does. The design of our body's, and our hands, and our arms and legs, and our brains are some of the most advanced natural advancements to ever exist. We try to mimic arms and legs and hands with our own technology, but we can't do it as well. 

So where does design originate?

Design is so complex, that things like big explosions can't bring about the complexity of what we have now. Think about this. Let's say you have a watch, and you take each individual piece, and gear apart, and put it all into a box, and you close the box. You could shake that box for eternity, but you would never open the box, and get a watch from just shaking it. The design in our universe, demands a supernatural designer. 



Life demands a supernatural life-giver

There is a commonly known law, called the Law of Biogenesis. 
Law of Biogenesis: "The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material." the law of biogenesis - Google Search
"Some textbooks still discuss the Miller-Urey experiments of 1953 as evidence that abiogenesis can occur. Neo-Darwinian biology has been dominated by a materialist dogma, mandating that organisms are a lot simpler than they really are. Life itself must be merely chemistry. If you assemble the right chemicals, then life emerges. DNA, though clearly sophisticated and coded information, must likewise be a product of chemistry alone, if one accepts the evolutionary paradigm.
The Miller-Urey experiment used a methane-ammonia-hydrogen and water atmosphere without oxygen because scientists once thought that earth’s original atmosphere lacked oxygen (or had only trace amounts)— oxygen was known to have detrimental effects on the experiments they were conducting.4 However, the accepted picture of the earth’s early atmosphere has changed. Secular scientists now think it was oxygen-rich with some nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor—a more reactive mixture than Miller’s, which would greatly deter the development of organic compounds.5 In addition to producing amino acids (mostly glycine and alanine), the Miller-Urey experiment also produced an abundance of toxic chemicals (cyanides, carbon monoxide, etc.) that are harmful to the amino acids. In addition, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules were consistently produced by the Miller-Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life.6"

"Even after further refinements made in the lab, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The very forms of energy suggested to have initiated abiogenesis actually destroy the amino acids formed in the process. And in both the Miller-Urey experiment and subsequent ones, the experimenters built a trap in the apparatus to collect the formed amino acids to prevent that destruction. No such trap existed in the supposed primordial earth. Additionally, the very fact that these amino acids are now hypothesized to have formed in water, which is now believed by secular geologists to have been on the early earth, is very problematic. As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”7"

So where did life arise? 

If atheists are suggesting that there is no God, then they are suggesting that a singularity (a supernatural, occurrence) caused a bunch of chemicals, and matter to explode, and those non-living chemicals caused living, and very complex organisms like us to come into existence. Obviously, something had to exist before life did, to cause life to exist. Something that had life in the first place. Even the most complex life that we know of to this day, could not have survived the vacuum of space that existed 13 billion years ago. So, something supernatural must have been alive, to cause this life in the first place.



Moral law, demands a moral lawgiver

If some things are objectively morally right, and other things are objectively morally wrong, then there is most likely a God.
If we evolved from primordial slime over multiplied millions of years, at what point did objective moral values arise? We don't look at a dog and say that that dog
objectively morally violated some rule when he steals a bone from another dog. We don't say that dog violated an objective moral value. We do say that humans can do things that are objectively morally wrong and that humans can be involved in things that are morally right.
If that's true, then a God most likely exists. 



Free will exists

Atheism is founded on materialism. 
Materialism: "the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications." materialism - Google Search
Because of this, atheism has to suggest that people don't have free will. They have to suggest that there is no being inside of you or me. They have to suggest that really what's going on in your brain is just electrons bouncing around and you're the product of those bounces and you don't really make decisions on your own. It's just the physical laws and properties going on in your brain. 

But if you as a person are reading this argument by your own volition, then you yourself is making that decision, therefore it is proof of free will.



