Introduction
My strategy for this debate is going to be just throwing out every good argument there is for atheism and hoping at least one of them convinces the voters. That said, I apologize if this gets to be a little long, but I create this debate with the express purpose of it being very in depth, so I think the time limit and character limit will support that. One final thing before I begin, I acknowledge that the primary burden of proof rests with me. I must have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely God does not exist, and Con must either have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely that God does exist, or demonstrate that I have not provided enough evidence to support my side. With that, here we go.
The Problem of Evil
This is one of my favorite arguments for atheism. At its most basic form, it goes something like this:
Premise 1: God is all loving (this is provided in my description of God, so by agreeing to this debate, you agreed to this premise)
Premise 2: The World has Evil in it
Premise 3: An all loving God would not create a world with evil
Conclusion: An all loving God cannot exist.
That by itself is probably the most common argument against god's existence, but what makes it my favorite is all the little other arguments that branch off from it. For example, there is the problem of animal evil. God could have created all animals so that they were photosynthetic (they get their energy from the sun), but God made it specifically so that many animals must eat other animals to survive. Why would an all loving God create a world where you must commit evil to others to survive?
Many challenges to this argument say that it must be a part of his cosmic design. There must be some reason. Sometimes, the reason provided is that without some evil, you cannot have certain types of good. Eg. Without fear you can't have bravery, without challenges you can't have accomplishment etc. But if I was brave enough to save someone from a burning building, it still would have been better for there to be no fire. There would have been no property damage, so damage to me and the victims bodies, and the loved ones would have been spared the horror of seeing their family member stuck in a burning building. So, I ask you, does it make more sense that an all loving God created a world with Evil just so there could be some other kinds of good, or would he have just have created a world where there is no Evil, and you always feel positive emotions? I feel that it makes more sense to just have a perfect world.
Additionally, If he was God, then why couldn’t he have made it so we feel emotions like accomplishment, and bravery regardless of actually having done anything. Emotions are emotions, and if God is truly all powerful (within possibility), then it would make more sense to have a world where we feel these emotions constantly. I know I would prefer a world like that.
And again, there is the problem of Animal suffering. Why would God make it so that some animals have to eat others to survive? I see no good coming out of this?
Because of this, I feel that it is more likely that the universe is simply indifferent to our suffering, and there is no all loving being trying to maximize our happiness.
Non-resistant Non-Believers/ Divine Hiddenness
This one is pretty simple. Why would an all loving God knowingly not reveal himself to people who are willing? A non-resistant non-believer is someone who wants to believe in God and is open to believing in God, but still has not had God reveal himself to them, and so does not believe. A perfectly loving God wouldn’t want someone like this to suffer. If a person actively wants to believe in God, and actively wants to have a personal relationship with God, then why would an all loving God deny this to them?
Theists often respond to this one by saying that God must be acting in the best interests of the person, and they don't know it, but that brings us back to my use of the word "likely" in the title.
It seems most probable (to me at least) that in order to be perfectly loving, god would want to have a personal relationship with all of his creation, especially if that creation desired one. It is possible that he is acting in some mysterious way, but I think that scenario seems to be a bit too complicated. As Occam's Razor says, the simplest explanation is often the correct one.
Religious displacement
This is another relatively simple one, but it is also a very powerful one, at least I think so. Basically, If God is all loving, and loves every one of his creations equally, then why are you more likely to have a divine visit if you live in a different country. For example, Thailand is about 92% Atheist. On the other end, India has a 99% rate of people saying that they are religious when polled.
If a god existed, you would expect to find that he has revealed himself to people indiscriminately of nationality, but clearly that is not true.
Another addition to this puzzle is the variety of religions around the world. If there was an all loving god, it would make sense for him to reveal himself equally to people regardless of race and location. If that were true, you would expect all major religions to arrive at roughly the same idea. They might get some minor things different, but as we see today, to there are so many different religions with so many different beliefs. I find it hard to believe that a perfectly all loving god would allow this.
Divine Hiddenness (again, but different)
This one actually is different from my second point, but I just couldn’t think of anything better to call it.
I don’t think my opponent will object to the fact that region can cause conflict, specifically over which one is the correct one. While it is true that region only directly caused around 7% of wars, it is still a major problem that it caused any wars. And besides that even, religion one of the biggest dividing factors between us humans. If a war wasn’t directly caused by religion, then there is a good chance that the opposing sides had different majority faith systems, and this can be used by demagogues to whip the population into a frenzy of hatred.
With all of this in mind, God is clearly causing much harm by not revealing himself directly to all of us. If god were to appear before a massive gathering of us, and state clearly what religion is correct (if any), it would stop all the religious fighting. By not intervening, God is passively letting all this violence go on, and thus cannot be perfectly good.
Again, this isn’t a direct proof of anything. God may have his reasons for being so hidden, but it seems most likely that the universe is simply indifferent to our problems.
Conclusion
Those are some of the best arguments for atheism out there. There are some others, but I chose not to include them because they either weren’t that good, or I was too lazy. Sure, it is still a possibility that god can exist, but I believe that these arguments demonstrate that it is at least improbable.
Thank you, I yield the floor.
@Best.Korea, thks, will check bones standard- would you please share the debate link.
In my opinion humans born of humans, I see humans do horrible things in the world and instead of taking responsibilities for their actions people blame it on God.
In a world of cause and effects, action and consequences as natures rule, humans suffer the effects and consequences of their own doing and it would be nice if humans took responsibility and correct our errors instead of blame it on god or use god to further act destructively.
This one seems like a debate you would like?
I dont want to argue for all good God.
Bones has pretty much set a standard on this site debating that all good God cannot create a horrible world.
Its not an argument that can be beaten unless we move the debate to assuming that all humans would be worse off if God didnt create them, which is not something I want to even give attention to.
@WyIted
I disagree and state that God exist in the contest and definition of other languages that have one name for essence of life but not in English.
That's half of debates. Just agreeing to definitions to even figure out if you even disagree.
In three points I argue English word god does not refer to "a perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe."
definition of work God/god: find English word "god" confusing as it is the only language that used a vague word to refer to the great spirit essence of life. All other languages have only one word for the Almighty God e.g. Yahweh, Allah, Ngai, Mungu, Dios, Gud, Dieu, Deus, Gott etc.
English god has resulted to so many battles in history and many people suffer under the name of god and the book of Joshua shows a bloody time while the roman empire and European colonization of other parts of the world in the name of god brings questions to which god is this that goes contrary to the innate great spirit.
English god is purchased and external contrary to internal innate knowing of breathe in us, through us and with us in all things the essence of life which is identified as one word in different languages for purpose of worship. The essence of life is known as the great spirit, or holy spirit or the universe. As it stands remains nameless as this can only be personally experienced freely and not transferred or purchased.
Conclusion:
We need to redefine the word god in English for it does not refer to a perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe. The god out there does not exist however the essence of life exist everywhere in all things.
I put an asterisk on god and clarified what I meant in the description. My three big requirements are that the god your arguing for must be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
It's weird that you say non existence is more likely than existence of ANY FORM OF GOD, but the force your opponent to only argue in favor of the triomni god