It is most probable that a god exists.

CONTINGENCY ARGUMENT Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) and the Necessity of the Univererse My opponent’s presentation of this point basically acts as if it is a given and he has provided no substantial reasoning for its acceptance. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online, however, this principle is far from a given: “The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle. .. ” . http://plato.stanford.edu... In light of this, I would have expected my opponent to provide a justification for the confirmation of this principle. I will present an argument against the PSR, but it should be noted that even if this argument fails, that is not a substitute for an affirmation of the principle by my opponent, given that he has the BoP. I will present this objection in the words of Tom Senor, chair of the Philosophy Department of the University of Arkansas: “Suppose we list every contingent fact. Suppose we now tie them all together with ‘and’s. In other words, suppose there are just two contingent facts, fact F and fact G. Then we could write down their corresponding propositions and put an ‘and’ between them so that we’d now have a conjunctive proposition ‘F and G. ’ Suppose that we do that with not just two facts, but with all the contingent facts. Call the mammoth conjunction ‘C. ’ Now if the PSR is true, then there is some sufficient explanation for C. This explanation must be either necessary or contingent. If it is contingent, then it is part of C. But no contingent proposition could be the explanation for a proposition of which it is a conjunct (because then it would be explaining its own existence and if it could do that it would be necessary and not contingent). On the other hand, if the explanation of C is itself necessary and if it is a sufficient explanation of C, then C will be necessary (since C will be a necessary consequence of a necessary proposition). So either C is unexplained or it is necessary. But the PSR tells us that it can’t be that C is unexplained so it must be necessary. So PSR entails that all facts are necessary. ” . http://comp.uark.edu... As the paragraph argues, if we are to accept my opponent's conclusion that the PSR is accurate, we must accept that all facts are necessary. This would include the fact that the Universe exists, therein invalidating his claim that the existence of the Universe is not necessary. Unfortunately, he cannot have it both ways. Additionally, I would ask my opponent the following question: Assuming the PSR is true, what is the sufficient reason for quantum fluctuations, virtual particles, etc. ? Something Cannot Come from Nothing This section of my opponent’s argument responds to an argument that I neither have made nor intend to make. Indeed, it would be impossible for something to come into existence from a state that does not allow even for the potentiality something to come into existence. What I have not ruled out, however, is something coming from a state without matter or energy. As we have never experienced such a state, we are no position to make a judgement as to whether something could or could not come from it. P6 The argument claims that the explanation of the Universe must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, and personal. The justifications he provides for several of these categories are pretty weak. Indeed, I see no reason that the explanation of the Universe must be spaceless, immaterial, omnipotent, and personal. Just because the explanation of the Universe must have created all of the space and matter within our Universe does not necessarily mean that this explanation is spaceless and immaterial. For could there not exist space and matter outside of our Universe and outside of time? Why could there not be timeless matter or laws governing outside of the Universe that serve as an explanation for its existence? Additionally, just because the explanation of the Universe has significant causal power does not automatically make this explanation omnipotent. I also question the conclusion that the cause must be personal because “it decided to bring another state of affairs into existence. ” I see no reason that a conscious decision had to be made here, and I echo my previous question in asking my opponent: Is there a conscious decision that is made that is responsible for the changes in states associated with quantum events? Contingency Argument Conclusion The final thing I’d like to point out regarding this argument is that it does not conclude that there exists a maximally great being at all, for there could exist an explanation fitting all of the traits the argument grants it that is not maximally great. So, it fails to prove God in sense of the agreed upon definition. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT I will respond to my opponent’s ontological argument with an ontological argument of my own: P1. It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist. P2. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world. P3. If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not necessarily exist in every possible world. P4. If a maximally great being does not necessarily exist in every possible world, then it does not necessarily exist in the real world. P5. If a maximally great being does not necessarily exist in the real world, then a maximally great being does not necessarily exist. C. Therefore, a maximally great being does not necessarily exist. I don’t feel that I actually have to say a lot concerning this argument beyond presenting this counter example, given that my opponent’s justifications for several of the premises are pretty shaky. He provides no justification for P1 and his justification for P3 that “Maximal Greatness is thus possibly exemplified. But then it must exist in a maximally excellent way in every possible world, including the actual world, therefore God exists” is not really a justification at all as my opponent has provided no reasoning to support the notion that existence is greater than nonexistence. MORAL ARGUMENT Moral Truths Exist My opponent’s attempts to discredit moral relativism are not very strong. The example regarding descriptive relativism doesn’t necessarily mean that that are not any truths to be known about physics. All it tells us is that either Victor Stenger or the other person claiming knowledge of what physics support are incorrect about the conclusions of physics. His argument against meta-ethical relativism also disappoints in that its first premise makes the assumption that some actions have moral content. Pro has failed to demonstrate that moral truths exist. God and Objective Morality All my opponent presents here to justify the first premise of the argument is a quote from Apeiron. What the quote fails to take into account is that objective moral truths could exist based an idea such as aiming to reduce suffering. CONCLUSION My opponent has failed to present and justify sound arguments for the existence of God.