god

=My case=Argument one: The Kalam cosmological argument.1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.2. The Universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. All three premises of this argument are relatively undisputed in the scientific community, what is disputed is that the cause of the Universe was God. So why is it logical to believe God to be the cause of the Universe? For one, it is impossible in our Universe for something to arrise from nothing, and since prior to the Universe's existence nothing that we can understand existed. Matter, energy, and even the time that our Universe is constructed with does not merely pop into being, to believe so is insane and scientifically inexplicable. However, unless we believe the Universe to have always existed, than that's exactly what happened. How does this all lead to God? Well since the ability of something to come into nothing is impossible using scientific law, the only logical explanation is through a power that has the ability to undermine scientific law, such as God. Argument two: Objective Morality. 1. Objective morality can only exist if a divine power mandates our morals.2. Objective morality exists.3. Therefore, a divine power exists. In order to prove this argument, I must support the 1st and 2nd premises, and the thrid logically follows. Explanation of premise one:Morality is not something that can be properly explained through evolution and natural selection. While some moral facts have practical purposes, this does not explain the moral aspect of it. Yes, animals will avoid killing a member of their own species if possible, but if they must do so they will not feel guilt afterward like humans would. This begs the question, why does humanity have morals? They do not help our success as a species, they in fact weaken it. Objective morality is not something that would survive natural selection, and thus the only rational explanation for their existence is God. Objective values such as "do not murder" or "do not lie" are not mere instinct, rather they are direct commands. A command can only come from an intelligent being, thus for morality to truly be objective, there must be a supreme being who issues the commands for our morality. Explanation of premise two:I look at history in order to prove this. For my example, I will use the brutal war between the Teutonic Knights and the pagan Lithuanians[1]. The Teutonic knights (along with many other Christian kinghthoods/groups at the time) had a strong desire to purge the world of all people non-Christian. After failing to destroy Islam during the crusades, they turned to the weaker pagan powers such as Lithuania. The Teutonics won their war, forcing the Lithuanian nobles to convert to catholicism. From there, the Catholic church forcefully imposed it's doctrine and worldview upon the peastanty[2], thus ending Paganism in Lithuania, and forever destroying an ancient culture. This relates to Objective Morality, because although all the pagans had been destroyed, we still know that acts such as these are immoral even though they didn't effect us. If Objective Morality did not exist, such acts would not be viewed as immoral because all of the dissenters were killed or exiled. More examples can be found in successful genocides all around the world and all over history, if objective morality did not exist, under what basis could we condemn these actions? Premise three logically follows the other two. Argument three: Plantinga's modal argument.1. Its possible that God exists2. If its possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world3. If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in every possible world4. If God exists in every possible world, then God exists in the actual world5. If God exists in the actual world, then God exists6. Therefore, God existsIn order to disprove this argument, my Opponent must show that it is not possible for God to exist because these premises logically follow premise one. Sources:1. . http://en.wikipedia.org......2. . http://en.wikipedia.org......=His case="so lets jus say there is one and we are supposed to be his children, why would a parent let their childern suffer"-Where in my definition of God does it say that we are Gods children? "many ppl have predicted the end of the world but no dice"- What does this have to do with the existence of God? "how can god be disloyal to his own creation? " Perhaps it is because man is responsible for the evil in this world, not God. However again this has nothing to do with how we defined God. "we would have equal everything" That makes no sense what so ever.