God Exists

Unfortunately, it suffers some devastating problems. Good and EvilIn this section, my opponent merely hand-waves all my objections and falls right back on his original presuppositions. This makes this section from him rather trivial. First of all, he presumes that absolute law requires an external absolute law giver, but fails to realise that laws are just descriptions; they are not what the descriptions are describing. If there is objective moral truth then this can be described by laws that we create, but this does not necessitate that what the laws doing the describing requires an external law maker. This is clearly fallacious. Moral truths can come from us without and external being, and my opponent has not torn down any Atheistic moral philosophy yet:"There are many different [Atheistic] objective moral systems, such as Objectivist morality, many variants of utilitarian morality, humanism (when not used with the evolutionary justification), and to a certain extent, rational pragmatism. " - François Tremblay [1] In order for my opponent to claim that Atheism cannot account for morality, he must do much more than he is doing now:"There is no obvious contradiction between a strong commitment to moral realism and disbelief in God. That atheism and moral realism are in tension is a philosophical position that must be argued for. " - Jason Thibodeau [1]It seems clear that Pro has not provided a compelling incompatibility case with regards to Atheism and objective morality and only provided a semantical issue based on the word "law". Thus, his claims that Atheism and objective morality are not compatible are severely unjustified. In addition, Pro completely dodges my main point that one does not need to assume things can actually be deemed "evil" if Atheism is true. One only needs to assume that these things would be "evil" if Theism was true and show the contradiction. This leaves the Argument form Evil standing unscathed form the perspective of this "Good and Evil" section. My opponent is simply relying on a red-herring pertaining to the notion that the Atheist has to believe morality is objective to run the argument. This is false. Existence of MatterPro does not deny the calculation I provided [3] does not deny that negative energy has been experimentally verified between two Casimir plates [4]. He merely states that it may be proven wrong in the future, and that this claim from me still does not explain why The Big Bang happened at all. However, anything could potentially be proven wrong in the future; this does not mean one cannot make a strong probability case based on what we know at the present moment. "So is additional energy required for a universe? The structure and scope of the universe did not and could not begin until the Big Bang occurred, and thus cannot explain how the Big Bang itself began. In other words, a Zero-Energy universe can be explained as something existing because of the Big Bang, but not originating before it. " - ProIf there is no universe, there would be the same total energy sum (zero). This means that no additional energy is required to get the universe started. The plausibility of this went uncontested. The question remains of what did get space-time and energy going? We do not know. If my opponent tries to infer it must be due to a supernatural cause then he is certainly mistaken. This implies an initial point 13.7 billion years ago that are physical laws cannot touch. The fact is that scientists in the field do not believe there was a singularity in the past. This type of point is only predicted using strictly relativity (quantum mechanics rules at these early conditions [5]). "It is widely expected that this new improved theory [involving Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterised Einstein’s theory. " - John Barrow [6] "The BGV theorem, together with some more recent work (e. g. , arXiv:1204.4658) suggests that the universe did have some sort of a beginning, but we certainly cannot say that this represents the beginning of space and time. This does not necessarily mean a singularity -- that is, simply, a breakdown of physics. " - Alexander Vilenkin "There is no reason to believe that our Universe came from a singularity, and this outdated idea should have died as soon as inflation was accepted. " - Ethan Siegel [7] "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe. " - Steven Hawking [8] ". .. I don’t think that any result dealing with classical spacetimes [singularity] can teach us anything definitive about the beginning of the universe. "- Sean Carrol [9] It seems evident that there is no reason to believe that the emergence of space-time and energy could not have been explained naturally. This means that my opponent has not sufficiently argued for the notion that the supernatural is required for this; or even implied. Nietzsche's Prophecy"Nietzsche didn't just predict WWII, but specific details like Joseph Mengele's torture of the Jewish people in his reference to Caiaphas; too specific for mere coincidence. " - ProMy opponent has not described how in detail this prophecy was, and the quotes provided in the first round were not compelling in the least. The Argument From EvilMy opponent provides his website due to lack of space; this is clearly cheating. I urge a conduct deduction to Pro for this. Also, Pro claims that God does not know the future based on The Bible. This is false. The Bible clearly states God knows the future (Isaiah 41:21, Romans 8:29, I Peter 1:1, Psalms 139:16, Jeremiah 1:4). Pro also claims that God made all things "good" and Satan has control. This just leaves us wondering why God has not gotten rid of Satan. This argument from my opponent actually raises more issues than it solves. Since my opponent has not sufficiently addressed the Argument from Evil, it stands. Argument from Temporal Minds"This rests upon argument from ignorance making several potentially false conclusions, that "temporal duration is required for processing" and "mental processing is required for a functioning mind" which can be argued only by denying spirit in man, arguing naturalism to begin with. " - ProThis is basically an indirect concession of my argument. "Mental processing is required for a functioning mind" is self-evident and has nothing to do with presupposing Atheism. Knowledge is that which is gained; which implies a transition from a state of which said knowledge was not held. At best we are left with atemporal “information stored”. This does not get us a proper mind with a functioning mental process. This atemporal information stored is more analogous to a static bookshelf which stores information but does not engage in basic mental processing. This means calling this statically stored information a mind but a “different kind” of mind is tautology. It would be like getting pinched in the arm and calling the resulting sensation in your arm a sound, but a “different kind” of sound. If one has to resort to worthless games like these then it shows the power of the argument has. This argument clearly establishes the truth of Atheism. ConclusionPro's whole case for Theism is flimsy at best, and I successfully tore down all of his main arguments. My arguments went mostly dodged. As it stands, the resolution has been negated. [1] . http://www.strongatheism.net... [2] . http://www.infidels.org...[3] . http://arxiv.org...[4] . http://www.universetoday.com...[5] . http://arxiv.org... [6] . http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com... [7] . http://scienceblogs.com... [8] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] . http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...