Evidence for God

Rebuttal:1. Kalam Cosmological Argument - My opponent begins his rebuttal by stating that the second premise of Kalam is sound because the universe "must have had a beginning" due to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. However, this statement is untrue. First, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem [1] states only that "almost all" inflationary models of the universe will reach a boundary in the past (not that all inflationary models "must have had a beginning," as my opponent asserts). Already, we can see that like all other valid theorems regarding the matter, even the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem doesn't show for sure that the universe had a beginning - my previous statement that "the scientific community currently doesn't know how matter and energy came to be" is sound. Even Alexander Vilenkin admits this, saying that [2] :"[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes". If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is "No, but"" So, there are ways to get around having a beginning..."As you can see, an author of the theorem himself admits that Borde-Guth-Vilenkin doesn't prove a beginning for sure. The Kalam Cosmological Argument's problem is that even if universe does have a beginning, this beginning can be explained in scientific terms. Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin themselves write:"What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event."As you can see, the theorem itself realizes that even if the universe does have a beginning, there are "several" possibilities of its cause - not the single possibility of God. The possibility described above regards a quantum nucleation even (not God-related), though the authors of the theorem itself realize that there are multiple possibilities (not just God, as Premise 3 of Kalam tries to assert). I have clearly shown that my opponent's own evidence reveals the Kalam to be untrue, and will end this rebuttal with another of Vilenkin's statements:"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God " So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist."2. Modal Ontological Argument - My opponent seems to have mixed up his order of arguments, as he provides the argument from morality with evidence for Modal and provides Modal with evidence for the argument from morality. Assuming that he wants to address Modal second, I will now begin my rebuttal of his argument for the theory.My opponent first states that I contradict myself by saying that "there is certainly a possible world or hypothetical scenario in which a maximally great being does NOT exist." This is untrue. My opponent bases his assertion of my contradiction off of the assumption that "if a being is maximally great, then one property that being must have is necessary existence." This assumption is false. I have shown my opponent over and over again that necessary existence is not a property of greatness - he responds:"How about common sense? Is my opponent really going to take the position that it is greater to not exist than to exist?"Please describe the evidence, reason, or logic behind your "common sense." I don't see the "common sense" behind the assumption that necessary existence is a property of greatness - what is your "common sense"? Please explain. Once more, even if something seems to be true (i.e. theory that existence is great), there must be evidence, reason, or logic provided in order to show that it is, in fact, true. Furthermore, I'm not arguing that "it is greater to not exist than to exist" - I'm simply arguing that there is no evidence, reason, logic, or 'common sense' in saying that it is greater to exist than to not. Furthermore, my argument against Modal regarding axiom S5 logic is sound. As I have said repeatedly, axiom S5 defines 'possibility' as existing in at least one possible world (or hypothetical scenario). Just like there is a hypothetical scenario in which God exists, there is already a hypothetical scenario in which God does not (shown to be true by axiom S5). Therefore, it would be impossible for God to exist in all possible worlds, as axiom S5 itself says that there's already at least one possible world in which God doesn't [3] [4]. My opponent bases his rebuttal of this argument off of necessary existence as a possibility of greatness, though as you can see in the above paragraph, necessary existence isn't. Once more, there's already a possible world where God doesn't exist due to axiom S5, so Modal is untrue. So Modal's assertion that "if a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world" is contradictory and thus false.3. Argument from Morality - Once more, my opponent seems to have mixed up the order of his arguments, so I can only assume that he wants to discuss the argument from morality third.My opponent provides a series of examples to 'disprove' my argument regarding morality. I will address each of these examples in order to clarify that the objective morality system regarding well-being is sound:a. For the psychopath, rape and torture are actions that maximize well-being.Note that this would not be permissible under my moral system, as rape and torture are detrimental to the well-being of whoever is being raped or tortured. The net well-being is obviously negative in this example, as while the psychopath is most likely provided with temporary pleasure from his activities, the well-being of the victims is decreased to a much, much further extent (e.g. possibly permanent and at the least temporary injuries, mental harm, horrible memories, etc.) Furthermore, even gang rape (where multiple rapists rape one victim) is immoral under my system, as even though the pleasure of many is temporarily increased, the well-being of the victim is decreased to a much, much further extent. It's pretty clear that sexual assault will harm its victim in a huge, huge way, to an extent much larger than any amount of rapists will be pleasured. My opponent will probably somehow further change the situation of the above example in order to 'corner' my moral system, though in any given example whatsoever, the better action is that which provides the most well-being and least suffering (note that the above actions are extremely immoral, as they provide little well-being and much suffering - temporary pleasure is not as significant as lasting mental/physical pain, regardless of how many are pleasured).b. Self-sacrifice resulting in death clearly does not maximize well-being.This depends on what the self-sacrifice is for. If the self-sacrifice results in well-being that is to a greater extent than the extent of the detriment of the well-being of the sacrificed individual (i.e. positive net well-being), then it is permissible. If the sacrifice results in well-being that is to a lesser extent than the extent of the detriment of the well-being of the sacrificed individual (i.e. negative net well-being), then the action should not be permissible. In the situation in which one individual sacrifices his/her life for another, the net well-being could be determined by comparing the future lives of the two individuals in question and determining which individual would have a better life if theirs was saved (this is based off of who will, throughout their life, contribute the most to the well-being of themselves and others). In the situation in which two parents sacrificed themselves for a child, the net well-being could be determined by comparing the future lives of both of the parents against the future life of the child and determining whether the parents or child would have better lives if saved (once more, this is based off of who will, throughout their life, contribute the most to the well-being of themselves and others). However, if the parents choose to do so, I suppose they could sacrifice themselves out of pure altruism and kindness for their child (this would still be morally permissible, as the parents are consenting to the sacrifice and therefore willingly determining their own well-being).As shown in the two above examples, the morality of an action is determined on whether it causes a positive or negative net change in well-being. This is not related to the amount of people with changing well-being (my opponent would like you to believe that the net well-being is based off of the quantity of people being positively or negatively affected, though in reality, the net well-being is based off of the extent of positive or negative change - this is what makes gang rape immoral even though many are pleasured while one is pained). Furthermore, under this system, the morality of an individual's action can be determined by seeing if they applied their knowledge to the situation in order to provide a positive net well-being (it would therefore not be immoral to commit an action with good intentions but later figure out that it had bad effects). Overall, this system, which doesn't require God, is obviously objective, as it works the same when applied to each and every scenario.Conclusion - Overall, I believe I have successfully countered each of my opponent's three arguments. Unless my opponent can successfully back his arguments with reasonable evidence (he hasn't), I win the debate. Thanks! :DSources:1. tinyurl.com/p2lc7f82. tinyurl.com/m9p69p63. tinyurl.com/pfarh9v4. tinyurl.com/neg7zss