Human Reasoning

We reason on a regular basis. We understand abstract ideas. If we were products of blind chance or random processes over multiplied millions of years, reasoning and the laws of reasoning, simply would have no explanation. But we reason together on a regular basis. From where does reason arise? It doesn't have any naturalistic, atheistic explanation. Antony Flew, is the atheist who wrote "Theology and Falsification": Theology and Falsification (cuny.edu).
It is one of the most popular atheistic papers for the last hundred years. In 2006, he co-wrote a book titled "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Became a Believer.": There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind: Flew, Antony, Varghese, Roy Abraham: 9780061335303: Amazon.com: Books
He stated that his rule of life had always been to follow the evidence where it leads. And he said he followed that evidence, and it led him to the conclusion that there is a supernatural intelligent God.

Double_R's avatar
Double_R
Con
#2
Thanks YouFound_Lxam

Pro made 6 arguments in this debate to affirm the resolution. I will start by addressing each contention and then summarize why Pro's case fails to uphold the resolution.

1. The universe must have a cause

Pro begins by invoking the law of causality. As Pro's own source states "every single action in the universe produces a reaction no matter what". In other words, the law of causality is a law within our universe, yet Pro is applying it beyond the universe to conclude what caused it. Pro has no basis to apply this law as such, this is just made up.

The fact is that we have no scientific evidence regarding what if anything preceded the singularity because contrary to Pro's misrepresentation of what big bang cosmology asserts, the singularity is the furthest point which we can go back because the laws of physics themselves break down at this point [1]. So if those laws break down at this point then Pro cannot claim he is following science when he asserts it must apply beyond it.

Pro then concludes that because the singularity does not behave naturally, the universe must have a supernatural creator. Pro here is just trying to smuggle in his argument through loaded language. First, the usage of the word “creator” implies some kind of intelligence which this argument makes no attempt to substantiate. Second, the very concept of the supernatural is a religious concoction. Science is about observations. The separation of that which follows the established laws of physics to that which does not in no way supports the notion of some realm existing on some higher level run by an intelligence. Pros conclusion is again, purely made up.

Most importantly however, if we set aside the individual issues with Pro's case here one thing becomes aparrent; Pro has made no attempt to explain how his explanation (God) escapes the very problems he is pointing out. Pro argues that 'something cannot come from nothing' while ignoring the fact that his proposed solution is in fact, a something. If the universe requires a creator then why not the God he proposes? How does invoking a God solve this problem?

Simply put, it doesn't. All Pro has accomplished is at best, to kick the can further down the road by invoking a God but this is an unnecessary assumption and thus, in accordance with Occam's razor, should logically be discarded.

2. Design demands a designer

Pro asserts as fact that the universe "looks designed". His contention fails at the most basic level because Pro failed to establish any criteria for how we tell whether something is designed in the first place.

To illustrate, let's look at the Palm islands in Dubia. A satellite view of these islands shows individual islands that are almost perfectly symmetrical to each other with straight coastlines and perfectly proportional spacing to human housing needs. They are clearly manmade, but how do we know this? Do we have some innate ability programmed by a God to recognize these traits as non natural? No. We know because we compare and contrast manmade objects with nature and learn to tell the difference.

No where in nature do any of these traits appear with any regularity. If they did, we would not have a basis to claim simply by looking at them that they are manmade.

Pro not only ignores this basic fact of human nature, he also fails to recognize what his argument here implies; if the universe and everything in it is designed then we no longer have any basis of comparison at all. There is nothing according to this argument that is not designed, so one cannot claim something looks designed because no one would have ever seen what non-design looks like.

Pros watchmaker analogy misrepresents the reality of how things came about. No one is claiming galaxies were spit out in tact by the big bang, they took billions of years to form and life billions of years after that. This analogy is also a sharpshooter fallacy; if you begin with a preconceived outcome and it defies the odds and comes to pass, that can be remarkable. But we're already here looking backward, so the odds of us getting here is irrelevant because we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place if this version of the universe wasn't the one which came to fruition.

3. Life demands a supernatural life-giver

Pro's case on this point is essentially that life from non life is scientifically impossible, therefore a supernatural force must have created it.

This is a text book example of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Pro is essentially arguing that we have no explanation for how life first arose, therefore we have an explanation. This is an obvious logical contradiction.

