Evidence for God

Burden of ProofMy opponent has assumed a shared burden of proof. I think this is fair; my opponent and I will be equally responsible for providing justification for our respective positions. In order to fulfill my share of the burden of proof, I will present arguments to serve as evidence for God's existence.Definition of GodMy opponent has requested that I provide some sort of definition for God. For the purposes of this debate, I'll define God as "the greatest conceivable being". Is there evidence for God?i. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.Defense of P1: I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.Defense of P2: There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.ii. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.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.Defense of P1: Here again, premise one is relatively uncontroversial. If there is no God, then we have no standard from which to deem particular moral acts "good" or "evil". In order for objective moral values and duties to exist, there must exist a perfect standard: God.Defense of P2: Each of us have a sense of morality which tells us that certain actions are objectively "good" or objectively "evil". For example, I can clearly recognize that altruism (self-sacrifice in order to further the well-being of others) is objectively good. I can also clearly recognize that raping and torturing a child is objectively evil. I have no more reason to doubt the reliability of these moral senses than I do to doubt the reliability of my physical senses. In other words, for any argument given in an attempt to show that our moral senses are not valid (and objective morality is therefore not valid), I can construct a parallel argument to show that our physical senses are not valid (and the physical world we experience through these senses is therefore not valid). In order for one to disagree with premise two, one must believe that an action like rape is just as "good" as an action like generosity, and that no objective distinction can be made between the nature of "goodness" of the two acts.iii. The very possibility of God implies His actuality. 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.Defense of P1: In order to refute this premise, one would have to show that the idea of God is incoherent, such that the concept of God is as absurd as the concept of a square circle.Defense of P2-P6: I have combined the defense of premises two-six because these premises are necessarily true so long as premise one holds true. If a maximally great being is even possible, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world (this does not imply a parallel universe idea, but by possible world I mean to say a way that the world could have been). 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"). And if this maximally great being exists in every possible world, it follows that it exists in the actual world.Response to Con's ObjectionsMy opponent objects to the ontological argument, arguing that P3 (If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world) is false. What reasoning does my opponent have for thinking that this premise is false? He asserts that it is "contradictory and hence untrue", but I fail to see any logical contradiction.In order to be a maximally great being, this being must have maximal greatness in all aspects. So, for example, this being must be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, etc. Any quality that can be conceived, the maximal greatness of that quality must be attributed to a maximally great being. So, when we consider "existence", this being can either be necessary (existing in every possible world, i.e. truth propositions), contingent (existing in some possible worlds but not in others, i.e. human beings or unicorns), or else incoherent (existing in no possible world, i.e. square circles or married bachelors). Clearly, the quality of necessity is greater than the qualities of being contingent or incoherent. It is better to exist in all possible worlds than it is to merely exist in some worlds, but fail to exist in others (contingent) or else exist in no possible worlds at all (incoherent). But if that's the case, then a maximally great being must be necessary. Otherwise, it wouldn't be maximally great at all (the being would lack maximal greatness in at least one aspect, namely existence). So, if it's possible that a maximally great being exists (which my opponent does not deny) then it follows that this being must necessarily exist. But, as seen from the argument, if this being exists necessarily, it cannot merely exist in "some possible worlds", but it must exist in every possible world (by virtue of its necessity). So, it logically follows that if a maximally great being is possible, then a maximally great being exists necessarily in every possible world. In order to reject the conclusion of this argument, one would have to show that there is some sort of logical contradiction with the concept of a maximally great being (in the same way that a square circle or a married bachelor is contradictory). My opponent has yet to propose such a contradiction. For now, then, the ontological argument remains sound.My opponent also objects to the cosmological argument. In attempt to reject P1 of the argument, he seems to argue that matter and energy can be created out of nothing. But surely that's absurd. If it were true that the law of cause and effect "doesn't apply to the creation of matter and energy" as my opponent claims, then we should see objects (made up of matter) popping into existence from nothing all the time. While I sit here typing this response, perhaps I ought to expect a tyrannosaurus rex appear in my back yard, or George Washington appear in my living room. Clearly this is silly, one might argue it's worse than magic. Furthermore, if my opponent asserts that matter and energy are uncaused, then it follows that he must believe matter and energy to have existed for an infinity. But, as the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, philosophical arguments (Hilbert's Hotel, counting coins, etc.), and basic mathematics show, it is not logically possible that there be an actual infinity in reality. Thus, my opponent's objection is unfounded.As for Occam's Razor, my opponent argues that this is a better explanation due to it's simplicity (the fact that it has less premises). But surely my opponent can recognize that a simple, unsound argument is not in any sense better than a less simple, sound argument. My opponent states that Occam's Razor- "the universe began & it has no creator"- is a better explanation. But this is trivial, as it doesn't provide any sort of explanation at all! From these two statements, the original question remains unanswered, what is the cause of the universe? So, I think it is evident that Occam's Razor does not come anywhere close to providing an explanation for the existence of a finite universe. Thus, the cosmological argument remains sound. SummaryI have presented three arguments as evidence for the existence of God. If my opponent wants to win the debate, he must knock down each of these arguments. If even one of these arguments remains standing at the end of the debate, then it seems to me that there is evidence for God's existence.Thank you.Sourceshttp://now.tufts.edu...http://www.reasonablefaith.org...