The God Of The Bible Exists

Thanks for that argument Pro.I maintain that there is no creator of the universe, god, because the universe wasn't created.Creation is a temporal process contingent on stative time and the passage thereof.At [+0,-0], in quantum fluctuations, there was no stative time passing to allow for a temporal process like creation, which involves existing, remaining, and creating, so there was no creator or creation at [+0,-0].I also maintain that the particular god of the bible is not a source of morality, because that god has rules for owning humans as property and viciously killing women for sexual promiscuity.However, Pro has some contentions.1. Objective Morality's SourcePro asserts:"If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist."My response:I reject the axiological argument's first premise.Objective morals have nothing to do with the god of the bible.Yes, I am completely fine with saying that there are objective morals, despite the lack of a creator of the universe. because there are objectively immoral sufferings.There are stimuli that objectively induce suffering in all humans/conscious animals like being burned alive, having stones thrown at your face, being beaten severely, or being forced to do something without consent.Actions that lead us further away from these types of objective sufferings of humans/conscious animals are objectively discernible from their moral counterparts, and this discerning requires no god, especially one who approves of severely beating humans because they are your property.Therefore, objective morals can be perfectly explained by universal human interaction with suffering-inducing stimuli and actions that lead us away from this objective suffering.Pro continues:"And the only way an objective moral code could exist is if a God created it"My response:This is a bare assertion, and, as I've pointed out, morality exists in opposition to objectively suffering-inducing actions/stimuli.Pro states:"benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral."My response:Exactly.Benefiting society takes us away from the objectively immoral sufferings, thus benefiting society is objectively moral, irrespective of a god.Pro contradicts:"Therefore, religion gives the only reason to be moral."My response:Um, you just said that "benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral" and now you're saying, "religion gives the ONLY reason to be moral."Pro, how is it that benefiting society is a part of being moral, but it's not a reason to be moral?2. The Teleological ArgumentPro claims:"The world is so complex that there must be a creator...the odds of that low-entropy state's (state in which the universe began) existing by chance alone is on the order of one chance out of 10^10(123)."My response:A. Complexity does not always indicate a creator, because snowflakes are complex, ordered, and six-fold radially symmetrical, yet they have no creator, rather they are results of the water cycle; they seem designed by a creator, but they are not.B. How were these odds calculated by Roger Penrose? How can we verify if the numbers are correct or weren't just fabricated? What does Queensborough Community College, the source Pro provided for these numbers, have to do with the origins of the universe?C. Even if these numbers were true, they don't show a 0% chance, so they still allow for "existing by chance." The numbers do need to be clarified and explained HOW they were applied to the universe's origin.3. The Cosmological Argument.Pro claims:"a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.b. The universe began to exist.c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.d. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)."My response:Now, my favorite argument for god is in fact this one, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, because it was an attempt to take the infinite regress problem of "everything that exists has a cause" and change it so that god is exempt from the "exists, so has a cause" rule; this is a form of special pleading.http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...Before the Kalam argument, was the original cosmological argument that asserted that "everything that exists has a cause." This turns into an infinite regress, because if god exists, according to the assertion, then god must have a cause, and god's cause must have a cause, and god's cause's causes's cause must have a cause etc...So, the Kalam takes an infinitive verb phrase "to begin to exist," applies it to "everything that exists has a cause," and changes the assertion to "everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause," which exempts god from being caused, because, thanks to special pleading, he's always existed and never BEGINS TO exist.This argument is two-fold fallacious.A. It uses circular reasoning, or it begs the question.B. It special pleads god's exemption.A. By saying that things "begin to exist," you automatically create a set of "things that don't begin to exist" and a set of "things that do begin to exist." The problem is that the set of "things that don't begin to exist" ends up only having one thing in it, god, which makes separating "begin to exist things" and "not beginning to exist things" a way to smuggle in god's presumed exemption in the conclusion.The assertion that god didn't begin to exist in the premise is simply repeated by saying that god is the only member of the "didn't begin to exist" set in the conclusion, which is begging the question.http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...B. By asserting that everything began to exist, except for god, you are special pleading god's exemption to the assumed rule. Without an explanation of how god should be considered exempt from the category, exempting him is special pleading, thus it is flawed logic and we can reject your conclusions from such.Pro, other than bare assertions, how is god exempt from the beginning to exist rule that you openly endorse?Pro, could you explain the mechanism by which god accomplishes this exemption?4. The Existence of Jesus.Pro thinks this matters to the debate, and I really don't see it that way.Jesus's existence is actually irrelevant to whether or not there is a creator of the universe; Pro's biblical evidence only talks about Jesus's resurrection and makes no indication of a creator of the universe or source of moral authority.So, ok, the human named Jesus existed and 500 people 2,000 years ago claimed that they saw him alive after his death, and Pro knows this to be true because the bible tells him so.Ok, what does Jesus's resurrection have to do with creating the universe or a proving a source of moral authority?Either way, why should we consider what the bible says to be authoritative on matters of factual or moral truths?5. Quantum Fluctuations = Nothing.Pro understands:"the sub nuclear particles may not be something but the vacuum is something."My response:Yeah, because in our current universe, in order to get to nothing by stripping empty space of positive energy, particle physicists have to use a vacuum to get there.Well, at [+0,-0] quantum fluctuations, we mere humans are not required to produce nothingness with a vacuum; [+0,-0] is nothingness already.Pro asks about quantum fluctuations:"Wouldn't that be happening all of the time?"My response:Yeah, check my articles, on a quantum level, quantum fields fluctuating in and out of existence are ubiquitous and are always fluctuating.http://physics.aps.org...6. The Explanation of the UniverseMy explanation is that as an expression of the unstable state of nothingness, QF at [+0,-0], the universe originated with [+1,-1] matter and gravity.Pro's explanation is:"God is the best explanation of the Universe since the cause of the Universe has to transcend space and time, since it created space and time."My response:Pro doesn't fully grasp the idea of a temporal process.Causation, like creation, requires stative time and the passage thereof. Since time originated at the big bang, the universe wasn't caused; there is no stative time in [+0,-0] quantum fluctuations, so causation is nonsensical here.Pro is confused:"I find this confusing since my opponent has already admitted that the universe has a cause and at the same time he admitted that time did not exist before the universe."My response:Nope.I said that the universe has an origin, not a causation or creation.An origin is a point, while a creation or causation is a process CONTINGENT on the passage of stative time.So origin and causation are not the same.origin - the point or place where something beginshttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...causation - the action or process of causing somethinghttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...The origin of time, is the origin of the universe, therefore no temporal processes or actions could have occurred without the universe.7. Is god or the bible moral?I asked Pro if the stoning of non-virgins was moral, and Pro said:"Women were not stoned for not being a virgin, but for the deception in trying to appear as one."My response:Oh, in that case, the stoning is justified...wait WHAT??? Why is that ok?Pro how does a punishment of stoning match the crime of lying to your dad/husband about being a virgin?If Pro is going to make the argument that god is the source of moral authority, then why shouldn't we stone some teenage girls?Pro adds:"It was a good thing that it was punished back then"My response:Uch. Disgusting.Pro is owning another human as property moral or not?You can claim god freed slaves, but he made rules for slavery,You know what my first rule of slavery would be if I were god and peopole were sinning and enslaving others as their property?Rule #1 No slavery