Moreover, things that do not exist cannot be asserted as the cause for something else, so Pro cannot rely on a supernatural being as the likely explanation until he has shown that such a being exists in the first place.

Pro here cites "the law of biogenesis" implying that this is accepted as scientific fact. I could find no evidence that the scientific community accepts this as an absolute and I suspect for good reason, because the notion Pro is trying to advance here is the antithesis of science.

We already know that life did in fact arise in a universe that previously did not have life, therefore the only question is how. If it were scientifically concluded to be impossible according to the laws of the universe then the law of exuded middle necessitates it occurred outside those laws. This would be a conclusion made by science which could not possibly be supported by science because science does not deal with theoretical forces interacting with the universe that are not subject to the laws of physics.

Lastly, while we may not know how it happened, we do in fact have an idea. Pro's source addressing the Miller Urey experiments are not the refutation he seems to think. The key finding of the Miller-Urey experiments is that amino acids - the "building blocks of life" - can in fact arise from non living matter. The fact that a trap had to be built in order to sustain them is not relevant to that finding. Pro's source refutes the assertion that life on earth formed under the conditions Miller and Urey attempted to recreate, but that's not a necessary condition of abiogenesis. We simply have no knowledge of what the conditions were when the first life on earth were formed, or even where they were formed.

4. Moral law, demands a moral lawgiver

Pro asserts that "if" some things are objectively right or wrong there must be a God. There is no such thing however as "objectively right" in any moral sense. Morality is a human construct,  making it necessarily subjective therefore this does not apply. Pro has made no real attempt to flush out anything further, so there is nothing left for be to address.

5. Free will exists

Pro asserts that if you are reading this of your own volition, "free will" exists. As far as I can tell, his case is that what he describes as "electrons bouncing around" in our brains couldn't result in decision making, but he makes no attempt to explain why not nor does he provide any evidence for an alternative explanation. His argument is essentially 'what we observe occurring can't occur, therefore it's the product of the supernatural'. This isn't a serious argument demanding a thorough response.

6. Human Reasoning

Pro raises the question; "From where does reason arise?". However much like the previous point, he makes no attempt to answer it. He claims atheists have no explanation and states that Anthony Flew says he followed the evidence to theism. But 'Anthony Flew said so' is not an argument, nor is 'atheists have no answer'. Pro has again failed to offer anything demanding a response.

Summary

The common theme through all of Pro's contentions is that they are all built on an argument from ignorance fallacy. Pro doesn't establish that a God created the universe, he just doesn't see how else the universe could have gotten here. He doesn't establish that a God designed the universe, he just doesn't see how it could look like this without one.

Each of these arguments relies on the same faulty logic I described in point 3; things that do not exist cannot be asserted as the cause for something else. Pro's entire case is to find things that don't have an explanation, and then invoke a theoretical God as the solution. But the only evidence he provides for this God is our own lack of explanations for how the things he is pointing to came about. A lack of an explanation is not an explanation.

In addition and also explained in point 3, none of the problems he raises are solved by a God. He points to our remarkable ability to reason and claims that can't be explained without a God, but a God would have to have this same ability, so what explains that? No answer provided. He claims the universe is too complex to have come about without a creator, but any God would have to be just as complex. Who created that? No answer provided.

Substantiating that a God is more likely than not requires a logically valid contention leading in that direction. Pro has provided nothing in this debate which qualifies leaving us to take at minimum, a neutral position.

The resolution stands negated.


Round 2
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
Pro
#3
Thank you Double_R for your argument


Again, this debate is not a debate to whether God exists or not, it is a debate on whether the evidence favors the possibility of a God, or no God. 
Con has used his first argument to critique mine. 
Yet, Con has not provided any evidence to his claim that God most likely doesn't exist. 

Looking at the definition of most likely that I gave:
Most Likely: more likely than not: probably.

Therefore, the debate is not to argue whether each other's proof is missing points, it is to provide evidence to further our claims.
So, all of Con's critiques of my arguments still stand as a good argument, Con has yet to provide any evidence to his claim that God most likely doesn't exist. 
If this debate was titled God exists, then Cons argument would be more affective. 


