A god exists, as defined by PRO; Take 2

Thanks, Con.1. Arguments Against GodBefore I begin with summarizing the conclusions (or lack thereof) of my opponent's arguments, I'd like to note that my opponent failed to provide justification for a single premise in each of his arguments. Thus, even if it were the case that I had no response to these arguments, they would still be unsound and ought not be considered.My opponent's first argument (the problem of evil) fails as he has not succeeded in showing a world in which there is no free will (and as a result no good/evil) is greater than a world where there is free will (and as a result good/evil). Furthermore, my opponent has failed to show a logical contradiction between (1) the existence of God and (2) the existence of evil. As such, his first argument fails. My opponent's second argument (the argument from non-belief) also fails as he has not succeeded in showing that there is a logical contradiction between (1) God wanting people to believe in Him and (2) the fact that not everyone believes in God. As such, his second argument fails.My opponent's third argument fails as he has not succeeded in showing that a maximally great being cannot have "wants". As such, his third argument fails.In my opponent's response to my refutation of the third argument, he argued that a maximally great being cannot "want" anything. It seems to me that a being which wants justice, love, and all other good things is greater than a being who does not want these things. Perhaps my opponent disagrees. At any rate, this is pure speculation. As the burden of proof is on my opponent to justify his own argument, he would need to show that it is logically impossible for a maximally great being to have "wants". He has failed to accomplish this feat, so this argument remains unsound.2. Arguments For GodLet's now take a look at the conclusions of the three arguments I presented:P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.My opponent has conceded that this argument is sound, as the conclusion follows logically from the two premises. He has instead taken issue with what sort of entity the "cause" of the universe might be. To address this, I described certain necessary qualities that a cause of the universe must have: all-powerful (or extremely-powerful, as my opponent would seem to prefer), timeless, spaceless, immaterial, eternal, etc.) In response, my opponent states "I understand why a cause might be timeless, spacelesss, and immaterial, but the prerequisite of "eternal" is silly, as time doesn't exist before time began." So, my opponent agrees that the cause of the universe must be extremely-powerful, timeless, spaceless and immaterial, but has a bit of trouble with the concept of an eternal cause. This difficulty arises from a misunderstood concept of eternal. There are two ways to understand eternity, one would be to exist from the beginning of time forward, the second would be to transcend time altogether (to exist outside of time). The latter is what is attributed to the "cause" of the universe.In the last round, I provided several potential candidates for what this "cause" might be: God, a number, a proposition, a shape, or a moral law. I invited my opponent to bring forward any candidates he saw fit, and it seems that he has been unable to suggest any such candidates for the "cause" of the universe. We are then left with the candidates I have presented, of which a God is the only candidate which might serve in causal relations (the number 3 can't "cause" anything) as well as the only all-powerful (or at least extremely-powerful) candidate (a triangle has little or no power). Thus, the first argument (which has been conceded to by my opponent) remains sound.P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.C1: Therefore, God exists.My opponent conceded that P2 of this argument is sound, and as a result of that concession has had difficulty postulating a foundation of objective morality in the absence of God. My opponent attempted to argue that evolution might be the basis of objective morality, to which I have adequately responded (see past rounds). My opponent has apparently dropped this argument (he makes no further mention of it this round).Thus, the first argument remains sound, as my opponent has conceded P2 and failed to demonstrate that P1 is false. P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.C1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.My opponent makes two final notes on this argument: (1) "You have not demonstrated how necessity is superior to contingency and incoherency" and (2) "Now I realize that, with my understanding, I can in fact argue against P1! All three of my arguments against God set out to show that a maximally great being is logically impossible."The first point seems strange to me. I think existing in every world (necessary) being better than existing in only some worlds (contingent) or no worlds (incoherent) is fairly self-explanatory and uncontroversial, especially when considering which quality a maximally great being might have. As for my opponent's second point, he seems to be claiming that he has shown God to be logically impossible. This is an extremely bold claim (not to mention an unwarranted one). If my opponent is correct, then he is the first person in human history to have disproved the existence of God. So, if his claim is justified, I expect to receive a great deal of money when this debate is published as a bestselling book (only joking). On a more serious note, I don't think my opponent has been able to present any sound arguments against the existence of God, so it seems to me that it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that my opponent has not disproved the existence of God.As my opponent has failed to demonstrate that the concept of a maximally great being is incoherent, my third argument remains sound.3. ConclusionMy opponent and I have each presented three arguments throughout the course of this debate. I have succeeded in knocking down each of my opponent's arguments, while each of my three arguments remain standing. Thus, it seems to me that we can reasonably conclude that God exists. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating and participating in this debate. I enjoyed the discussion and wish him the best of luck in future debates. 4. Sources http://sites.middlebury.edu...http://now.tufts.edu...