A god exists, as defined by PRO; Take 2

1. You are misrepresenting my position; propping up your strawman, if you will. The claim being debated is that "God exists"; you are to provide arguments for your claim and I am to shoot down said arguments. I am not making a claim, and hence I assert once more that the burden falls on you. I do not want the entire debate to be filled with arguments about this, and I do sincerely hope that you understand that I am not making a claim. http://wiki.ironchariots.org... "I think it is common knowledge that God debates are judged based on convincing arguments rather than proof." I think I see your point here; when you said that God could not be proven, you meant that he could not be physically demonstrated, and that by "convincing arguments" you mean "logical proofs". I think that is a fair point. 2. Nonetheless, your description of god is unclear and confusing to me. Because you seem to be stubbornly sticking to that definition, I will allow you to continue under the assumption that your god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. 3. My assertion that the hypothesis has nothing to stand on is based upon the multiple (often fallacious) arguments I have heard countless times from countless apologists. My position may change if you provide me with sufficient persuasion. My point that "such a God" may be disproved was specifically referring to a logically impossible god. Not all god hypotheses are logically impossible. The problem of evil is a classic argument against the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god. It is as follows: P1: There is evil in the world. P2: An omnibenevolent god would want to stop that evil. P3: An omnipotent god would be able to stop that evil. P4: If a god that was both omnipotent and omnibenevolent existed, there would not be evil in the world. C: There is no omnipotent and omnibenevolent god. 4. We begin with the classical cosmological argument. http://wiki.ironchariots.org... Some points to address: God is not necessarily the best explanation for the origin of the universe. What if it was Satan? The universe may not have begun to exist. Our knowledge of the beginning of the universe is limited. It may have been the case (though we do not know) that the universe had existed as a minuscule point of space for an infinite amount of time before it expanded. Next argument: the moral argument http://wiki.ironchariots.org... . Let's address the premises of this argument: God is not necessarily the best explanation for objective morality. As like last time, you make this unfounded assumption. P1: It is possible that objective morality might exist in a world with no god. It may have come about as a fundamental law of the universe, just like the Newtonian laws of classical physics. "F=ma, therefore, thou shalt not murder". P2: Yes, each of us has a sense of morality. I will not be one to deny this. However, why make such assumptions about where it might come from? An explanation of the morality we have could be grounded in something else; evolution. Consider the ape-like ancestor of man of millions of years in the past. If this animal were to murder his brethren, rape the females, and vandalise property, he would be ruining the primitive social structure of these ape-men which, in many ways, his life depended on. The less moral ape-men would hence live shorter lives, have less children and pass on less genes until that immoral trait was weeded out of the populace. The more moral, more altruistic members of a tribe or clan would be respected, even revered by his fellows. He would live longer, have more children, and pass on his genes more. Hence the trait of morality can be explained through evolution. Now to an argument that I seem to lack a name for. This is good; I always enjoy a new challenge. First of all: "The very possibility...implies his actuality." Unproven assertion. Please clarify. P1: Another unproven assertion. P2: Yes, but only if P1 is true. P3: Unproven assertion. P4: Again, the validity of this premise depends on another, unproven premise! P5: Tautology. You didn't need to say that. "But if this maximally great being exists in some possible world, then by its very nature it must exist in every possible world (otherwise it would not be "maximally great")." How so? Once again, an unproven assertion. Summary: I have put down all three of the arguments that my opponent has provided, the last of which is laden with unproven assertions. Once again, I repeat that the burden of proof rests on the claim-maker, and hence I do not require to provide any arguments for God's non existence. All I can say is that we lack any empirical evidence for God, and all logical proofs that I have heard have all been debunked countless times. Thank you.