Achwienichtig

Does God Exist?

Punkforchrist takes the affirmative.
Davka takes the dissent.

Three arguments for God's existence will be debated.

a) the argument from order
b) the argument from change
c) the argument from desire

The argument will be in four rounds, with each debater having the same word limit per round.

1st round: 1,000 words
2nd round: 750 words
3rd round: 750 words
Concluding round: 500 words

Punkforchrist will go first in each round.

Debaters should try to post no later than one week apart from each other, although exceptions are allowed for in cases of necessity. When you post your statement, please PM me so that I know to approve it for viewing.

After the debate, each debater will have an opportunity to ask followup questions as well as answer questions presented in the followup and in the peanut gallery. Both questions and answers should be kept as brief as possible.

I will set up a peanut gallery after the debate has started.

The debate begins when punkforchrist submits his first round statement.

Best of luck!

[HR][/HR]

I have set up the peanut gallery.

Peanut gallery is here.

punkforchrist

I'd like to begin by thanking Davka and the FRDB forum for putting on this debate.

I'll be defending three arguments for God's existence: a) the argument from change; b) the argument from order; and c) the argument from desire.

The Argument from Change

1. Changing things exist. (Premise)

2. Changing things exhibit actuality and potentiality. (Premise)

3. No potentiality can actualize itself. (Premise)

4. The regress of potentialities being actualized itself exhibits potentiality. (Premise)

5. Hence, the regress cannot actualize itself. (From 3 and 4)

6. If the regress is actualized, it is actualized by Pure Actuality. (Premise)

7. The regress is actualized. (Premise)

8. Therefore, it is actualized by Pure Actuality. (From 6 and 7)

I'll assume that Davka agrees with the first premise, so let's move on to the (2) and (3). Take, for example, an acorn. In actuality, it is merely an acorn. However, in potentiality, it is something else, such as an oak tree. Yet, no potentiality can actualize itself, since that would require it to be self-caused. Yet, in order to be self-caused, a thing would have to both exist and not-exist simultaneously, which is contradictory.

Now, premise (4) merely points out that the regress of potentialities being actualized itself exhibits potentiality. After all, none of these potentialities must be actualized, and if every part of the regress exhibits potentiality, then so does the regress. For example, if every part of a mountain is made of rock, then the mountain as a whole must be made of rock.

(5) follows from (3) and (4), so what about premise (6)? In order for the regress to be actualized,
it could not be actualized by something that exhibits potentiality. Otherwise, that thing would be part of the regress, and no potentiality can actualize itself, as was stated in premise (3). Given that the regress is actualized, (8) is confirmed by the truth of (6) and (7).

Now, what are some of the attributes of Pure Actuality? First, it must be immutable, since only things that exhibit potentiality are susceptible to change. Next, it must be eternal and indestructible, since there is no time at which Pure Actuality could come into existence or cease to exist, given that both entail a change. Moreover, Pure Actuality must be one. For if there were more than one, then there would be distinctions between them. Yet, to be distinct from actuality is to be non-actuality, in which case the latter couldn't possibly exist. Other existing things participate in that actuality of Pure Actuality, but are distinct by their varying levels of potentiality. Further, Pure Actuality must be very powerful in order to sustain the potentialities being actualized. Pure Actuality must also be immaterial, since physical bodies exhibit potentiality and can be changed. Finally, Pure Actuality must be supremely good, for all things naturally seek self-preservation, which entails that actuality is good and non-actuality is an evil.

In sum, we have an argument that demonstrates the existence of a purely actual, immutable, eternal, indestructible, unique, very powerful, immaterial, and supremely good sustaining cause of change. This, as Thomas Aquinas aptly states, everyone understands to be God.

The Argument from Order

1. Whatever exhibits regularity is not the result of chance. (Premise)

2. Nature exhibits regularity. (Premise)

3. Therefore, the regularity of nature is not the result of chance. (From 1 and 2)

The forces of nature – gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak atomic forces – can be expressed in very precise mathematical formulas. In the words of British physicist, Paul Davies, “All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. . . . The most refined expression of the rational intelligibility of the cosmos is found in the laws of physics, . . . The laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, the laws that regulate the world . . . all are expressed as tidy mathematical relationships.”[1]

First, we can rule out nature's regularity being the result of chance. Things do not happen over and over again by chance. If you were to win the lottery once, you might think you were lucky. Imagine instead that you win a thousand times in a row. Surely it would be irrational to conclude that you won each time by mere chance!

