Curtis/Vacula Debate Series - Does the Christian God Exist - Second Rebuttal

8/3/2019 Curtis/Vacula Debate Series - Does the Christian God Exist - Second Rebuttal

1/4

Thank you, JD for your first rebuttal in this Does the Christian God Exist? debate.

JD, in his opening statement, argued that the fine-tuning of the earth's position in our solar system

and the improbability of life gives us good reason to believe in the Christian god. Additionally, JDmentions the resurrection of Jesus as good reason to believe in the Christian god: he mentions the

transformation of the apostles, women finding an empty tomb, and the lack of any widespread

competing claims from the first century as to what happened to the body of Christ.

In my opening statement, I argued that the evidence of unnecessary egregious suffering serves as a

defeater to belief in an omni-good god. I also argued that since we're justified in not believing in anomni-evil god based on the evidence of 'good' in the world, we are equally justified in not believing in

an omni-good god because of the evidence of 'evil' in the world. Additionally, I argued that since belief

in an omni-evil god is irrational and defenses used that attempt to defend belief in an omni-evil good

are irrational, similar reasoning to defend belief in an omni-good god would likewise be irrational.Finally, I argued that naturalism the philosophical belief that all that exists is the natural world is

very inductively justified because supernatural explanations have gone to the wayside in favor of

naturalistic explanations throughout history (therefore we are justified in rejecting belief in theChristian god).

In my first rebuttal, I argued that my opponent's arguments fail to demonstrate that the Christian godexists not only because the reasoning is problematic, but because the arguments simply don't rightly

lead to a conclusion of The Christian god exists. The fine-tuning argument, even if one were to

accept it, does not demonstrate that the Christian god exists. The improbability of life argument, even ifone were to accept it, does not demonstrate that the Christian god exists. How does one go from 'I can't

explain this' or 'propositions x and y are improbable' to 'the Christian god exists?' The transformation of

the apostles, an empty tomb, and a lack of explanation regarding the body of Jesus likewise do not lead

to the conclusion that the Christian god exists.

Surprisingly, my opponent, in his first rebuttal, has not even addressed my second and third arguments!

He seemingly misses the point and simply argues that Satan is the god of this world. My fourthargument similarly was not addressed. Most of JD's focus was on my first argument, but I don't even

think he really addressed it besides providing about three explanations for how suffering can exist in a

world created by an omni-good god.

I will address my opponent's points one by one, in order.

JD mentions a fallen world as an explanation/justification for malaria, AIDS, Indian Ocean tsunamis,and the like and says that these things came about after the fall. JD also argues that the existence of

these natural evils prove the contention of the fall. I am not sure what JD is referring to when he talks

about the fall, but might have an idea. Genesis mentions the sin of humankind as a reason for Adamand Eve being expelled from the Garden of Eden...and persons today look to this, like JD does, to make

sense of suffering in the world. This explanation, though, is very problematic for several reasons.

Academic theists (and many non-academic theists) will happily admit that the creation stories aremetaphorical in nature and are allegories (therefore these events actually never happened). Further, JD

notes that these events such as earthquakes never occurred because the alleged fall. Are we supposed to

honestly believe that earthquakes, for example, are some sort of 'recent (?)' phenomena that only startedhappening when humans 'came on the scene?'

Does JD honestly believe that the natural laws of the universe were changed because of 'the fall' or


2/4

otherwise the consumption of an alleged fruit by alleged 'first humans?' Consider earthquakes the

result of moving of tectonic plates. Were tectonic plates in such a manner that they only started shifting

as they do today because of 'the fall?' One would assume that it is more reasonable to believe that

earthquakes always happen and have nothing whatsoever to do with human action. We no longer needto appeal to human actions to understand earthquakes, so why do so? How about birth defects, viruses,

etc? Are these also in existence because of human action?

Further, even if it is the case that egregious suffering exists because of the actions of humans, how is

compatible with an omni-good god? Ought we be responsible for the actions of our alleged ancestors?

Is it just for infants to die because of natural disasters, birth defects, malaria, because of past 'sins?' Issuch 'punishment' even all-loving to begin with?

JD believes, of course, that God set the natural laws of the universe...and this is one of the biggest

problems regarding theists and the problem of natural evil. A supposed omni-good god created suchlaws that guarantee human suffering. As I said, we should not expect such things from an omni-good

god. JD's arguments of 'the fall' does not even address my objection. Perhaps, to be more charitable, JD

is trying to argue that God is not responsible for the suffering because humans are, but this doesn'twork either because God was the one who set the natural laws in place to begin with. Regardless, God

could, of course, change the natural laws so that natural disasters, for instance, do not happen.

