God exists

Thanks. I actually agree that the universe couldn't be eternal so I'm not going to attack that part of his argument. A big problem in Pro's arguments is to prove some of the claims he's making. "Out of nothing, nothing comes" There's two problems with this. First of all, that would mean that God doesn't exist as Pro has already asserted that infinity is impossible to achieve, meaning God had to have had a cause. If this rule is true then God logically would not be able to come into being. Secondly, he hasn't proved this statement. We don't have "nothing" to observe, meaning it isn't as if we can know this for a fact. Pro is also asserting that God is the only thing that could have caused the universe to exist. This is simply not true. I can think of a plausible scenario. A) Simultaneous causation This is the idea that cause and effect can happen simultaneously. The cause of the Universe could have happened at the same time of it's effect. Let's say we have atoms A, B, and C. If atom A causes atom B, then atom B would cause atom C, and atom C would cause atom A. Why should we accept God over simultaneous causation? Pro needs to meet his burden of proof that God is the most likely cause of the universe. "Two, the moral argument: If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist. By objective moral values do exist. Many theists and atheists agree that if God does not exist then moral values are not objective in this way. But, for example, rape is always wrong regardless of someone's opinion. This can only exist in reality if there is a moral law give" Pro's argument relies on objective moral values existing, which he hasn't yet proved. Pro's arguments have been refuted. I'll move onto mine now. Argument 1: P1. God is supposedly omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. P2. If God was omnibenevolent, he would have the will to destroy all evil. P3. If god was omnipotent, he would have the power to destroy all evil. P4. If god was omniscient, he would know how to destroy all evil. P5: Evil exists. C: Therefore, god cannot. For evil, we can substitute pain and suffering. Argument 2: P1. In order to prove there is a god, we have to have a need for one in order to explain the mechanics of our universe. P2. We do not have a need for a god in order to explain the mechanics of our universe. C: Therefore, god is probably not real. Defense of premise 1: Pretty self explanatory. If we don't have any need for a god in order to explain the mechanics of our universe then there's no reason to assume he exists. Defense of premise 2: I've already explained how we don't require a God in order to explain the mechanics of our universe by showing a very plausible explanations for the universe coming into being. This both refutes Pro's contention that the only way it could have happened was from God and also supports my argument that we don't need one. The conclusion follows logically from the two premises. Argument 3: A. It is possible that p. B. Necessarily, if it is possible that God exists, then it is necessary that God 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) We can use various plugins for P, like 1. Minds are dependant on the physical world 2. An evil deity exists 3. The universe was created by some non-god being 4. Being morally perfect is impossible 5. Gratuitous evil exists. 6. All free non-god beings always produce evil. 7. Being omnipotent is impossible.