God Probably Exists

Responding to Eternalism: 1. The first problem with my opponent's argument is that modern science supports that the universe had a beginning. For example, the second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of energy (hence heading towards a heat death). In an eternal universe, it would have run out of energy by now. So since this hasn't happened, we know that the Universe had a beginning. Also, there is the discovery of red-shift in 1929. Basically, this discovery showed us that the universe is expanding which means if you were to go back in time, the universe would shrink and shrink until you got no universe. William Lane Craig says it better, he states that "as one traces the expansion back in time, the universe becomes denser and denser until one reaches a point of infinite density from which the universe began to expand" (. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...). 2. So now that my opponent has brought up the existence of the Universe. .. I will bring up the cosmological argument. The Cosmological argument: The argument in a nutshell is as follows: a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. b. The universe began to exist. c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. d. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent). God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. Source: . https://carm.org............ Summary: I have just given multiple scientific reasons that prove that the universe is not eternal. So therefore the universe does have a cause and that cause must be God. 3. I understand that time has a relative aspect to it but I don't see why this makes the whole concept an illusion. For example, a person on a train will not realize how fast they are moving and a person living in Paris will see the sun rise at a different time. We all know that time exists objectively but we merely experience it subjectively. So my opponent will have to explain a little further. Also, my opponent hasn't exactly shown that the past, present, and future exist distinctly. By definition they do exist distinctly and a simple google search will prove that. While it is true we experience the past, present, and future differently. .. this doesn't disprove the existence of time itself. But this issue doesn't really matter since science proves that the universe (which includes the concept of time) had a beginning and therefore makes this point not as important. Responding to the Reverse Modal Ontological Argument: 1. My opponent states that the non-existence of God is a logical possibility. I found this funny because I realized that it connects to my truth argument. The laws of logic are in fact truth statements about reality. For example, if I were to say that something cannot bring themselves into existence, that would be a true statement about reality. Then according to the second premise of my truth argument, truth statements require minds. And so do the laws of logic. But it gets more interesting! The laws of logic are also transcendent. For example, " if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot bring itself into existence and that if A=B and B=C, then A=C. The condition of the universe does not effect these truths" (Matt Slick). Basically, the laws of logic aren't affected by the universe's existence. They would still exist whether we did or not which means that the laws of logic are in fact universal truths which means that there must be a universal mind (since truth requires a mind). I mean, these transcendent laws of logic couldn't even exist without a God which makes this first premise void. 2. Then it is said that "If there is a possible in which God does not exist, God does not exist in all worlds. " The problem here is that it makes a factual claim based off a possibility. Something being possible doesn't make it true. 3. Lastly it was said that "If God is nonexistent in all worlds, he is nonexistent in our world. " This is true but you first have to prove that God is nonexistent in all worlds (or a single one). Even though my opponent said that God may not possibly exist in a world, this doesn't mean that God doesn't exist in all worlds. Remember, possibility doesn't make probability. Thus I find these arguments to have no real substance.