Pro then concludes that because the singularity does not behave naturally, the universe must have a supernatural creator. Pro here is just trying to smuggle in his argument through loaded language. First, the usage of the word “creator” implies some kind of intelligence which this argument makes no attempt to substantiate. Second, the very concept of the supernatural is a religious concoction. Science is about observations. The separation of that which follows the established laws of physics to that which does not in no way supports the notion of some realm existing on some higher level run by an intelligence. Pros conclusion is again, purely made up.
Con suggests that the very concept of the supernatural is a religious concoction. Well let's look at the definition of supernatural.

After a two second Google search for the definition of supernatural, we come up with this:
Supernatural: "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

Supernatural can be used in religious context, but it can also be used in non-religious context. It does not always mean religious. It just means going against the laws of nature. Supernatural. 


Con also brought up the fact that Science is about observations, and not assumptions. 
Then I ask you, why do atheists make assumptions about the Universes creation. They make assumptions about how life came to be. They make assumptions, on where the singularity came from. Atheists make assumptions all the time. I bring up again, that this debate is not "God Exists" but rather "God Most Likely Exists". Does the evidence lean more towards Gods existence, or the opposite? 



No where in nature do any of these traits appear with any regularity. If they did, we would not have a basis to claim simply by looking at them that they are manmade
I beg to differ. 


Morality is a human construct,  making it necessarily subjective therefore this does not apply.
The fact that morality only applies within humans, and not among other creatures, proves otherwise. Why us? Why don't monkeys have moral laws, even though we were said to evolve from them? At what point did a monkey get morals, and become human? 



I concede. 




Double_R's avatar
Double_R
Con
#4
Pro ends the prior round with "I concede". I am not clear as to whether he is conceding the debate since he did not specify, but seeing as he did take the time to refute some of my points I'll proceed under the assumption he still intends to finish the debate.

Pro takes issue with the fact that I did not provide an argument of my own affirming the opposite position of the resolution. No such argument was required according to Pro's rules for this debate, so in it's absence we are left with the standard rules of any debate. One of the most basic of those rules is that the instigator accepts the burden of proof.

Moreover, the negation of "God most likely exists" is not "God most likely doesn't exist". The negation is "God does not likely exist". The difference here is crucial to anyone who, based only on the arguments in this debate, remains neutral on the issue. In that event they end the debate in a different position than Pro, thus he failed to uphold his burden.

Also, “God most likely doesn't exist” is not my position. In fact, if we’re really looking at it, likelihood doesn't even apply to this question. Likelihood is a product of probability, and probability is a mathematical calculation based on the number of chances for a particular outcome vs actual previous results. However we have no examples of a God or of any other universes, so we have no previous results on which to calculate anything.

Therefore, this question is one that is entirely about logic or more specifically; logical validity. To illustrate, let’s imagine a defendant on trial for murder. The prosecution presents the murder weapon and establishes that the defendant’s finger prints were found on them. This alone would not "prove" the defendant's guilt, but it is evidence which clearly points in the direction of the defendant’s guilt because it aligns with the claim that he committed the crime and could not be equally explained by his innocence.

Likewise, for Pro to establish that God is "more likely than not" he would need at least one argument that aligns with a God without equally applying to his non existence. The point of my rebuttal round was to show that none of Pro’s arguments do so.

To see why, let’s go back to the previous example. We know that the defendant’s finger prints on the murder weapon is damming because we know what finger prints are. We can observe them and test them, and in centuries of studying them we’ve determined that they have an astronomically low chance of belonging to anyone else. 

We have no such basis for anything involving a God. We can’t say the universe looks like it was designed by a God because we have no prior examples of any other universes designed by a God. We can’t say the universe could only come about if it were caused by a God because we have no examples of universes being caused by a God. None of Pro’s “alignment” claims are based on anything established, it’s all purely the product of the human imagination and all of it can be explained far more rationally without invoking a God. And for those that can’t, inserting a God does nothing to solve the problems a God is supposedly needed to solve.

