Evidence for God

Rebuttali. 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.Let's take a look at my opponent's objections to my first argument:"The scientific community currently doesn't know how matter and energy came to be, if they came to be at all. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that matter and energy ever came into existence - the Big Bang theory instead simply states that all matter and energy started expanding from a single point 13.8 billion years ago."This is a misleading interpretation of scientific evidence. As the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem states, any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (like ours) must have had a beginning. Note that it does not say "the universe might have had a beginning" or "the universe probably had a beginning" but rather it says that the universe must have had a beginning. Furthermore, we are not restricted to scientific evidence (though it is readily available). We also have overwhelming philosophical evidence that the universe cannot be eternal in the past, but must have had a beginning. I won't regurgitate the philosophical evidence I brought forward in the last round, but recall that the coin example I gave along with examples like Hilbert's Hotel demonstrate the absurdity of infinity and, therefore, an eternal universe. So, we can reasonably conclude that it is more likely than not (which is all the premise needs to remain sound) that the universe had a beginning. But if the universe had a beginning, then all matter and energy within the universe must of course have also had a beginning, thus refuting my opponent's objection that we "don't know" whether or not matter and energy are eternal. Remember, in order for this objection to have any standing, one would have to affirm that it is more likely that the universe is eternal than it is that the universe had a beginning. This is an affirmation that would go against mainstream scientific and philosophical evidence, and thus ought to be rejected."There is currently no scientific or logical evidence whatsoever that matter and energy can randomly 'pop' into existence"This is exactly my point. My opponent, however, claims that "the law of cause and effect doesn't apply to the creation of matter and energy." On this view, one ought to expect various objects to then pop into existence all the time. Why does he attempt to single out the universe as something that the law of cause and effect doesn't apply to? "My opponent continues in saying that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows how "it is not logically possible that there be an actual infinity in reality". He's being self-defeating with this claim - if the Theorem is true, how can God be infinite? You have admitted that you believe there is no actual infinity in reality - how, then, can you believe in God? If God is not infinite, then he too must have been created."This is a blatant misunderstanding of the mainstream conception of "God". I have yet to meet someone who believes that God is infinite in the sense that He has an infinite past. When we discuss whether or not the universe is infinite, what we really mean is whether or not the universe is eternal (thus having an infinite number of past events). It is widely accepted that the universe is not eternal, but did have an absolute beginning. My opponent, however, asserts that the universe is eternal and thus has had an infinite number of past events. But as I previously stated, no one (that I have met) believes God to have had an infinite number of past events. God is believed to be transcendent, to exist outside of space and time. Surely my opponent can see that there is no need for a "beginning" or "cause" for an entity which does not exist within time. On the other hand, space and time are clearly both aspects of our universe. Thus, our universe must have had a beginning due to the absurdity of an actual infinity."Regarding Occam's Razor, my opponent incorrectly asserts that I think my explanation is better because it is simpler."I don't think I've incorrectly asserted anything here; this is my opponent's quote from his last argument regarding Occam's Razor: "a hypothesis is more credible than its opponent if it has less assumptions". It seems to me that this quote implies that Occam's Razor ought to be accepted simply because it has less premises than the argument I've presented. My obvious objection was that a simple, unsound argument is by no means better than a more complicated but sound argument. My opponent argues that Occam's Razor is somehow more valid because it has only two "unproven assumptions": (1) the universe began & (2) the universe has no creator. The problem is that (1) and (2) contradict each other. How could a universe begin without a creator? (I'd also like to note that my opponent continually changes his stance on the universe- whereas he previously argued that the universe is eternal, he now shifts to arguing that the universe is finite but has no creator). If my opponent wants to affirm Occam's Razor, it seems to me that he is responsible for providing a plausible mechanism by which the universe began (a mechanism which is not a creator, in order to be consistent with (2)).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.Let's now take a look at my opponent's objections to my second argument:"However, because a maximally great being is not yet necessarily existing in all possible worlds at this point in the argument, we must also realize that, due to axiom S5, there is certainly a possible world or hypothetical scenario in which a maximally great being does NOT exist."My opponent contradicts himself here in attempting to argue against S5 modal logic. The statement "a maximally great being is not necessarily existing in all possible worlds" is a contradiction. As the argument shows, if a being is maximally great, then one property that being must have is necessary existence. There is no such thing as a contingent being that is maximally great, as my opponent seems to be arguing. If a being is maximally great, then that being exists necessarily in every possible world, as the argument shows. So my opponent's assertion that "there is certainly a possible world or hypothetical scenario in which a maximally great being does not exist" is contradictory and thus false."There an absolute lack of any evidence or logical proof that it is greater to exist in all worlds than in some"How about common sense? Is my opponent really going to take the position that it is greater to not exist than to exist? 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.Finally, let's look at my opponent's objections to my third argument:"An objectively good action is one that maximizes the well-being of oneself and others"I disagree. For the psychopath, rape and torture are actions that maximize well-being. Self-sacrifice resulting in death clearly does not maximize well-being. So, on this view, rape and torture are "good" actions for the psychopath while self-sacrifice (say, dying so that a family member can live) is an "evil action". Perhaps my opponent argue that rape and torture are not "good" actions because while they maximize the psychopath's well-being, they are detrimental to the victim's well-being. But then, a situation where a group of psychopaths rape and torture one individual would be a "good" because this maximizes the well-being of several individuals whereas it is detrimental to the well-being of only one. Likewise, if two parents sacrificed their lives for their child, it would be an "evil" action on this view because this action is detrimental to the well-being of two individuals while it maximizes the well-being of only one. On my opponent's view then, morality isn't really "objective" at all (though he claims to affirm objective morality) as actions that maximize well-being for one individual may very well be detrimental to the well-being of another. SummaryI have presented three arguments at this point in the debate, and each argument remains standing as my opponent has failed to bring forward any sort of defeating objections. Until my opponent is able to knock down each of the three arguments I have presented, we can reasonably conclude that there is evidence for God.Sourceshttp://plato.stanford.edu...http://mind.ucsd.edu...http://www.reasonablefaith.org...http://now.tufts.edu...http://www.reasonablefaith.org...http://scienceblogs.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...