God Exists

“While from the fact that I cannot conceive God without existence” My opponent's ideas are detached from basic ideas about reality. Simply saying that a supremely perfect being would necessarily exist is in fact defining that being into existence. If existing is a quality of a perfect being this still in no way adds weight to the idea that this perfect being exists. From what we know of the universe perfection does not exist making existence unlikely. Pro has basically said that, “It is not within my power to think of God without existence,” and then used this lack of imagination as evidence for the existence of such a being. I can certainly imagine a MGB that does not exist and would not take it as proof for the being if I could not. “B:The “Necessary Equine” and Friends” I have already pointed out multiple times that a 3 omni God’s existence is impossible and that science has given us an explanation for for all of life and matter so a creator god is not necessary. These are classic responses to a classic argument. The exact same argument Pro has used to disprove a necessary unicorn can be used to disprove a necessary unicorn and the ontological argument does, in fact, work in the exact same way in an attempt to prove a necessary unicorn. ‘we can easily imagine a world in which substance does not permit the type of extension necessary to allow for a Maximally Great Being, which would be impossible if such a MGB were necessary.’ Pro’s assertion that we cannot ‘imagine’ a world without a MGB is nonsensical and only reveals a lack of imagination on his part. This is the exact definition of an argument from ignorance. Pro cannot imagine a world without a Maximally Great Being so he concludes that one must exist. This is a logical fallacy. It’s true that I find the ontological one of the most boring and least substantive God arguments around. Once again Pro resorts to ad hominem attacks first questioning my knowledge and now my ability to research a topic. “C: “Proving” Necessity and Possibility” Pro has asserted that God is both necessary and possible. He has not proven these assertions. He has also asserted that his proofs have already established that God is necessary and possible. They have not. We have never seen life or matter spontaneously burst into existence. We have never encountered a being that is anything more than obviously fallible with respect to knowledge, goodness and power. We have every reason to suspect that we will only find beings with the same deficiencies we have observed in all beings we have discovered. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that there is a being that is maximally great with respect to these qualities and Pro has not provided one shred of evidence that such a being exists. “D: God “Contradicts” Fact” Here Pro misrepresents my arguments. I have in no way said that some form of creation is at odds with evolution. Evolution and the big bang theory make a creator god unnecessary which contradicts Pro’s entire argument. While it may be possible Pro has not been able to provide any compelling reason as to why a 3 omni God would exist. Pro has no explanation as to why some other unknown supernatural or natural cause initiated both the big bang and the evolutionary process. It would be much better to simply admit that he doesn’t know than to insert this oddly specific version of a supernatural being into the process. “E: The Omnipotence Paradox” Pro redefines Omnipotence to avoid the obvious paradox shifting the goal post or redefining god in a way that we did not agree in the resolution. Pro put no limitations on omnipotence in his set up. “D: The Reverse Ontological Argument” Pro again asserts that he has proven that a MGB is possible when he has not. Further if a MGB were possible that would in no way suggest that such a being exists. It’s quite certainly possible that an teapot orbits around Saturn but this in no way suggests that this is actually true. Possibility says nothing about what is actually true. “Section Two” Pro again resorts to personal attacks, calling me a coward, and drops my argument here. He drops my argument that I have mentioned multiple times. The evidence leads us to believe that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. If a creator being/force were necessary there are many other options other than a 3 omni god that created all matter and life such as a god with limited power and knowledge or universe creating pixies. “Section Three” 1. As to Pro’s earlier question as to what initiated the big bang the correct answer is ‘I don’t know.’ Even if we knew it had a cause, we do not, it could be any number of natural or even supernatural causes. Pro’s leap to a 3 omni creator god is ridiculous. Why not an evil God bent on torturing life? Why not an unknown natural cause. Why not a god who can only initiate universes? Pro has no answer. 2. I’m saying that scientists typically claim not to know what caused the big bang theory. Your claim to know is ridiculous. This is also a form of the composition fallacy [5]. “The Fallacy of Composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. “ In other words, just because all minute parts of the universe operate under the cause effect rule does not mean that the universe as a whole operates under the same rule. It may be that the universe has simply always existed or that time itself began as a result of the big bang. There is no way to be certain currently. A: Omnipotence I disagree with Pro’s points here but I don’t see them as relevant to a debate. B: Omniscience So my opponent's position is that a Maximally Great Being would know everything. Great, that’s Pro’s opinion and he has done nothing to establish that such a being exists. C: Omnibenevolence That Pro believes his quote resolves the problem of evil is troubling. He has basically said that there is evil in the world but there is also a greater resolution of good. We live in a world where children, are raped, genocide is committed, those who are different are exiled tortured and even murdered, children are forced to fight torture and rape, starvation is rampant in many countries while in others obesity is the main concern. In all this God stands idly by without acting to prevent this evil. Is it Pro’s contention that this is the best that God could have done and still generate an ultimate positive result? There can be no 3 omni god with the brazen level of evil in this world. “Two greatness premises:” These are assertions presented without proof. A being created by another can clearly be better and this does little to establish his case anyway. Proof One: 1. Pro has defined a mGB into existence in this way. He has simply stated that it would have to be self caused or non-contingent without proof. 2. A MGB may very well be impossible. There is no way to know this. Even if it were not impossible this does not mean that it is possible. 3. Again, Pro is trying to define God into existence which is why his argument works for maximally existent unicorns etc. (They are maximal in their existence so the must necessarily exist) 4. No, I can certainly deny that it is necessary that a maximally great being exists without claiming that it is not necessary that it exists. Just because I say that I do not believe that the number of gumballs in a jar is not necessarily odd does not mean I am saying it is even, even though these are the only two options. These are two separate propositions. 5. I never claimed a Maximally great being is impossible. I’ve claimed pro has provided no evidence to suggest that it is necessary other than his own assertions that it is. Pro continues in the same vein making further assumptions based on the empty assertions of the first 5 points. [5] https://yandoo.wordpress.com...