Remember, JD believes that natural disasters didn't exist before 'the fall,' so God should have noproblem changing them again.

Next, JD wonders what I mean when I use the term evil and seemingly objects to my use of the term. Idon't understand what this has to do with my argument and this seems quite silly. Persons 'on the street'

know very well what persons mean when there is talk about the problem of evil and the term 'problem

of evil' has widely been understood throughout history. JD says that I believe evil counts toward

evidence against an objective good. I do not argue such a thing, but rather that egregious suffering vianatural causes renders belief in a Christian god irrational. An objective good, of course, can be had

without a god...although I'm not claiming that an objective good exists or doesn't exist (and this doesn't

have anything to do with the debate). I mainly use the term 'evil' (and note that I've used it with quotes)to use shorthand and remain consistent with an established problem.

It should be quite obvious that events such as earthquakes and tsunamis which kill people are notdesirable and could be labeled as 'natural evils.' JD says that a strict materialist would simply look at

these things and shrug. JD poses, here, a false dichotomy and a 'loaded' version of 'strict materialism.'

Why should it be the case that 'strict materialists' ought to simply shrug? Additionally, why have

seemingly two options here of 'believer in God who grieves when people die from natural disasters' or'strict materialist who simply shrugs?' Perhaps 'strict materialists' believe that this life is all that there is

and thus are saddened when people die. There exist other options (and not all persons who are atheistic

are 'strict materialists.'

Regardless of how we codify morality or talk about what is undesirable, the evidential problem of

natural evil still exists for the theist. It is not 'up to me' to give an accounting for morality or explainwhy I wouldn't 'just shrug' at natural disasters. Additionally, the evidential problem of natural evil is not

about 'shaking a fist' at God, but rather the problem of an egregious amount of suffering through natural

occurrences in light of belief in an omni-good god. This is not a problem for me, but rather is a problemfor JD; it matters not whether my 'strict materialism' (or the materialism of anyone else) views one to

shrug at natural disasters.


3/4

JD seems to 'blame the victim' here when referring to natural disasters (seemingly taking the

responsibility away from god). He says, Should [] they carry at least part of the blame if it affected

them or their loved ones? [] Did anyone put a gun to their respective heads and force them to live in

a flood plain? Is it God's fault if they didn't do their homework? JD here misses the point because itwas God who set these natural laws up so that these natural disasters are inevitable. Surely an omni-

good god can 'accomplish' what there is, as some theists make think, to 'accomplish' without making

earthquakes, for instance, be part of the universe. The main problem, though, is that seemingly nomatter what people do or no matter where people move, natural disasters will occur...and there's not

enough room, finances, etc for everyone to move to safer areas.

Sometimes, as JD and others know, people can't simply 'do their homework' when natural disasters

occur without warning. How about all of the years before 'modern technology' in which people could

not predict natural disasters, did not have the adequate resources to prepare for natural disasters, etc?

Can we rightly say that those living near volcanoes, for instance, though no fault of their own with littleor no means to escape, should have 'done their homework?' How about infants?

Additionally, such reasoning that JD employs in his various counter-objections can be used to defendbelief in an omni-evil god and we see this as very irrational, so why accept it here? Perhaps someone

can say, Omni-evil god created the universe in a perfect way without such good, but because of 'the

rise' (some event in which humans disobeyed god similar to the fall) there is so much good in theworld. How about this one, Omni-evil god created such barren lands like Antarctica! Why don't

people move away from areas that are relatively free of natural disasters? They can go to Antarctica and

suffer! Why blame omni-evil god? People should have done their homework! It is not the fault ofomni-evil god that so many people have to experience goodness so much, but rather it is the fault of

humankind. No one puts a gun up to the head of those living in the prosperous secular democracies of

Sweeden and Denmark! These people instead should just move to third world countries and suffer!

Next, JD objects to my mention of animal suffering and asks why I settled simply on animals. He

suggests that it might be the case that plants experience pain (!). JD suggests that I might be more

sympathetic toward animals than plants because animals have faces or brains (and some otherconsiderations). I don't see why this is being brought up. Let me, for sake of argument, admit that

plants do indeed feel pain. This further demonstrates my point! The omni-good god that JD believes in

has even more of a problem because he created plants that feel pain! How can we got about livingwithout 'killing' and consuming plants, one would wonder. Why wouldn't omni-good god simply

'design' the universe in a different way?

JD mentions that some animal suffering may be uncertain such as that associated with numbingvenom. Even ifsome suffering is painless orsome animals don't feel pain, this misses the point. Can an

omni-good god honestly be thought of as setting up such a system based on predation in order for

ecosystems to be viable? Assume, simply the following possible world: God creates animals asomnivores with different needs, digestive systems, etc and simply creates the ecosystem in a different

way. Animals don't have the 'urge' to kill other animals and lions, for instance, peacefully co-exist with

gazelle. As an omnipotent and omniscient being, God could surely create such a world like this insteadof the world we have now that is 'nature red in tooth and claw.'

JD says that Satan is the god of the world to address my second and third arguments, but I don't seehow this is relevant; it misses the point of my arguments. It seems that Cor. 4:4 is rather saying that

Satan is leading non-believers not to believe, not that Satan is 'the god of this world.' Cor. 4:6, anyway,

says that God commands the light to shine out of such darkness. Anyway, if JD wants to appeal to the


4/4

Bible and Satan, he needs to show that Satan exists.

Finally, JD says Christians generally do not seek supernatural explanations except perhaps on origin

of life discussions... I don't 'buy' this for a moment. Consider the Nicene Creed which alone containsmany supernatural claims: God made everything, God incarnate was on earth, Jesus raised from the

dead, Jesus ascended into Heaven, [Heaven exists], there will be a judging of the living and dead, the

Holy Spirit exists, the sacrament of baptism can 'forgive sins,' etc. While this claim is obviousanecdotal, although it can easily be verified, individual Christians use God in part of explanations for

receiving promotions at work, finding car keys, answering prayers, performing well in sports events,

receiving Grammy awards, and so much more.

JD attempted to shift the blame away from God to humans (or to somewhere else) in order to respond

to my evidential argument of natural evil. Such explanations fail because God ultimately allegedly

designed the laws of the universe and could have made the universe in such a manner than egregioussuffering via natural disasters didn't exist. Additionally, God is supposed to be all-loving, so why would

this be the case to begin with? Regardless, one could use the same logic to defend belief in an omni-

evil god and we see such defenses to be profoundly irrational, so why shouldn't the same reasoning inlight of an omni-good god be likewise profoundly irrational?

Addressing my second and third argument, JD said that Satan is the god of this world. This doesn't doanything to rebut my second and third arguments. JD has failed to show why, since we are justified in

inferring that there is no reason to believe an omni-evil god exists because of 'good' in the world, that

we are also similarly justified in believing that the 'evil' in the world doesn't lead us to assume thatbelief in an omni-good god is irrational.

JD has also failed to explain why, since the defenses for belief in an omni-evil god in the light of 'good'

are irrational, that defenses for belief in an omni-good god in the light of 'evil' are irrational.

Finally, JD does not address my argument for naturalism; his defense of Christians generally don't

seek supernatural explanations simply is false and doesn't matter even if it were true because God is asupernatural explanation.

Vincent Price's words from the 1964 movie The Masque of the Red Death speak loud volumes here:Can you look around this world and believe in the goodness of a god who rules it? Famine, pestilence,

war, disease, and death they rule this world! If a god of love and life ever did exist, he is long since

dead. If JD wants us to believe that 'Satan is the god of this world,' he has much explaining to do

(namely establishing that Satan exists). Regardless, how does Satan 'get God off the hook' when Godallegedly designed the natural laws in this universe that guarantee egregious amounts of unneeded

suffering. Is Satan to blame for this, too? Does Satan render God powerless to change the laws again

(remember, JD asserted that earthquakes and the like did not exist before 'the fall').

My arguments undermining belief in the Christian god stand and JD's arguments for belief in the

Christian god fail to demonstrate that the Christian god exists. Hopefully, reasonable observers of thisdebate, no matter if they believe in the Christian god, realize this. In order for JD to be successful in a

debate, as I mentioned in my first opening statement, he needs to show that his arguments lead to belief

in the Christian god. He has failed to do this.

I await JD's second rebuttal.

Documents

Curtis/Vacula Debate Series - Does the Christian God Exist - Second Rebuttal