But is the regularity of nature the result of necessity? This seems highly dubious. For it is perfectly conceivable for the universe to operate under different laws of nature. Does nature have to operate under Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry? Both are logically consistent, which undermines the necessity hypothesis.

With chance and necessity eliminated as viable options, that leaves us with a cosmic designer.

Argument from Desire

1. Every innate desire corresponds with something that can satisfy it. (Premise)

2. Perfect and eternal happiness is an innate desire. (Premise)

3. Therefore, the innate desire for perfect and eternal happiness corresponds to something that can satisfy it. (From 1 and 2)

In support of (1), let's think about this inductively. If there is hunger, there is food. If there is curiosity, there is knowledge. If there is sexual desire, there sex. Someone may object: “children want to fly like Superman, but there is no Superman.” However, we're not talking about any desires whatsoever, but innate desires – those desires that one possesses simply by virtue of being human. Wanting to fly like Superman is a socially conditioned desire, and so is impertinent to premise (1).

In support of premise (2), ask yourselves: do you not have an innate desire to have perfect and eternal happiness? Only you can answer for yourselves. Yet, as C.S. Lewis aptly notes, “If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world.” Since nothing in this world can give us perfect and eternal happiness, what we have is a persuasive argument for the existence of heaven and a God who cares about his creatures.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/op...anted=all&_r=0.

Davka

Thank you, Punkforchrist, for the time and effort you obviously put into your opening argument. I will attempt to give it the attention it deserves.

As I have stated elsewhere, it is not the arguments themselves that I find fault with, but rather the premises on which the conclusions are based. A sound logical argument based on faulty premises will necessarily arrive at a faulty conclusion. This is the case for all three of the arguments you outline and defend here, and I will demonstrate why this is so.

The Argument from Change

1. Changing things exist.

This is a tautology. All things which exist are things which change. This was not understood by the ancients, who wrongly distinguished between changing things and non-changing things. We now know that rocks, planets, atoms - in fact, everything in the Universe - is in a state of constant flux.

2. Changing things exhibit actuality and potentiality.

This is a false premise, based on the incorrect distinction between changing things and non-changing things. Is a sea-floor really a potential mountain-top? When the shifting tectonic plates force the sea-floor upwards and out of the sea, is the resulting mountaintop really a potential landslide? Or a potential mesa?

Since all things are always in flux, it is accurate to state that things have a current state which is different from their past state and different from their future state. To label these states "actuality" and "potentiality" is nonsense. An actual mountain was once an actual sea-floor, and will in time become something else. But there is no specific moment in which we can say "this thing is thus and only thus," or "this state of this thing is its actual state, rather than its potential state." The distinctions are meaningless.

3. No potentiality can actualize itself.

This is a meaningless statement, based on ancient misunderstandings of nature. "Potentiality" and "actuality" are mis-attributions. These are merely the possible future state and the current state. The entire Universe is constantly shifting from state to state to state; no "actualization" is taking place. It's simply the way spacetime works: things change.

The basic problem which underlies each of these premises, and in fact the entire argument, is that humans have a strong tendency to anthropomorphize the Universe. Since we humans regularly change things from one state to another, more desired state (a rock to an arrowhead, for example), and since we do so with a specific purpose in mind, we wrongly assume that all change is the result of purposeful action. This results in mis-attributions such as "actuality" and "potentiality." A stone is not a "potential arrowhead," it's simply a stone.

The idea that things have "actuality" and "potentiality" is a result of this mistaken attribution of purpose and planning to the Universe. A classic example of this error can be found when discussing evolution. An oft-heard question is something along the lines of "what purpose did evolution have for designing thus-and-such?" The answer, of course, is that evolution has no purpose whatsoever. No plan, no end goal. It's merely a process, one which randomly generates various outcomes, some of which happen to be advantageous and thus have a better chance of survival.

Asking "why is the Universe the way it is?" is a meaningless question. The Universe simply is; it requires no plan, reason or goal.

In sum, we have an argument which is based on a primitive mis-categorizing of nature into "things that change" and "things that don't change." It is further corrupted by applying meaningless labels to the various states in which things can be found. And it is finally destroyed utterly by assuming that human plans and goals can be applied to nature. It is an argument based on incorrect premises.

