God Does Exist

I do not have enough room to copy Con’s opening arguments, so I will just write my rebuttals instead. A) Con raises the issues of why the Universe could not have been caused at the same time of its effect. My question for Con is: Why can't the cause and effect exist at the same time in an asymmetric dependency relation? For example, a heavy chandelier hanging on a chain from the ceiling. The ceiling and chain hold up the chandelier; the chandelier and chain don't support the ceiling! Because the ceiling pre-existed before the chandelier and chain. So Con’s argument is faulty at best, because there must be something that is pre-existent to the Universe, that is uncaused(God). B) Con then asks why the cause can’t be an “immaterial, causeless, eternal, powerful, spaceless, timeless, uncaused, non-sentient force that randomly creates things”? Well it sounds to me like Con is describing God. God is the immaterial, causeless, eternal, powerful, space-less, timeless, and uncaused non-sentient force. . http://www.reasonablefaith.org... C) Con mentioned some model called the Ekpytrotic Universe. However, I quoted Alexander Vilenkin, a well-known Russian Physicsist who said that any Universe that has been expanding can’t have a past-eternal beginning. It must have had a beginning. This would even include the multiverse if one even exists. Again, even if a multiverse did exist, Con needed to show how the first universe came into existence. Universes began to exist, and are made of matter , time, and energy. So, they can’t just happen on their own unless there is something outside of them that is greater that can make them happen. When you say something comes from nothing, you are literally saying there was an absence of space, time, matter, and energy. So, you must explain how any of that even began to exist. As I said before in my LCA, I think it is safe to say we have good grounds for thinking that God must be the uncaused first cause of the universe, since anything that begins to exist must have a cause. The Universe began to exist; therefore, it must have a cause. It must be timeless, space-less, and immaterial uncaused first cause. What I am describing here is God ladies and gentleman. Con assumes that I believe in Intelligent Design. Also Con argued that I am arguing for the God of the Bible. This is a bare- assertion fallacy that Con made against me. 1) I am not arguing which God exists. That is a different topic for debate. I am simply arguing that there must be a God who exists necessarily in order for our Universe to exist. 2) Nowhere did I ever mention that I believed in Intelligent Design at all in this debate. Con just assumes that evolution disproves the existence of God without giving any justification whatsoever. And, he also assumes that I believe in ID. 2. This is such an old philosophical argument that has been refuted. Con asks the old school-boy question “Who created the Creator? ” If God is created then he’s not God he would be a creation. God by definition is the greatest conceivable being possible. That means he must be uncaused, eternal, timeless, immaterial, space-less, all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent, loving, just, compassionate, kind, forgiving, etc… So, then God does not have a creator, he is the creator. There would none above him or outside of him. He’s at the top of all things. In fact Con’s question is self-defeating because what he’s doing is asking an infinite regress of questions. This is a “red herring” used by Con. How does he know that the body parts may not be useful? Now I am not going to go through all his examples, but I would like to just show a few he mentioned in this blog. 1. Body Hair-Body hair facilitates sweating that cools our bodies. . http://science.howstuffworks.com... 2. Appendix-1) produces some white blood cells in the body, that help fight off infection. 2) Produces good bacteria. . http://articles.mercola.com... Even though I am not arguing from the Bible, but if I was the Bible does talk about earthquakes, in the end times. However I don’t see at all how this argument that Con has made disproves that God could not have created the Universe. I think Con needs to address the Fine-Tuning, and the Physical Constants of the Universe. Here is a chart below. Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe Parameter Max. Deviation Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10^37 Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40 Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55 Mass Density of Universe1 1:10^59 Cosmological Constant 1:10^120 These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life. That shows that God cares for his creation by giving us life here on Earth. Earth is considered the only planet in existence suitable for life. This includes human beings, plants, animals, and insects. There may be other life on planets, but no planet that we know of is fine-tuned like our planet Earth. . http://www.godandscience.org... Con is committing Argumentum ad Ignorantiam here by putting his assumption as his conclusion. Con can’t assume that just because we don’t have enough good reasons for God to exist that we can; therefore, automatically conclude that naturalism or atheism is true. Con needed to show some positive arguments for naturalism to be true. However, all we have seen are negative arguments against theism here. Con at best can argue agnosticism, since he has not given any positive arguments for atheism. Therefore, my proposition that God exits still stands, because there could be something out there beyond nature. . http://philosophy.lander.edu... Con is actually shooting himself in the foot here because he recognizes evil and good. On an atheist worldview there is no standard of good and evil. If Con assume there's such a thing as evil then he must assume there’s a such a thing as good. If he assumes there is a such a thing as good and evil there must be a moral law to differentiate between good and evil. If he assumes there is a moral law, then there must be a moral-law giver who gives us that moral law to know good and evil. But, that is who Con is trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there’s no moral law giver, there’s no moral law, and hence morality would be neutral like the animal kingdom, and what we call good and evil is just an illusion since there would be no such thing as good and evil. Con says that we have no empirical evidence for God; therefore, he concludes that God does not exist. However, there are many things that in reality that are true that can’t be proven empirically. 1. Numbers, symbols, and words can’t be proven empirically, they only exist in the minds of human-beings. 2. Gravity can’t be proven empirically. 3. Neutrons, protons, and electrons can’t be proven empirically. Only theoretically can they be proven. So, if we go by Con’s definition then we must accept that these things are also false as well. Conclusion: So as you can see, Con has committed nothing, but red herrings, bare-assertion fallacies, circular reasoning, and argument ad ignoranum here. I still propose that my proposition for the existence of God still stands.