There is no evidence for god

1. AcceptanceI accept. Thank you for creating this debate, Pro.2. Definition of GodIn this discussion, I will be defending the idea that there is at least one piece of evidence in favor of God's existence. I will put forth a definition for the God I will be defending, as one has not been submitted by Pro.God: A maximally great being. 3. Burden of ProofPro has asserted that "There is no evidence for God." It follows from this assertion that Pro will be responsible for carrying the burden of proof in this debate. Pro must demonstrate that there is not a single piece of evidence to think that God exists. I will await Pro's arguments and address them in the following round.4. Arguments in Favor of God's Existence I will list and very briefly describe five arguments in favor of the existence of God. Further response will be given after Pro's objections have been made, if Pro makes any. In order to reject the conclusion of these arguments, Pro must knock down at least one premise in each of the five arguments presented. If Pro fails to knock down each of the five arguments, then we have at least one good reason to believe that God exists.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. Something cannot come from nothing. The universe came into existence between 13-14 billion years ago in an event known as the "Big Bang" [1]. I would like Pro to give his/her thoughts on what caused the big bang.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. In order to believe that actions such as rape and murder are objectively wrong, one must affirm objective morality. But objective moral laws cannot exist without an objective moral law-giver. I would like Pro to give his/her thoughts on whether he/she affirms objective morality.God is the best explanation for why there is anything at all rather than nothing.P1) Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or due to an external cause.P2) If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God.P3) The universe exists.C1) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from P1, P3)C2) Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from P2, C1)I think it is fairly self-evident that the universe is not necessary by its own nature. If Pro disagrees with this, I will provide further comments. If the universe is not necessary, then what is the explanation for its existence? I would like Pro to give his/her thoughts on why anything at all exists rather than nothing.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.It follows from P1 that is the concept of a maximally great being (God) is even possible, His actuality is implied. I would like Pro to give his/her thoughts on whether or not it is possible (as opposed to incoherent) that God should exist.God is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of our universe for intelligent life.P1) The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.P2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance.C1) Therefore, it is due to design. That the universe is finely-tuned for intelligent life is fairly uncontroversial. I would like Pro to give his/her thoughts on what the explanation for this finely-tuned universe is.NOTE: Pro has not specified that the evidence for God must be objective. As a result, it seems to me that personal revelation is fair game in this debate, and thus is good evidence for the existence of God. I await Pro's response.5. Summary Pro has taken it upon him/herself to carry the burden of proof in this debate by attempting to justify the claim that "There is no evidence for God." Pro must put forward some sort of warrant for this claim, otherwise it seems that he/she has failed to carry the burden of proof. I have put forward five arguments of my own in attempt to show that there is at least one reason to believe that God exists. Pro must tear down each of the five arguments I have presented, and in their place put forward his/her own arguments if Pro wants us to accept the claim that there is not a single piece of evidence (objective or subjective) in favor of God.Sources:http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu......