God Exists

I want to begin by noting that my opponent has not responded to several of my counterpoints. "I thought about this some more, and came up with a new conclusion. If you define the universe as the expansion after the Big Bang, then yes, the universe did begin to exist. But the matter and energy before the Big Bang occurred have always existed because of the Law of Conservation." This is simply false and a completely incorrect application of scientific laws. My opponent has ignored the arguments I gave against this. Firstly, laws of physics break down in the initial singularity. Secondly, the singularity served as the initial space-time boundary, such that it is impossible for there to have been any temporal moment "before" the big bang. This implies that the universe had an absolute beginning ex nihilo. Finally, scientific laws such as the first law of thermodynamics do not apply to the origin of the universe as a whole, it is only applicable to phenomena which occur in it. My opponent is guilty of a compositional fallacy. "First you state that 'it is impossible for something to arise out of nothing,' but now you claim 'God created matter out of nothing." It is important here to note the distinction between material and efficient causes. A material cause is that which something is made out of (A ruler is made out of wood). An efficient cause is that which brings about some change (The man who carved the ruler). When I say "It is impossible for something to come out of nothing," I do not mean the lack of an efficient cause, but the lack of a material cause. On atheism, there is neither a material or efficient cause. On theism, there is no material cause but there is still an efficient cause (God). That is, on theism, God still causes there to be something, while on atheism, there is a complete lack of any causal factors. Secondly, God is not bound by physical laws because if he exists, he is the one who set them up. He is not subject to the laws of his own creation. Regarding my opponents link on multiverses, several points must be made: -Multiverse theory does not explain much, if anything. It only pushes the problem back further, for what caused these multiverses? Again we are left with an infinite regress. -According to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, any universe in the state of cosmic expansion (This would include multiverses) must have an absolute beginning. **So adding more universes only makes the problem worse!** Not better. -There is no empirical proof for the existence of a multiverse. The linked article only states that positing a multiverse is a _possible_ explanation for quantum phenomena. It is certainly not the _ONLY_ explanation nor the _BEST_ explanation (Since it posits additional entities, going against Ockham's razor when other competing explanations do not). "Again, my opponent is blindly assuming that God exists, didn't begin to exist, and is not bound by physical laws. He then tries to back this up with more empty assumptions such as: 'This entails that since that there is nothing greater than him, there exists no being that can cause him to exist.' These are useless contentions if you have nothing to back them up." I am not assuming that God exists or anything like that. Rather, I'm demonstrating the question of "Who made God?" is useless given an understanding of what God is (An uncaused being). Since my opponent acknowledges the definition of God as having the greatest compossible range of great-making properties, then it follows that God cannot be caused. On this definition God is the greatest possible being, ***and therefore there can exist no greater being that can cause him. Therefore, by definition God cannot be caused. My opponent continually sidesteps this issue.*** "So now you're claiming that things can exist out of time. Again, statements like these are useless to your argument when they have absolutely nothing to support them." Once again, if God created the universe, then he exists outside of time (Since time began with the creation of the universe). So, to charge the Christian with an inconsistency because he believes that God has existed for an infinite amount of time is simply false, because the Christian does not believe this, nor is this entailed by the cosmological argument. "It is impossible for a God to be omniscient, because it is impossible to know everything that will happen in the future. For instance, if I'm at a stop sign, I can choose to turn right or left. This decision then affects where I drive, and can even affect my entire day or even life. I could choose to turn left, then get into an accident and have permanent injuries for the rest of my life. It is impossible for a God to know this." Firstly, this is simply a circular argument, since my opponent presupposes an indeterminate future -- a scenario that is only valid given God's non-existence (Or Open theism). On theism, the future is determinate, and what grounds God's knowledge of future contingents is that we choose to do it (So, had I chosen to turn left instead of right or vice-versa, then God would have known _that_). This is the middle knowledge approach. "It is also impossible for a God to be all-good and all-ruling, because evil would not exist if he was all-good and had the power to stop evil." This is known as the logical problem of evil, and is considered by many to have been decisively refuted with the work of Alvin Plantinga. [1] There is no reason to thing that "evil would not exist if [God] was all-good and had the power to stop evil," since it is logically possible that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. As so long as this is even _possible_, there is no logical contradiction between God and evil. Therefore, this argument fails in demonstrating the non-existence of God. ____________ [1] See Alvin Plantinga, "God, Freedom, and Evil" (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1974)