God exists

As both leaning and Missmedic aptly pointed out, I have neglected to define God. God will be defined as the omniscient and omnipotent being responsible for creating the Universe. I will go down my opponents arguments and refute his points one by one. First, He claims that improbable just means less likely and that it is still possible that God does not exist and that the conditions could have "just happened to be met. " To put that in perspective, He is arguing that the basis for accepting his belief structure as true rests on the premise that the universe somehow managed to beat odds that as my case stated were less than one part in 1010^123. That number is so impossibly large there isn't even an analogy that I can use to accurately describe it. I can still try though. The closest I can get is to point out that there are only (at an aggressive estimate) 10^82 atoms in the observable universe. The argument that it all "just happened" is not only laughably insane but requires a degree of faith that I simply don't possess. It requires far LESS faith to believe that an intelligent force ensured that all of the criteria were met than to assume what my opponent believes. To further put the odds into perspective when I put that number (1010^123) into my calculator is just read "infinity" those odds don't get beaten on their own. Secondly, He states that an unlimited force doesn't necessarily mean deity. True. However, It would necessitate an intelligent force that exists in an infinity to make sure that all criteria for a life supporting universe are met. Taking into account my argument about the unmoved mover gives this argument greater context. next he says that objective morality doesn't exist. However, The idea of an amoral universe is existentially self-refuting. The concept of an amoral universe, Thought not logically self-refuting, Is existentially self-refuting. There is no logical incoherence in the statement "No objective moral values and duties exist. " The problem arises when one attempts to describe how one should live in such a universe" for the instant one makes such an attempt, They have invalidated the concept. In an amoral universe, "how one should live" is meaningless" no standard exists to describe how one should live. Without considering the implications of such a universe deeply, It"s easy to claim, "Objective moral truths do not exist; I have the right to do as I please! " Yet, This statement makes a moral claim to a "right" while denying moral reality. If you believe that others ought to allow you to live according to the dictates of your own will and your own conscience, Then you are appealing to objective morality to justify what others "ought" to do. For example, If you've ever told a religious person to "stop imposing our beliefs on you. " then you have appealed to objectivity and refuted your own point by stating what we SHOULD do. Further exampled, If you believe that one should not commit an ethnic genocide that is again an appeal to objective moral law. And if you don't believe that one should not commit a genocide then something has gone horrendously wrong in your philosophy. And don't bother telling me that you think there's nothing wrong with genocide unless you're a sociopath you know on an instinctive level that it's wrong. Or think of it this way; we are beings who can conceive and consider many different possible courses of action. Does any course of action exist that should always happen, If possible? Does any course of action exist that ought never to happen? Ought theists never torture atheists for fun? Ought atheists rebut theists who claim that objective moral categories exist? If one single course of action ought never to happen, Then objective morality must exist. But let"s not get ahead of the evidence; whether it is immoral to torture atheists for fun (a question of epistemology) is irrelevant to the point"the only way that such a statement can logically be true is if there is an applicable objective standard by which we can judge the action in question. While we certainly conceive of ideas that are fictional, Most, If not all of these fictional concepts have their roots in reality; unicorns are an extension of horses; werewolves are a blending of human and animal, A cyclops is an oversized human with a single eye. None of these concepts are completely manufactured out of nothingness. Yet for the concept of subjective morality to appear in an amoral universe is similar to the idea of blue and green appearing in a colorless universe. It is impossible to convey the richness and experience of color to a man blind from birth, Because such a man has no basis on which to relate to such a description. While you might explain that blue is a certain wavelength of light, That doesn"t convey to the blind man what light is, Or the experience of seeing blue. To the blind man, Color and light do not exist in his experience. But in an amoral universe, Moral categories have no basis of existence in reality. In a world where color had no basis of existence in reality, All would be as the blind man above, Completely incapable of understanding the concept of color. Even if one conceived of such a thing as green or red in their imagination, They could never communicate this idea to others without a shared reference point. For purely subjective concepts, Such shared reference points cannot exist. He states that intelligent design doesn't rule out aliens. No. But you ignored my argument about Ockhams razor. You are assuming without evidence that the force that brought about the human species is an alien. However, You are assuming the existence of a finite force which through Ockham's Razor we can determine that I am most likely correct. Your aliens argument also miserably fails to address the existence of the Universe at large. For your next relevant point, You ignore the fact that my original argument pointed out that no natural law necessitates for example the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, And the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Evolution doesn't function like a river drifting along a path. It is caused by countless, Random, Beneficial mutations in genetic code the basis for which is not determined by any law. All of this CSI (complex specified information) coming about by chance as I stated is highly unlikely. Your analogy of a river is fundamentally flawed in that a river follows a course predetermined by natural law. Evolution does not. Lewis, Terry. "Do Objective Moral Truths Exist in Reality? " Cross Examined - Christian Apologetic Ministry | Frank Turek | Christian Apologetics | Christian Apologetics Speakers, 5 Feb. 2016, Crossexamined. Org/do-objective-moral-truths-exist-in-reality/