As Shayne pointed out we cannot reject an argument out of personal distaste, the so called “eew” factor; on the same ground I think that we cannot approve a proposal because it appeals to us emotionally or psychologically. That is the basic rationale of debate as applied to same sex marriage and to all debatable topics.
When it comes to the believe in god, things become a bit complicated as both parties agree on the fact that no one can satisfactorily disprove or prove the existence of a metaphysical entity. It is beyond the human perception to deduce or conclude on something “beyond the physical realm”. Thus we shall call a believe in god as “faith”.
Then it is all reduced to individual interpretation of god according to their own faiths. This is what dismiss the whole debate as most speakers then resorted to personal reason of believing in a god. Personal experience never make a good argument, certainly not for me. I am the kind of person that insist on the truth. I believe that something is never justifiable because of personal liking or disliking. This might explain why I can't be a good debater as I am not strongly opinionated. I tend to dismiss my personal preference, detach from my personal experience in probing the reality.
So we shall explore from the philosophical point of view. A theory of probability introduced by the first speaker, a philosophy professor from the
The other main argument put forward by the opposition side is suffering. How could a almighty benevolent god allows suffering in this world at all? And by the sheer amount of sufferings that we witness throughout human history it makes believing in god absurd if not logically incoherent. The speaker then presented us with an alternative god who is all evil and argued that it is logically consistent, if you choose to believe all theories that try to explain about an all good god that allows suffering on the earth. This is coined as the mirror argument.
Lastly there are people that believe because of practicality. Maths is cited as an example which we can't prove some of the most fundamental theories and yet based on these axioms maths achieve a great deal in science and technology development. Believe in god, or in a religion, at least it is conferring some comfort to our souls and let people have something to count on when we feel uncertain or fearful of the unknown. This is the kind of thinking which allegedly forms the basis of religion and the creation of the image of god. A “gamble theory” was proposed saying that: your faith in god is kind of a life gamble, if you believe in god and in the end there is no such thing, you have nothing to lost as you will be dead then; however if god really exist then you are stuck. I can see a look of demur on the priest’s face. When religion becomes a bargain… then the theory continues: after all what is the worst thing that can happen? Surely such unreasoned statement incurred a lot of objections. As Derek said religion can bring out the best in humanity as well as the worst bit of human. It is no doubt religions have contributed significantly to human good, as the opposition speaker acknowledge, just that we shall just ditch the notion of god.
However the removal of god from religion raises some concern about the role of god in setting the moral yardstick in the society. Arguably an theism ethics is harder to established, if it can be done at all. Conner vehemently argue for the opposite by proposing that every human should take charge of their own morality and not depend it on some external divine judgment. The concept of no all good god forces us to being entirely responsible for our actions and he see no point in drawing in god in any sort of ethical consideration. Some worry that such complacency could lead to an anthrocentric stand point.