The Argument from Order

1. Whatever exhibits regularity is not the result of chance.

This premise is so utterly and completely flawed that it alone destroys the entire argument. Regularity is precisely the outcome we can and do expect from chance. This is why nuclear rectors work: random chance produces predictable outcomes. Quantum mechanics is, to a large degree, the study of random events which can be predicted on average but not singularly.

This is another example of classic anthropomorphism. Man-made objects do not exhibit regularity through random chance, therefore we mistakenly assume that all objects which exhibit regularity must have been planned and crafted.

The fact that the way the Universe works can be expressed mathematically is due to the fact that mathematics is a man-made language, designed by us to express the way the Universe works. To be amazed and astounded that the Universe can be expressed through a language which we designed fro precisely that purpose is so absurd as to be comical. Next we will be shocked to discover that poetry can express emotion!

This argument fails from its primary premise. There is no "there" there.

Argument from Desire

1. Every innate desire corresponds with something that can satisfy it.

It has not been demonstrated that there is such a thing as an "innate" desire, or how one would distinguish between an innate desire and a desire that was not innate. The distinction between socially conditioned desires and "innate" desires is indistinct.

2. Perfect and eternal happiness is an innate desire.

This is a raw assertion with no support whatsoever. It has not been determined that "innate" desires exist as opposed to "socially conditioned" desires, or how one would determine which is which. There exists no reason to assume that the desire for perfect and eternal happiness is innate rather than socially conditioned.

The premises having been shown to be unsupported, the conclusion must therefore also be assumed to be unsupported.

In Summation, it can clearly be seen that all three of these arguments suffer from the old, worn-out conceit that human beings are at the center of the Universe, and that therefore all phenomena can be extrapolated from the actions and desires of human beings.

Achwienichtig

Interesting debate thus far.

Now that both debaters have given their opening statements, I have set up the peanut gallery so non-debaters can weigh in. Debaters may not post in the peanut gallery until after the debate, but you are free to look there for feedback on how well you are doing.

Peanut gallery is found here.

Next round has a 750 word limit. Punkforchrist should post within the week. Among the valid excuses for not posting is New Year's intoxication. Please inform me if that happens. In the mean time, I await the next round. :eating_popcorn:

punkforchrist

Thank you, Davka, for your thoughtful opening statement. I should remind everyone, however, that Davka has yet to provide any reasons to believe that God does not exist. The resolution of the debate is in the form of a question: "Does God exist?" Since he has taken the negative, Davka had a significant burden of proof to argue that God does not exist. It is not enough to simply respond to my arguments for God's existence. Now, what about Davka's opening statement in which he replied to the theistic arguments I defend?

I. The Argument from Change

Davka objects that everything in the universe is susceptible to change. I completely agree. The universe is the sum total of all physical space, time, matter and energy. Physical things are susceptible to change. It is not a tautology to state that changing things exist. Parmenides, for example, rejects the reality of change. Fortunately, Davka and I agree that changing things exist, so I see no reason for him to object to this uncontroversial premise.

Onto premise (2), Davka boldly states that not only is this premise wrong, but that it's literally meaningless! I simply ask the readers to consider this bizarre claim. Is an acorn not really an acorn in actuality, but also an oak tree in potentiality? Yes, a mountain was once in a state of being a sea floor, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of premise (2). Things are actually one way and potentially another. Nothing in my counterpart's response comes close to refuting this.

Let's simplify this argument a bit:

1. Whatever changes has an external cause. (Premise)

2. The universe as a whole is changing. (Premise)

3. Therefore, the universe as a whole has an external cause. (From 1 and 2)

The truth of (3) requires that the external cause of the universe be timeless, changeless, immaterial, and very powerful.

Although my opponent views the updated premise (1) as meaningless, I would ask him to provide a single example of a potentiality actualizing itself. I have already given one argument in support of this premise. Moreover, an acorn can only change into an oak tree if it has external causes: sunlight, soil, and water, for example. If at any point these external causes are removed, then the acorn will cease to change.

II. The Argument from Order

Contrary to my opponent's assertions, regularity is not the result of chance. Quantum mechanics is highly ordered and mathematically law-like. Just one example is spectral theory, in which we can associate a probability measure in any quantum state.

