There is no God

I would like to appologize for the long wait inbetween rounds and not touching on everything I needed/wanted to in the previous round. Pro, interestingly enough, accepts all three premises! He writes, "I am not denying that the universe has a cause. " However, he questions the move from a cause to the existence of God. But recall that in my opening argument, I outlined an argument as to why this cause must have the attributes commonly associated with God. As Pro has not yet addressed this argument, let me reproduce it: But why think the cause is God? It must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused. Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Interestingly enough, this also lends credibility to the notion that the cause was personal, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. We are therefore warranted in concluding that God exists. I agree to part of that cause because there is some science handing it back. However, I must state that the Cosmological argument is weak. This is what I wanted to touch on and didn't get to. You can find a whole article about it here . http://www.infidels.org... I am not going to copy and pace the entire article, it would be a waste of time and space. Second, premise (2) is false. It is impossible for God to begin to exist. Recall my earlier statement: By definition, God is uncaused. Since he is a maximally great being, he does not owe his existence to any higher being, for there is nothing higher to which his existence could be dependent on. Therefore, it is impossible for God to have been brought into being. As we can see, the very concept of God analytically precludes his beginning to exist. More on this later. ..1. It commits the genetic fallacy-Suppose I grant my opponent's point that our moral sense is rooted in our evolutionary history. What follows from this? Nothing much it seems. Simply because our moral sense may have been bestowed upon us by evolution does not mean that there are no objective moral values. This is a prime example of the genetic fallacy, which is the fallacious attempt to discredit a position by pointing to its origins. I do not get your question, "What follows from this? " We can clearly see, if we read history, how our morals and our sense of right and wrong has changed. In fact, if we take Pro's argument to its logical conclusions, then we can discount everything that can be shown to have an evolutionary origin -- including our own knowledge of rationality and basic truths of logic and mathematics! Huh? I'm not quite understanding this. (I'm not avoiding the question, I just don't get it? ) 2. Differing cultural views on morality does not imply anti-realism-Pro argues that other cultures have moral views that are at odds with ours, with the implicit inference that therefore morality is not objective. The conclusion, however, simply doesn't follow. Disagreement on an issue does not mean that said issue is itself disagreement. After all, we may disagree on scientific issues, but that doesn't mean that science is relative. I am not disagreeing with your statement. If God was the source of our right and wrong sense, then why doesn't everyone follow the same laws? Shouldn't our sense of right and wrong be the same throught the entire world? That is the point I am trying to get across.3. It leads to wildly counterintuitive results-Moral relativism leads to wildy counterintuitive results. Beliefs such as "It's wrong to beat your wife," "Child sex-slavery is immoral," and "Treat others fairly" all seem to express true moral facts. Why should we accept moral relativism when it leads to conclusions that are counterintuitive? As Tim Keller puts it, “"If a premise ('There is no God') leads to a conclusion you know isn't true ('Napalming babies is culturally relative'), then why not change the premise? " [1] Again, I don't quite get this. If I understand this correctly, the rebuttal is in point 2. More issue with the moral argument! Let me re-touch as to what the moral argument is. The argument states the following:1. If there are objective moral values then God exists. 2. There are objective moral values. 3. Therefore, God exists. The major problem with this arguemnt isn't the question if objective moral values exist, the problem is the simple fact that the first ground is groundless. In actuality, there appears to be NO WAY that God could possibly have grounded our moral "truths" Only if we can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that there is ground on the first premises, then that argument has a very strong stand. Unfortunatly, there is none. . http://www.infidels.org... here. I'm obviously just touched on part of the article. . http://www.infidels.org... more on the divine command theoryFinal questions for youThis was not touched as much as I would have liked to. In this round, I will show you the point in asking you those questions.1. An actual Infinity is impossible. (You have not showed me that my argument there was wrong. ) . http://commonsenseatheism.com...Why is an actual infinity impossible? -Because an actual Infinity violates the Lawof Identity. Existence is by nature, limitation. To exist,is to be something specific. An Infinity is unlimited, which means, it's nothing in particular. Something that is nothing in particular, has no identity. Therefore, it doesn't exist. This was the purpose of asking you those questions. I hope you take time to review my response. Good luck to you.