It is reasonable to believe that God exists

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Straight off the mark, we have a problem - My opponent quotes the Bible. I never mentioned Christianity in my arguments - nor do they necessarily appeal to it. In fact, Christianity has nothing to do with any of my points. My opponent states that free-will and fore-knowledge cannot co-exist. But I really see no reason to believe this. As I have already stated - we have free-will to do whatever we want to in any set of circumstances. God will simply know what we will choose. What is the problem with that? If we decide to choose differently, God will have foreknown differently. Say that I foreknew that someone was going to freely choose to steal from an old lady. Does that mean that they did not freely choose to commit this action? No. If the thief freely chose to not steal, then I would have foreknown that they would not steal. There is NO contradiction between free-will and foreknowledge. Despite the fact that the Bible quote has nothing to do with this debate, I will respond to it anyway. In the context, all it means is that God had appointed Jeramiah as a prophet a long time ago - all as part of God's divine 'plan' for humanity. Now this does NOT mean that Jeramiah does not have free-will. He could choose to be God's Prophet, in which case God would have foreknown. Or, Jeramiah could have chosen not to become God's prophet - in which case, God would have foreknown. Just because God foreknows a course of action does not mean that there is no free-will! COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT You can't merely say 'I simply do not know for sure'. Because I have given an argument. And it states that if the two premises that I gave are correct, then the conclusion 'therefore the universe has a cause' follows inescapably. I have given reasons to think this and yet Con has not given any reasons to think otherwise; but simply dismisses it, saying he does not know. And when con says 'it is their burden' I completely agree! And I have given reasons to think that the universe has a cause! I also gave reasons to think that any other universal theorem is false through the Bourde-Guth-Valenkin theorem as i described earlier. As for the multiverse theory, my argument will still apply to the 'motherverse'. So I have given reasons as to why the universe has a cause, but my opponent has not given a single rebuttal. Rather, he just dismisses it saying he does not know. IMMATERIAL When I said 'it would have had to exist before it existed', this was based on earlier arguments. Considering all of the physical world came into existence a finite time ago (Bourde-Guth-Valenkin), there would have been a point when the physical world did not exist. So in order for a physical cause - which by definition has to be a part of the physical world - to be the cause of all the physical world, the physical world would have to exist before it existed in order to accomidation the physical cause. This is an obvious contradiction. My opponent says 'I have never seen anything immaterial create something material'. So is my opponent saying that a thought cannot create an action? If someone thinks 'I am going to walk over there' and then walks over there, this is an example of a non-material cause (a thought), creating the effect of movement. But can thoughts then cause the universe? Simply, No. Thoughts can't cause anything as they themselves have a material cause (the human brain), and the cause of the universe has to be uncaused, immaterial, timeless, changeless etc, as I described in my earlier arguments (thoughts are caused, bound by time and change). A CONSCIOUS Ok so firstly, let's re-establish the definitions of efficient cause and material cause: Efficient cause: the agent that brings about a change Material Cause: The matter that constitutes a thing. In Con's example, the efficient cause is the wind, rain and sun. This is obvious. the material cause is the plant and seed. This is also obvious. So yes, an effective cause is needed. As with the rest of my opponent's points, he has obviously not paid attention to any of my premises. I refer him back the the Bourde-Guth-Valenkin theorem - any universe which has on average been expanding throughout it's history (as our universe has done), cannot have an infinite past but must have a past space-time boundary. The universe has not existed forever, and began to exist a finite time ago. NON-PHYSICAL MIND Again, I re-iterate my previous points. If when Occam's Razor, when applied to the cosmological argument even makes it PROBABLE that a maximally great being exists, then my Ontological argument has succeeded in proving Premise 1 and therefore God exists. Additionally, a number of Maximally Great Beings (Omnipotent Beings) is simply impossible - Otherwise the being would not be maximally great (a contradiction). So if I have established that it is possible that a maximally great being exists - as I have done in my cosmological and moral arguments - then we can apply my Ontological argument to conclude that a maximally great being exists. And as numberous Maximally Great Beings is a logical impossibility, we can conclude that there is only one creator of the universe, which is God. MORALITY Okay let's give some definitions. To say that Morals are Objective is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. To say that Morals are Subjective is to say that one person's moral opinion is No more fundamentally wrong than another person's. Subjective morality is different to different VIEWS on morals, which my opponent is confusing. Subjective MORALITY is to do with whether a view is right or wrong or not. Subjective VIEWS is whether a person SEES a certain Moral activity as fundamentally Good or Bad. So Con obviously thinks that morals are subjective. Does he then think that Child abuse is just fine morally? Does he think that it is alright morally to steal from an old woman? Because these are the types of moral atrocity that subjective morality asserts. In my opponent's view, the Fundamentalist Religioue terrorist is doing nothing fundamentally wrong when they fly a plan - their morals are just subjective to their environment just as you and me have our morals that are subjective. Now this is obviously not true. We KNOW that what they are doing is fundamentally wrong. Just like they 'know' that what they are doing is fundamentally 'RIght'. This is OBJECTIVE morality. I said that the main reason we know morals are Objective is our own sense of right and wrong. Regardless of our environment, we know that one moral action is right, and another wrong. This is what Objective morality asserts. Even If that is because of our environment - it is still objective. Morals are subjective if no moral value or duty is better or worse than another. But this goes completely against our immediate experience, we know that to kill someone is a worse moral action than to love someone. It's basic logic. CONCLUSION Overall I don't think that my opponent has successfully countered any of my arguments. He merely dismisses my Cosmological argument and says nothing about it's premises, and does not successfully assert that morals are not objective. As a result, we can confidently say that premise 1 of the Ontological argument is very sound - even certain, meaning the conclusion logically and necessarily follows. So I think it is entirely reasonable to believe God exists.