Existence of God

Cosmological Argument My opponent believes that the concept of simultaneousness is not a concept that is within the realm of time. This however is not true. Just as for something to happen in the past or the future would have to happen within the realm of time. My opponent has not shown why simultaneousness does not lie in the same category of other timely concepts. My opponent then goes on to state that the casualty of the universe cannot be applied to god as that would make the two equivalent and if god were equivalent to the universe then he would not be able to create the universe. My opponent discards this as it disproves his own claims. This only goes to show that the concept of god is illogical and contradictory and is no reason to discard my own argument. Teleological Argument My opponent tries to shift the BOP in the last round. He believes that because I have not shown an example of other life forms occuring under different circumstances then that leaves god as the only explanation. However my opponent is the one who has the BOP in this specific situation in that he is claiming that life could never form or evolve under any other circumstances. It is up to him to prove this point and show that god is the only explanation for the formation of life. He has not done this so we may discard his argument. My opponent has also shown that the possiblity of life forming and evolving is small, but he has not shown that it is impossible. In the third round I showed that even if the chance of life forming was as my opponent claimed, less likely than one winning the lottery seven times in a row, life would still form on almost 1.2 billion planets. My opponent is correct in stating that the chance of life forming is small, but given the huge time frame that has elapsed since the big bang and the staggering number of planets in the universe, the formation of life at some point is actually inevitable. Objective Morality My opponent correctly states that no matter how many people agree that 2+2=5 it would still be wrong. However that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that our understanding of the values and concept of mathematics are agreed upon as human concepts although they may be applied to the physical world. If humans had determined when laying the framework of mathematics that when one used the word 2 one would be referring to a value which we would agree to be 2.5 then 2+2 could logically and correctly equal 5. My opponent has not given readers and voters any reason to believe that any form of morality is objctive, or that this could only happen if there were to exist a god. He has not upheld his burden of proof and therefore his argument from the existence of objective morality must be discarded. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ My opponent brought three arguments to prove that god exists. The first one is the Kalam cosmological argument or basically that the universe began to exist and everything which begins to exist must have a cause, namely god. I showed that not everything that begins to exist must necessarily have a cause because our conception of cause and effect is directly related to the relation between events in time. As time did not exist prior to the universe, my opponent's principle that everything that began to exist must have a cause does not apply. My opponents next claim was that life's formation and evolution would have been very unlikely without a creator god. I showed that my opponent did not fill his BOP and did not show conclusively that it was impossible for life to form without a god, only that it was unlikely. I however showed that with the billions of years in history of the universe, coupled with the estimated billion, billion planets in the universe, the formation of life is not as unlikely as my opponent would put forth. My oppnent's last contention is that objective morality exists and would not be able to exist without a creator god to legitamize it. He however again did not fill his burden of proof and did not show that objective morality did in fact exist and also did not show that it would take a god would legitamize morality. My opponent completely forfeited his burden of proof to prove his contentions. He also mantains that it was my reponsibility to show why atheism is the correct option. However as instigator of this debate and pro it was my opponent's responsibility to prove that god exists and my responsibility to refute my opponent's arguments. I have successfully done this so I urge a con vote.