Evidence for God

Thanks, Con.Rebuttali. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause."the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem states only that "almost all" inflationary models of the universe will reach a boundary in the past (not that all inflationary models "must have had a beginning,"My opponent has misrepresented the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem here; commonly, atheists will adopt the cyclic model in hopes that a past boundary (a beginning) will not be necessary. This is explicitly addressed by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin in the source referenced by my opponent:"The internal brane spacetimes, however, are nonsingular, and this is the basis for the claim that the cyclic scenario does not require any initial conditions. We disagree with this claim. In some versions of the cyclic model the brane spacetimes are everywhere expanding, so our theorem immediately implies the existence of a past boundary at which boundary conditions must be imposed." Here it is clearly stated that the cyclic model does not in any way rule out the existence of a past boundary. As such, there is no viable model of the universe in which a past boundary (a beginning) is not reached."my previous statement that "the scientific community currently doesn't know how matter and energy came to be" is sound."I don't disagree that this particular statement is accurate. What I disagree with is the assertion that matter and energy are uncaused. My opponent may be correct in stating that the scientific community isn't in agreement as to how matter and energy came to be, but what is clear is that matter and energy are not uncaused. "As you can see, an author of the theorem himself admits that Borde-Guth-Vilenkin doesn't prove a beginning for sure."I don't think the source used for this quote was in the slightest bit reliable. Furthermore, I find it extremely difficult to believe that Alexander Vilenkin would contradict everything he says in his academic work in a supposed interview with an atheist blogger. It seems evident to me that the source used was not credible. If a blogger claimed that a popular atheist (say, Richard Dawkins) revealed a conversion to Christianity in a personal interview I hardly think anyone would think of it as legitimate. In the same way, I don't see any reason to take this atheist blogger (and his claims) seriously.ii. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.C1: Therefore, God exists."Note that this would not be permissible under my moral system, as rape and torture are detrimental to the well-being of whoever is being raped or tortured."On my opponent's moral system, any act that maximizes well-being is "good". If we consider a group of five psychopaths who's well-being is maximized by actions like rape and torture, it becomes evident that this action is "good". My opponent argues that rape and torture are not "good" because they are detrimental to the well-being of the victim of these actions. But why think this is the case? If an action (rape) maximizes the well being of five individuals and minimizes the well-being of one individual, then the net result of the action is "good". On my opponent's view, then, actions like rape and torture are morally "good" so long as there are more psychopaths involved in the action than their are sane individuals. Moreover, my opponent's view is self-defeating. He wants to affirm objective morality while at the same time rejecting God as the basis of this objective morality. To do so, he proposes a radical theory for objective morality, namely that an action is objectively "good" if it maximizes well-being and objectively "evil" if it minimizes well-being. But clearly different individuals have different preferences. In other words, the same action that maximizes the well-being of one individual might very well minimize the well-being of another. Going back to the previous example, rape maximizes the well-being of the psychopath while it minimizes the well-being of the victim. So, it cannot be concluded that rape is objectively "good" or "evil" on this view. Is it both? Is it neither? In any case, it is clear that this is a self-defeating proposition for an alternative basis of objective morality."If the sacrifice results in well-being that is to a lesser extent than the extent of the detriment of the well-being of the sacrificed individual (i.e. negative net well-being), then the action should not be permissible."On this view, then, a mother who runs into a burning house to save her baby, dying in the process, has committed an "evil" act. I find it incredible that anyone should take such an absurd stance on morality. "Overall, this system, which doesn't require God, is obviously objective, as it works the same when applied to each and every scenario."I think I've shown pretty clearly that this moral system is not objective in any sense. My opponent affirms the contradictory view that (1) morality is objective and (2) identical actions can be both "good" or "evil" depending on the individual with which the action is concerned. (1) and (2) are obviously inconsistent, as objective morality by definition holds that an action is either right or wrong in the factual sense, so that it cannot be "good" for one individual yet "evil" for another. I invite my opponent to reconsider this view. iii. The very possibility of God implies His actuality.P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.C1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists."Furthermore, I'm not arguing that "it is greater to not exist than to exist" - I'm simply arguing that there is no evidence, reason, logic, or 'common sense' in saying that it is greater to exist than to not."In order to reject the statement "existence is greater than non-existence" one would have to affirm that either "existence and non-existence are equally great" or "non-existence is greater than existence". My opponent does not seem to affirm either of these statements (please correct me if I'm wrong here). Until my opponent affirms that non-existence is either greater or as great as existence, he cannot sensibly reject the statement that "existence is greater than non-existence". "Just like there is a hypothetical scenario in which God exists, there is already a hypothetical scenario in which God does not"Regurgitating this statement doesn't make it any less of an unwarranted assertion. Why think that there is a possible world in which God does not exist? If my argument (which my opponent has thus far failed to refute) is sound, then it follows that there is no possible world in which God does not exist. SummaryI have presented three arguments in favor of the position that there is evidence for God. In response to the first argument I presented, my opponent has tried all sorts of objections - from Occam's Razor to arguing that Alexander Vilenkin refuted his own theory - each of which has not been the slightest bit convincing. As such, the first argument remains sound. What about the second argument I presented? Here, my opponent took the wild stance that (1) objective morality exists and (2) identical actions can be either "good" or "evil" depending on the individual with which the action is concerned. As I showed above, (1) and (2) are contradictory and as such my opponent's moral system fails. In response to the third argument I presented, my opponent's main objection is that existence is not any greater than non-existence. If this were true, then I'd expect to see a much higher suicide rate. In any case, my opponent doesn't affirm the negation of this statement, so he has no basis for rejecting it.All three of the arguments I originally presented remain unrefuted. For now, it seems to me that we can reasonably conclude that there is evidence for God. This is not, of course, to say that God exists; it is merely the modest claim that this is at least one piece of evidence in favor of God.Thank you. Sourceshttp://arxiv.org...http://now.tufts.edu...http://www.reasonablefaith.org...http://scienceblogs.com...http://www.reasonablefaith.org...http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://plato.stanford.edu...http://mind.ucsd.edu...