So in the absence of any claim that logically leads to a God, any rational person is stuck no further in that direction than the neutral position. Thus, Pro has taken on an impossible task by burdening himself with providing logically valid evidence for a God, a burden he has predictably failed to uphold.

The Supernatural

Pro takes issue with my statement that the supernatural is a religious concoction, but it is. No science minded individual would appeal to such terms and the connotation behind it is clear.

Again, science is about starting off with observations and ending with findings that result in increased predictability and explanatory power. If there were such thing as a God, and that God could be observed and studied to the point where it’s nature and abilities could be explained and predicted, it would be incorporated into our understanding of the natural world just like rain and lightning were hundreds of years ago.

“Supernatural” is therefore nothing more than stand in phrase pointing to our own ignorance of how reality works.

Also, since the debate is about God and what if any evidence for it exists, I have largely ignored Pro’s strawman arguments regarding what atheists say. While they are in fact blatant misrepresentations I have explained to him numerous times, they are irrelevant here. What matters regarding these questions is not what atheists say, it’s what physicists and cosmologists say. And even then, none of it points to a God.

Design demands a designer

Pro did not provide an argument countering anything I’ve said here nor has he added anything new. Since all he provided was a link, it should be discarded outright as he should be making his own arguments. I will however address it anyway.

Pro responds only to the point where I stated that the aforementioned traits do not appear in nature with any regularity. His response however was to post an article ironically titled: “natural things that look manmade”. If these things look manmade then they can’t also look like they are natural, so Pro’s own source clearly recognizes that there are differences in man made objects and the way we tell the difference is not complexity. Second, Pro missed the point. I stated “If these things happened with regularity…” The fact that an article has to be published showing these things as remarkable demonstrates that they are anything but regular.

Morality

Pro claims that morality only applies to humans. This is just wrong. Humans are the only species intelligent enough to communicate and therefore teach and enforce a moral code, but that doesn’t even mean we’re the only species intelligent enough to understand basic morality. Experiments done on dogs and monkeys have shown that they too have this basic sense [1], so Pro’s claim is both invalid and factually inaccurate.

Summary

Once again, I’m not sure any of this was necessary but Pro has failed to provide anything leaning in the direction of a God. The resolution “God most likely exists” is therefore negated.

Round 3
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
Pro
#5
Rebuttals:

Moreover, the negation of "God most likely exists" is not "God most likely doesn't exist". The negation is "God does not likely exist". The difference here is crucial to anyone who, based only on the arguments in this debate, remains neutral on the issue. In that event they end the debate in a different position than Pro, thus he failed to uphold his burden.

Also, “God most likely doesn't exist” is not my position. In fact, if we’re really looking at it, likelihood doesn't even apply to this question. Likelihood is a product of probability, and probability is a mathematical calculation based on the number of chances for a particular outcome vs actual previous results. However we have no examples of a God or of any other universes, so we have no previous results on which to calculate anything.
The title of this debate is," God most likely exists."
Con is refuting this claim with the opposite notion, based on the fact that he accepted the debate. Con has accepted a debate, that he is to argue, God most likely doesn't exist. You can't change the way the argument has been based. Even if that is not what you intended on arguing, that is what the title of the debate implies.
I even put the definition of most likely, to show that con would be refuting the opposite of what I was claiming. 
Most likely is a definition in the debate description to imply to Con, that he is arguing that God most likely doesn't exist. 
The argument/debate that is taking place, is either God most likely exists, or God most likely doesn't exist. 


Pro takes issue with my statement that the supernatural is a religious concoction, but it is. No science minded individual would appeal to such terms and the connotation behind it is clear.
The idea of the supernatural, is not based just in religion. The definition of supernatural (provided in my previous argument) is not based in anything religious. 
Con stats that no science minded individual would appeal to such terms, but scientists do this exact thing, when they argue that the cause of the big bang, was a singularity. 