Moreover, if we just want to stick with events that occur on the macro level, then that will suffice. It doesn't do any good for Davka to point to chance accounting for regularities on the quantum level (and he hasn't even successfully established that) so long as the regularities on the macro level are not the result of chance. That would be like saying there are no red balls just because we can point to the existence of green balls, which is an absurd argument.

Davka also objects that mathematics is a man-made language. If what he's saying is true, then it proves too much. After all, his objection about quantum physics requires mathematics. It mathematics is all just a man-made language with no objectivity, then Davka's objection is self-defeating, for there can be nothing objectively true about his quantum physics objection.

III. The Argument from Desire

Davka objects that I have not demonstrated the existence of any innate desires and how we could distinguish them from socially-conditioned desires. However, this premise is easy to support. So long as a desire is found universally among human cultures, and is found within individuals just by virtue of being human, then it is an innate desire. That's why I gave the examples of food, curiosity, and sex. On the other hand, the desire to fly like Superman is clearly socially-conditioned. Not every person in every culture has this desire, and so we can rule it out as an innate desire.

With respect to premise (2), the fact that people naturally seek self-preservation and happiness is enough to conclude that the premise is correct.

IV. Conclusion

Davka not only has yet to provide any arguments against God's existence, but his objections to the theistic arguments I've defended have been found severely lacking and have not passed philosophical muster. I hope he accepts his burden of proof going forward in this debate.

Davka

I was utterly gobsmacked at Punkforchrist's transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof for his claims to me. I recognize now that the fault is mine: I did not read his initial challenge carefully enough. Had I done so, I would have caught this Argument from Ignorance built into the very challenge itself:

"I'd like my opponent to take a burden of proof, as well, and offer arguments against God's existence." Source

A quick Google search of the term "philosophical burden of proof" will reveal that the burden of proof lies on the individual making a positive claim, not on the one challenging that claim. Had I read more carefully, I would have pointed out this deceptive landmine in the challenge, and advised all comers to ignore this transparent attempt to play "gotcha."

I respectfully decline to take the bait. Nonetheless, I will attempt to salvage this sham of a debate by addressing Punkforchrist's objections to my opening post.

The Argument from Change

Punkforchrist does not accept that it is a tautology to state that changing things exist. I insist that it is a tautology, along the lines of "water is wet." It is sufficient to state that things exist, or that things change. The redundancy is not needed.

Punkforchrist then introduces a completely new premise, pretending that by doing so he is "simplifying" the argument:

1. Whatever changes has an external cause.

This premise is unsupported. It is, in fact, begging the question.

It is also demonstrably untrue. For example, radioactive isotopes decay without any external cause.

The Universe is not composed of acorns; this is a false analogy. Claiming that the current state of something is "actual" while the future state is "potential" is sophomoric. I have a metal bolt on my desk. Its current state as I write this is changing. Now it is different, having rusted fractionally. According to Punkforchrist's logic, the bolt was an "actual" bolt with the "potential" of being a fractionally rustier bolt. This is sophistry, and unworthy of serious consideration.

What's more, the Universe is not composed of distinct, separate "things." Attempting to extrapolate from an acorn to a quark or a planet or a nebula is an exercise in futility and ignorance. To claim that because an acorn requires external forces to grow into a tree, therefore the Universe requires an external force to expand is a category error, and amounts to a Fallacy of Composition.

The Argument from Order

Punkforchrist asserts that "whatever exhibits regularity is not the result of chance." I pointed out that this is not only unsupported, but is in fact the opposite of accepted findings in the disciplines of physics and statistics. I offered radioactive decay, snowflakes, and crystals as examples of chance events producing regularity. His response?

"It doesn't do any good for Davka to point to chance accounting for regularities on the quantum level (and he hasn't even successfully established that) so long as the regularities on the macro level are not the result of chance."

Not only does this ignore the macro examples I provided (snowflakes and crystals), but it leads to an astonishing conclusion: Punkforchrist apparently rejects the findings of physics. He challenges me to demonstrate that the conclusions taught in any physics class are accurate. Placing such an absurd challenge in the context of a brief debate amounts to a sort of reverse snow job. Punkforchrist knows that I cannot hope to teach an entire physics course in the space of my response, and is hoping that the audience is unaware of the innumerable disciplines which depend on the fact that random systems produce regularity.

