Does God exist ? (part 2)

Before I get into the more substance of this debate I'd like to get a few things out of the way first. --- Westminster confession --- The westminster confession. .. .. .. .. .correct me if im wrong here, but the westminister confession doesn't contradict my definition of God I gave does it ? Assuming it doesn't lets move on. .. .. .. --- Raising the bar too high & Possibly shifting the burden ? --- Pro says "until that time that he is able to show all my arguments to be utterly lacking" No I don't need to show that all your arguments are utterly lacking, I just need to show that they should not be accepted. Pro says "So far, Con's burden is somewhat lacking, but I think it is prudent that the readers not hold that against him until he has had opportunity to offer more evidence in his next round" I am not too sure what he means here, if he means I need to give evidence/reason why his conclusion that Gods' existence is more likely than its non existence should be rejected, then yes obviously, thats kinda the whole point of the debate. If pro is saying that I need to provide evidence that proves God does not exist, I would merely retort, I will do that, when you provide evidence that invisible flying immaterial unicorns don't exist on pluto and until you do be confident in the existence of these unicorns. Oh its irrational to demand lack of evidence of somethings non existence as some how supporting the existence of that something? .. .. .. .. .exactly. I ask Pro to clarify what he meant, and till then give them the benefit of the doubt, that they were merely pointing out that I need to show why there argument should be rejected. --- A caused universe doesn't necessarily means it was caused by another temporal universe --- Now Pro isn't going to argue this point, cause obviously they are arguing that God (who isn't a universe) caused a universe. So what is my point here ? My point is in relation to what Pro says here "There are two choices for the cause of this universe: another temporal existence or an eternal one. If it is temporal, it also has a beginning (per C1). Since there cannot be an actual number of temporal universes" Its the last line of this argument thats I challenge. .. . "Since there cannot be an actual number of temporal universes"" The hidden assumption is that a caused universe can ONLY come from another temporal universe, but why can't a temporal universe come from a temporal cause, but that temporal cause is not its self a universe ? Please note - I am not challenging the infinite regress argument here, I could agree that there is not an infinite regress of causation, but that doesn't prove that a universe can't have a temporal cause, and that temporal cause is not a universe. --- Seeking clarification on eternal objects --- Before I argue against this point, I want to be sure what Pros argument is. I don't want to guess what it is, so I am just going to ask. Pro says "An eternal object MUST be in equilibrium; it is logically contradictory to assert an eternal object that is changing. " Why must an eternal object be in equilibrium ? Why can't an eternal object change ? --- Countering that God personal --- I will probably want to come back to this, but part of my counter argument is based on how Pro justifies the rejection of a non personal eternal cause. --- Countering that the universe was caused by a personal creator --- Even if there is a first cause, it hasn't be established that it is personal, and it hasn't even being established that a first caused, directly caused our universe. --- Given a personal creator, miracles are logically possible --- Personal creator not established, and even if it was, possibility doesn't mean actuality. Its possible that there are invisible immaterial fairies in my back yard plotting the over throw of mankind. .. .. .. .. .. .. sure its possible, but possibility isn't enough to have justification for believing so, espically when it comes to extraordinarily miracle (magical) claims. --- Countering the bible is historical accurate --- I should note, the debate is on Gods existence, Pro didn't have to argue for the Bible, Jesus etc, never the less, they are the ones who decided to use it as part of their argument. So is God creating 2 humans from which all other human beings are descended from is historical accurate ? God creating said these 2 humans about 6000 years is historical accurate ? God putting them in a garden, which among other things contain two "special" trees, and a talking serpent is historical accurate ? A global flood, which happened a bit later on, all people and animals that exist today are descended from this ark survivors , historical accurate ? And I am not even out of Genesis yet. .. .. .. .. .. .. You sure you want to go down this path ? I think its a bit unfair to just post a link, cause I don't know which parts of the article are part of your argument, and also if using the link allows you to go over the word limit ? But anyway from this link, just because people believe in God, doesn't prove God, and just because people were really really careful about copying various documents doesn't prove that those events are historical accurate. ---Countering "it is parsimonious to accept that the Gospel accounts are probably describing a real event. " --- No, its parsimonious that the gospel contains both fact and fiction, and that micralous claims are probably false. I look forward to Pros response.