Singularity: "A singularity means a point where some property is infinite. For example, at the center of a black hole, according to classical theory, the density is infinite (because a finite mass is compressed to a zero volume). Hence it is a singularity."

A singularity by definition is a point where some property is infinite. This breaks all of the laws of physics, that we know to be true. Therefore, this makes this a supernatural occurrence. 



Pro claims that morality only applies to humans. This is just wrong. Humans are the only species intelligent enough to communicate and therefore teach and enforce a moral code, but that doesn’t even mean we’re the only species intelligent enough to understand basic morality. Experiments done on dogs and monkeys have shown that they too have this basic sense [1], so Pro’s claim is both invalid and factually inaccurate.
Human moral law is different from animal's moral law. We see this all the time in nature. If we evolved from monkeys and animals, at what point did our moral understanding the universe and people drastically change? 
If a dog eats your food, you wouldn't say that dog violated a moral law. Humans have very different morals when it comes to animals. 
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
Con
#6
I begin this round no less confused about Pro’s intent to concede the debate as I ended the previous round. He provided a response to some of my points but also left many unaddressed and failed to further his own case. I will respond to Pro’s points from last round and leave it to the readers to judge appropriately.

Resolution

Pro claims it was “implied” that I was responsible for arguing “God most likely doesn’t exist”. He supports this notion by pointing to the fact that he provided the definition of “most likely” in the comments. This does nothing to make Pro’s point here.

Pro seems to misunderstand not only the burden of proof but also the law of excluded middle. 

“In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true. [wiki]

In accordance with this law, there is no middle ground between a proposition’s affirmation and its negation. If the only negation of “God likely exists” was “God likely doesn’t exist” that leaves out “God’s existence and non-existence are equally likely”. But both of the latter options are incompatible with the first, so they both qualify as a negation to it.

By arguing it was implied that I must affirm God’s non-existence Pro is essentially trying to rule out a valid negation of the resolution. As instigator of the debate he has the right to set that rule if he chooses, but he cannot claim it should be taken for granted. That’s just not how logic works.

Moreover, the implication of the “equally likely” possibility is consequential and thus shouldn’t be ignored. If God likely exists then Pro is justified in believing in him. If the probability of God’s non-existence is equal to that of his existence then, just like flipping a coin, Pro is no longer justified in claiming belief to either possibility. Thus to be considered rational he would have to change his position to “I do not believe in a God”.

The Supernatural

Pro’s supernatural argument at this point is really nothing more than a game of semantics. All he has accomplished is to define supernatural as that which breaks the laws of physics, but this is an otherwise useless definition. 

The laws of physics are just humanity’s understanding of how the universe works, so that which breaks the laws of physics is simply breaking what we previously understood to be true about the universe’s limitations. Science is all about adapting our understanding of any phenomenon to the evidence, so nothing about this conflicts with science.

Meanwhile, inferring a God in any way from a lack of understanding of how the universe works is the very definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy. His argument here is basically ‘We don’t understand how the singularity works, therefore it is supernatural, therefore it likely comes from a God’. Or to simplify further; ‘We don’t understand the singularity, therefore we understand it’. Such a logically fallacious argument demands immediate rejection.

Morality

Pro curiously states that human moral law is different from animals moral law. I have no idea what laws he’s referring to and he did not explain, so this is a meaningless statement.

Neither humans nor animals have any moral laws. We have basic ideas that we tend to share, but that comes from common intelligence levels which lead to common understandings.

We for example can almost unanimously agree that it is wrong to kill, but that’s because we live in a society where we live by certain rules for everyone’s benefit. We accept these rules implicitly by operating as such within our society and taking advantage of the benefits that come with it. No rational person would argue that it is morally wrong to kill in war because no such agreement or understanding exists. In fact the opposite, if you don’t kill then it is you that will be killed.

Dogs do not have the complexity to set and live by such rules, so there is no moral consideration by a dog eating one’s food in most cases.

Nothing about Pro’s lack of understanding of what morality is or how we determine what is moral points to a God.

Conclusion

Since Pro essentially gave up on this debate I think the verdict is clear. The resolution is negated.