No Gods Exist

Ahh! You made a robust argument! Now we have a debate! Lets dive in. Okay, We so you're two jump off points are: 1. God is best explanation for universe 2. God is best explanation for morality For the first point, You presented the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Before I get to the premises. I would like to address your use of the phrase "come into existence". As far as science and the world has observed, All things that have existed have always existed. For instance. Lets say you have a table. Now you might be inclined to say that the table came into existence when it was crafted, And this would be true in a colloquial sense, But it's not the same thing is coming into existence. Every particle used to craft that table has always existed, The table didn't come into existence, It was formed from particles that always existed. The reason I bring this up concerns your premises. So I reject the soundness of premise 1 and all premises that are contingent upon it due to a problem of language. I submit that I will accept the first premise, If you change the phrase "come into existence" into "formed" or some functional equivalent. When you say come into existence, That is functionally identical to saying popped into existence. So on premise 2, If you were to say "everything that is formed is formed by something else" then I would agree with it. Either way, This argument is not a necessarily true premise. It's a strong probabilistic premise, Which is not a bad thing, But it necessarily means that the conclusion is not 100% verifiable. I would argue that it's above 99% though since literally everything every formed was formed from something smaller. I agree with premise 3 I didn't see a formal conclusion from these premises. I can infer one, But I'd rather have you state it formally. I'm guessing it would be something to the effect of an uncaused cause, I would agree with this conclusion, However, You'd have to go further to get me to god and you still have to fix the language problem I mentioned earlier for me to accept this conclusion. Let's continue So on your comments about the past being infinite. I don't believe that infinity exists as an actual thing. It's an abstract used as a place holder for any number that the mind could conceive. It's not even a number, But rather a mathematical concept, Much like the concept of zero. Furthermore, Time is also an abstract. There is no physical time, But rather a concept of time. Furthermore, The past does not exist either, It's just an abstract concept of what used to be. Once we understand this, We can also understand that time did not "begin" the universe just "is" and humans perceive time through the experiencing of relative motion. While the universe may have began, That would only be to say that it was formed of things that already existed, Therefore, There would be no absolute beginning. Everything just always was and always will be. That's not the same as infinity. This also means that saying the past is complete is vacuous because you're just saying that an abstract concept is complete, It doesn't say anything about the physical universe. The universe doesn't care about our perception of time. Concerning your scientific reasons the big ban supports that the observable universe had a beginning, Not the entire cosmos, So I agree with you, But there is also no evidence that the big bang is the first event to ever happen. For all we know, This could be the millionth big bang. There could be universes that we can't see beyond the reach of light and we have no way of knowing if ours was the first. This makes it very likely that something natural started the big bang long after other things had already been moving around in the cosmos. thermodynamics prove that the universe is experiencing entropy, But it doesn't necessarily imply a formal beginning because it's only entropy if our count of the matter in the universe is correct, And since we can't see beyond the observable universe, We have no way of knowing if entropy will happen the way we think it will happen. when you speak of the good philosophical and scientific reasons, That only applies to the observable universe and when they say beginning, They're not talking about the universe being created, They're talking about it being formed. Concerning your three alternatives. You said 3 was the most likely. I think 1 is more likely and the part about the an infinite past is trivial because time doesn't matter in relation to something existence since things can exist in a static state that would make time look like it wasn't happening. Number 2 is possible but all of our evidence points away from it. Number 3 actually causes a logical paradox because the outside source would require something to cause it. An uncaused cause would necessarily have to be contained physically within the universe, Otherwise it's a logical paradox and cannot be. Furthermore, I assert that an uncaused cause could happen in the first alternative as well, So you can't rule out 1 against 3 unless you can prove that A) the uncaused cause cannot be internal and B) The external uncaused cause somehow formed itself. Without proving these things, The first alternative become more likely due to the facts of Occam's razor and the infinite regress caused by an outside creator if it cannot form itself. So you assert that line about the first cause being outside of space time. Space time doesn't exist so nothing can be outside of it. This applies to all abstracts. One cannot exist apart from the number 2 for instance, Because the number 2 is not a thing that you can compare your existence to or contrast it from. This is why I say the uncaused cause has to be internal. I reject the notion that the first cause necessarily has agency. It could be the case, But it is not a requirement. The only thing required for the first cause is motion. Motion starts the whole universe. Period. You say that only personal agents can initiate a cause when all conditions are already present. This is actually not true. Particles are able to do the same thing and, As far as we know, They have no agency. Even if they did, It would not be the kind of agency that you're thinking of. It would be more like a fuzzy consciousness that could only make guess decisions because it has no sense. To us, This kind of agency would be identical to random behavior. So particles are actually a better candidate for the first cause than anything else, Because they're the only known things that can do this. So on the first point, You've got me to the point of uncaused cause if you change the language of the premises and you're gonna have to give me something better if you want me to accept that cause as a god, Because you haven't convinced me that agency is a necessary piece and if god has no agency, Then it's not god. On your moral argument. The first thing I want to point out is that morals might be purely subjective and that would be okay, Because they're still pragmatic. But lets just say for a second that morals a necessarily objective so I can steel man this. How do you prove that objective morals are true because of god? How do you know they aren't true on their on merit? This is a problem, Because you have to show a connection for this to be acceptable. You could just say that god's opinion is what makes them true, But that's fallacious. An opinion is subjective, Even if it's god's opinion. God could know everything about the universe, But that's just data, If data was enough to prove morality, Then humans could do it. So god can't make an ought statement even if he knows everything. He would have to make If Ought statements, Which are subjective, So edict is out the window. You could say it's part of his nature, But that's incoherent, Natures are abstracts and don't exist, So now were back to using logic. Your floor. n