God Exists

Problem Of EvilThe argument is not that evil and God are incompatible, but that there is evil that is probably not necessary for a logically compensating good. There does seem to be evil and suffering that is gratuitous. This is self-evidently incompatible with with the very conceived nature of God as fundamentally omnibenevolent."On the face of it, the idea that God may well permit gratuitous evil is absurd. After all, if God can get what He wants without permitting some particular horror (or anything comparably bad), why on earth would He permit it?" - Daniel Howard-Snyder (Christian Philosopher)[1]Additionally, Evil is on the very opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to good. An all good God would certainly want a minimization of it.Now, Pro mentions free-will, but that only addresses evil caused by agents, not natural evils. Regardless, as Quentin Smith notes, there are three types of freedom[2]:(i) Internal Freedom(ii) External Freedom(iii) Logical FreedomGod would have (i) and (ii) with respects to evil but not (iii) as God is all good by definition. This would mean that God is internally free and externally free to commit evil, but not logically free. However, Pro would certainly not assert that God is a robot just because he is not logically free to commit evil. Therefore, there is no reason to make that claim with regards to humans if we were not logically free to commit evil. We wouldn't even need to posses omnibenevolent either. In fact, it is logically necessary that if God exists, humans could not commit evil. Since God would be logically determined for good, and he embodies the highest intrinsic worth, then it is false that it is intrinsically better to be logically free with respect to a morally good life than logically determined. If God creates beings with the highest intrinsic worth for creatures, which an omnibenevolent God would do, then evil should not exist as this is possible. Evil exists.Pro's objections to the Probelm of Evil fail, and the Problem of Evil stands.Omnis Are Desirable But Never A Pre-RequisiteThere are two huge problems with this section:(1) The debate outline specifically defines God as tri-omni(2) A tri-omni God cashes out from the concept of a maximally great beingIf Pro did not like my definition of God, he should not have accepted this debate. Also, since God, in philosophy, is commonly defined as a maximally great, and a necessary being, then a tri-omni God follows from this. The reason is because tri-omni attributes are great making properties. My opponent claims that this conception of God is outdated philosophy, yet the definition I prescribed in this debate is still the most commonly used. I think Pro is sadly mistaken.Avoid Omnis But Prove It AnywayFirstly, my opponent has not demonstrated that any consciousness was the cause of the universe. If one reviews my last round, they will see that Pro has not even established a cause of the universe in the first place. Now, Pro claims:"The ability to create the universe or multiverse is proof of extreme potency.The ability to create the laws that came with the universe shows vast omniscience." - ProPro needs to make clear what he means by "extreme potency", as that is very vague terminology. Also, omniscience does not follow from "laws that came with the universe". The laws simply describe the universe mathematically.Pro's arguments here were based on bare assertions and non-sequiturs, and can be dismissed for those reasons. Positive Cosmological Constant And A Fixed Space-Time BoundaryMy opponent is correct that a space-time boundary need not include a singularity. However, one would need a quantum mechanical model for that; which most commonly involves the universe coming into being naturalistically. Also, my opponent is incorrect that it applies to the Hawking-Hartle state, as that is obviously a no-boundary proposal, which, in its revised state, falls fully in line with the existence of a positive cosmological constant[3].Even if space-time and matter began to exist, Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins involves the universe coming into being as a quantum tunnelling event from a 0 energy state describable by physics; no supernatural aspects required.Differential Information TheoryI showed in my last round why his argument here is invalid as it is based on a false-dichotomy. Intelligent design, or strict chance are not the only options. A non-sentient mechanism which leads to a certain result seems just as plausible as intelligent design; no God needed. Pro's argument is logically fallacious, and can be discarded.Retro-Causality And Wave Function CollapseIf one wants to deny retro-causality, then they would have to adhere to a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, local non-realism is confirmed by violation of Bell's inequalities[4], and non-local non-realism is demonstrated by violations of Leggett's inequalities, and the before-before experiment[5]. Information travelling back in time has been scientifically verified. Observation could collapse past histories to be bio-friendly. This is especially plausible due to the fuzziness of the early universe. Paul Davies' idea adheres to Occam's Razor the most, as it does not need to appeal to anything outside the universe. Atheistic Naturalism As Inconsistent With The Scientific MethodPro claims:"Naturalism asserts that regardless of any future observation or experiment, we will never observe anything extra-ordinary that will conflict with our predisposition of what is 'Natural'." - ProNaturalism asserts no such thing. Quantum Mechanics is extra-ordinary for example, as it violates classical physics and our predisposition of what is natural. However, it is now included in our picture of nature. If a new discovery is made, there is no reason to think that it could not be included into a naturalistic picture. There is nothing which commits the naturalist to the notion that new extra-ordinary things cannot be inputted into a naturalistic framework. Therefore, Pro's claim that Atheistic Naturalism is inconsistent with the scientific method is misguided. One has to do some serious straw-manning to achieve such a result. The Modal Argument For AtheismAs per the rules, God is defined as a maximally great being. Necessary existence is self-evidently embodied together with maximal greatness. This means, that if God is even possible, then he has to exist necessarily. This is founded on modal axiom S5 which basically states that if possibly necessarily f, then necessarily f.I provided a modal template from Ryan Stringer in my last round that looked like this: A. It is possible that p. B. Necessarily, if it is possible that f (a necessary being exists), then it is necessary that f (a necessary being exists). C. Necessarily, if God exists, then it is not the case that p. D. Therefore, it is not possible that God exists. (from A, B, & C)I gave examples of multiple plugs for p, and almost an infinite amount can be thought up of. Since there is only one plug for f with regards to the Modal Ontological Argument for Theism, then the Modal Argument for Atheism is inherently more plausible by sheer numbers alone:[I]t is more plausible that at least one of the modal arguments for atheism is sound and that the modal ontological argument is unsound than that all of the modal arguments for atheism are unsound and that the modal ontological argument is sound." - Ryan Stringer Pro did not even touch this argument. It stands. ConclusionPro failed to meet his burden; I met mine. The resolution has been negated. Sources[1] Howard-Snyder, Daniel, and Frances Howard-Snyder. 1999. American Philosophical Quarterly36: 115-29.[2] http://commonsenseatheism.com...[3] http://www.hawking.org.uk...[4] http://phys.org...[5] http://www.quantumphil.org...