I believe he has misjudged his audience.


The Argument from Desire

Punkforchrist claims that there are "innate" human desires, as opposed to ‘socially-conditioned" desires, and that

"So long as a desire is found universally among human cultures, and is found within individuals just by virtue of being human, then it is an innate desire."

He fails to demonstrate that the desire for "perfect and eternal happiness" is found universally among human cultures, or that it is found within all humans "just by virtue of being human." Again, his premise is unsupported.

In summation, Punkforchrist's arguments are universally founded on unsupported (and often unsupportable) premises. His attempt to stack the deck by shifting the burden of proof at the outset, followed by defending his arguments with further fallacies, demonstrates the inherent weakness of his position.

Punkforchrist has failed to present a single cohesive argument.

Achwienichtig

Round 2 down. Good job keeping the pace.

Next round is also limited to 750 words. Punkforchrist has a week to post.

punkforchrist

Well, we still have yet to hear any evidence whatsoever that God does not exist! This is striking not only because Davka has a burden of proof according to the debate parameters, but also because atheism is not true by default. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines atheism as: “The theory or belief that God does not exist.” The notion that atheism is merely a lack of belief in God and that the theist has the sole burden of proof is nonsense based on a novel definition of atheism.

I. The Argument from Change

Davka insists that the fact that things change is a tautology. Everything, he says, changes. However, the only way he can possibly say this is by begging the question against the argument from change, which concludes that an immutable First Cause of change exists! It doesn't do any good to assume that no such cause exists unless he first addresses the argument's premises. So, how does he address them?

First, he states that “whatever changes has an external cause” begs the question. Davka would do quite well to look into what begging the question actually is. I am not concluding the premise is true by assuming its truth apart from argumentation. In fact, I've given two distinct arguments – one deductive and one inductive – that the premise is true. Davka needs to address these arguments and not simply throw around the names of logical fallacies.

My opponent cites the decay of radioactive isotopes as occurring without a cause. However, this is simply mistaken. Isotopes, quantum fluctuations, and all manners of things allegedly occurring without a cause are affected by the fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak atomic forces. Davka also apparently overlooks the reality of four distinct types of causes: efficient, material, formal, and final.

Now, Davka simply dismisses the concepts of actuality and potentiality. He calls it “sophomoric” even though his own example presupposes actuality and potentiality. He provides the example of a metal bolt, asserting that it's “unworthy of serious consideration” to think that the bolt is potentially rustier. Is he serious? Of course the bolt is potentially rustier and, in fact, it only becomes rustier as a result of oxidation, the latter of which is a cause.

Lastly, Davka contends that the argument commits the fallacy of composition. Here's an example: just because every part of a mountain is small doesn't mean the mountain as a whole is small. The problem with this is that the whole often is like its parts: if every part of a mountain is made of rock, then the mountain as a whole must be made of rock. Likewise, if every part of the universe is in motion, then the universe as a whole must be in motion.

II. The Argument from Order

Davka reiterates his claim that regularity is the result of chance. This is astonishing considering how mathematical his examples of alleged chance events are. He did not address my reductio ad absurdum against his contention that mathematics is just man-made, which he will have to do. Moreover, my opponent never made reference to snowflakes or other such things that exist on the macro level. However, they too are highly mathematical. Davka will have to come up with something else in order to avoid the conclusion that a cosmic designer exists. Chance just won't cut it.

III. The Argument from Desire

Finally, my opponent's only remaining objection to the argument from desire is that I haven't supported the second premise: that perfect and eternal happiness is an innate desire. Let's think about this for a moment. Are the decisions you make for the sake of furthering your happiness or for eliminating it? Even a person who commits suicide does so because he believes he will be happier dead than alive. People seek as much happiness they can attain for as long as possible, and this is evidenced by the universality throughout cultures of those who seek an afterlife. If you don't believe this, do some introspection. Which is more desirable: perfect and eternal happiness, or eternal death in which the righteous and the wicked share the same fate?

All things being equal, this should provide one with a sound practical argument for God's existence. So far, Davka hasn't presented any arguments against God's existence, so at the very least all things are equal. However, Davka's objections to my own arguments have been found severely lacking in substance.

Achwienichtig

Stepping in as moderator for a second.

