God Exists

Notice that my opponent has not interacted with any of the arguments that I presented. So far my arguments that there exists an immaterial, Powerful, Morally perfect, Eternal, Personal creator of the universe have gone uncontested. I provided arguments from the beginning of the universe, The existence of contingent objects, And our firsthand experience of objective moral values and duties to arrive at the conclusion that an entity with these properties exists. My opponent seems to acknowledge that moral values and duties are objective. In the context of moral good and bad my opponent stated that there is, "a function that is beyond or above us. " This is to say that morality is not just in our head, But that there really are such things as "right" and "wrong" choices. As I had argued in my original post, This can only be so if God exists. So, Having not provided any objections to my arguments we can ask what arguments my opponent has offered against the existence of God. I detect three claims in my opponents response. First my opponent suggests that such a God would have no need of us. My opponent, However, Has not developed this thought into an argument. In what way is this meant to suggest that God does not exist? At least in the Christian conception of God we would affirm that God doesn"t need us or our service. It is difficult to see how the claim that God is self-sufficient should be understood to lead to the conclusion that God does not exist. Second my opponent suggests that it is wasteful or non-functional to worship God. Again, Even if true this seems irrelevant to our debate. How are we to conclude from my opponents aversion to worshipping God that God does not exist? My opponent has not provided an argument here, But just expressed his distaste at the prospect of praising God. Perhaps my opponent means to say that you should not believe in God for practical reasons, Whether or not he really exists. This seems intellectually dishonest, But I will leave it to the audience to decide if they will choose to believe what is false because they find the false belief useful. As for me, I prefer to believe what is true independent of the belief"s utility. Third, My opponent suggests that the concept of a "man in the sky sending people to heaven or hell" is absurd and that the concept of "hell" itself is absurd. It should be obvious from my original arguments that this is a complete mischaracterization of the concept of God. As an immaterial entity it is nonsensical to conceive of God as a "man in the sky". There is nothing in my arguments that would suggest that God"s primary function would be to send people to heaven or hell. My opponent has not provided any argument here, He has just mischaracterized the concept of God in cartoonish fashion and then called his own cartoon version of God absurd. I quite agree with him here, The cartoonish god he has invented is absurd. He spent time mocking the concept of hell, But he has not developed any argument from the concept of hell that would lead us to the conclusion that the atheistic worldview is true. It is completely unclear how his comments on hell should be taken as arguments against God"s existence. Remember that my claim is that there are good reasons to believe that God exists and that there are not comparably good reasons to believe that God does not exist. My opponent has not provided any objection to my arguments in favor of God"s existence. Neither has my opponent provided any reason to think that God does not exist. It does not follow from God"s self-sufficiency nor from my opponent"s personal aversion to worship that God should not exist. My opponents cartoon depiction of God does not provide us with any reason to think that the conception of God depicted in the arguments I provided does not exist. If my opponents comments about hell are to be taken as an argument against God"s existence, It remains to be seen how he will develop that argument. For these reasons I hope you will agree with me that there are good reasons to believe that God exists, And that there are not comparably good reasons to believe that God does not exist.