According to our debate parameters that I outlined at the beginning, this debate is supposed to center around the arguments for God's existence, namely, 1) the argument from order, 2) the argument from change, and 3) the argument from desire. Although punkforchrist's debate proposal included the proviso that his opponent also take a burden of proof for presenting an argument in favor of atheism, it is not clear to me whether Davka was fully cognizant of this proviso. I take responsibility for not clarifying with each of you beforehand.

However, I cannot change the nature of the debate midway through without getting feedback from both participants. I suggest that Davka posts his reply as usual, and that no arguments be made concerning the burden of proof. Keep to the topic of these three proofs for God's existence. After this round, I will consult with both punkforchrist and Davka to determine what direction the debate will take.

Davka

I have decided to honor my opponent's request that I assume the burden of proof, and argue that god does not exist. Since Punkforchrist does not specify which god he wishes me to disprove, I will generously provide evidence against the existence of half-a-dozen gods, beginning with the Great Green Arkleseizure.

I maintain that the Great Green Arkleseizure is a work of fiction, created by Douglas Adams in his Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. As a work of fiction, the Great Green Arkleseizure does not exist in any factual or material sense. The same can be said for the gods Benamuckee, Arcaeus, Belldandy, Skuld, and Yggdrasil.

Google defines atheism as "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."


I. The Argument from Change

Punkforchrist has now stooped to arguing against a strawman, claiming that I "insist" that "the fact that things change is a tautology." As can easily be seen, what I actually wrote was that the phrase "changing things exist" is a tautology. Punkforchrist goes on to argue that the simple observation that everything changes is "begging the question against the argument from change, which concludes that an immutable First Cause of change exists!"

Apparently Punkforchrist doesn't understand what begging the question means: assuming the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises. I am doing no such thing, I am merely pointing out the accepted scientific truth that all things are in a constant state of flux. There are no known things which do not change. This is not the conclusion of a philosophical argument, it is an accepted scientific fact. To claim otherwise is as absurd as claiming that gravity does not exist, or that entropy is not real.

It is unfortunate that Punkforchrist does not understand the nature of begging the question, since he engages in the practice so well. He attempts to construct an argument for a cause external to the Universe via the question-begging premise that "whatever changes has an external cause." He may as well simply state that premise as "the Universe has an external cause." It is question-begging at its most blatant.

My opponent continues his strawman attack by claiming that I wrote that radioactive isotopes decay "without a cause." As can clearly be seen, I actually wrote that radioactive isotopes decay without an external cause.

II. The Argument from Order

Punkforchrist does not appear to understand that mathematically precise regularity can result from chance, because he foolishly believes that mathematics is something more than a language constructed to describe the way things work. I heartily recommend that he take a mathematics class, and leave the philosophical drivel to those better accustomed to obfuscation of the facts, such as politicians and lawyers.

For those who are interested, here is a link to a paper on Statistical Regularity which examines the phenomenon whereby chance events produce regular outcomes. While these concepts were presumably beyond the ken of ancient thinkers such as Aristotle, they are commonly accepted among today's scientific community. Once again, my esteemed opponent finds himself in the embarrassing position of defending the intelligent-yet-blind fumblings of ancient philosophers against the cold, hard, accepted facts of demonstrable reality.


III. The Argument from Desire

Finally, Punkforchrist attempts to demonstrate that "perfect and eternal happiness is an innate desire" by appealing to emotion and anecdotal evidence. His argument that all supposedly "innate" desires are universal, while "socially-conditioned" desires are not is self-defeating, especially in light of the fact that the desire to fly is found in societies around the world. In fact, it appears that Punkforchrist has deliberately set out to obfuscate this rather obvious counter to his premises by using the "desire to fly like Superman" as an example of a so-called "socially-conditioned" desire.

People around the world regularly desire impossible, unobtainable things. Dreaming of flying appears to be universal, or nearly so. People dream of ruling the world; of travelling instantaneously; of orgasms that last for weeks; of never-ending sources of wealth; of reversing aging and enjoying eternal youth. If these worldwide dreams and desires are "innate," then "innate" desires are certainly not all attainable things. If the fact that a desire is found in cultures around the world is not enough to declare it to be "innate" rather than "socially-conditioned," then the distinction is meaningless. Either way, this argument fails utterly.

I sincerely hope that my opponent will be satisfied that I have at last launched an argument against the existence of god, as he requested.