God exists.

Thankyou con for responding to my arguments. Unfortunately, I think I did not make myself clear enough because you miss the point of them First, the argument from contingency. How is it a non-sequitur? If all that exists is contingent there is no ultimate explanation. There is an ultimate explanation of existence IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THEREFORE that all that exists must not be contingent. I am not sure that you know what a non-sequitur is. Because my argument is actually logically sound. This does not mean that the premises are true, but IF they are true the conclusion follows NECESSARILY. There is no non-sequitur. If something is not contingent, it is necessary as I explained in my definitions. Therefore, since not all things are contingent, there exists a necessary being. My conclusion proves. Now, you Say P1 is false. You offer however no argument whatsoever for this assertion. It seems as though you cannot come up with one. I offered a coherent and complete explanation of why this is true. You haven't responded. If you think that P1 is false, let me ask you this question: Can you come up with an explanation for existence that includes all contingent things? since a contingent thing by definition points outside of itself for its existence, this would mean the ONLY way to have an explanation of all things existent would be to point outside of all things existent! But outside of all things existent is nothing. Therefore it follows that there is no ultimate explanation if all things are contingent. Premise 1 is 100% sound. I gave reasons, you failed to. Premise 2 you say is unfounded but I gave an explanation. I also gave an analogy to help explain. You see, there has to be an ultimate explanation. If we deny this, we deny the principle of sufficient reason, and essentially deny reason itself. Is atheism a position that denies reason itself? Also, premise 2 can be demonstrated using metaphysics. I don't have the space to defend all of the metaphysics. So I created the analogy. But basically the gist of all of the metaphysics is that everything must have sufficient reason for its existence not arbitrarily but because anything that exists potentially cannot exist in actuality unless it is made actual by something that is in act. That means that only being can change possible being to being. This is a metaphysical principle. Possible being cannot change into being on its own because possible being is merely possible. Hence it follows that there must be something to make actual the possibility of existence. This is the reason why there must be an ultimate explanation---because there must be something actual to make the possibility of contingent things existing actual. If this actual being does not exist, nothing would, because there would be nothing to make real the possibility of contingent things existing. Again, very brief, but the only sketch I could give in the space. Finally, the big bang cannot be an ultimate explanation because it is not a necessary being. The big bang is not a being first of all its an event. Also, the necessary being must necessarily be eternal obviously because the necessary being cannot fail to exist. For if it did, by definition, it would not be necessary! Anything that fails to exist therefore is no necessary being and therefore no ultimate explanation. As of now, it seems like my first argument is completely intact. To summarize, your response is flawed because: 1) you misunderstand what a non-sequitur is, 2) You say my premises are unfounded without responding to my explanations and without giving any of your own. 3) You misunderstand the big bang by assuming it can be an ultimate explanation but this is incoherent given what is meant by an ultimate explanation here is a being outside of the realm of contingent things. Now for the fine tuning argument You deny premise 3. However, you say there are plenty of planets out there. The problem is that the anthropic coincidences as studied by physicists aren't coincidences on planets but coincidences in the laws of physics for the universe itself! Hence you cannot appeal to many planets! Your objection fails. The multiverse has some credibility. However, I will provide an article by a physicist. He goes through the anthropic coincidences and says why the various objections to them are not sound. http://www.firstthings.com... Basically, the multiverse cannot explain everything because the very conditions of the multiverse would have to be "fine-tuned" to allow for anthropic coincidences. Hence the argument stands. Finally, my argument for the soul: You say that humans are not in part immaterial. Okay fine, but Did you even read my argument from qualia which I attempted to use to DEMONSTRATE that in fact humans are in part immaterial???? Look, if con does not even respond to my argument, the argument stands. I used the qualia argument to defend premise 1. My argument stands. So far, all my arguments stand. Running out of characters but on to responding: The problem is premise 5. How do you know? You need to defend this premise. What if God would ALLOW evil to exist in the world for some greater good? God is powerful so He can bring good out of evil? The BoP is on you for premise 5. However, be careful. I explained that God has the power to bring good out of evil. It is conceivable that God has sufficient reason to allow evil. Unless there is NO POSSIBLE CONCIEVABLE reason for God to allow evil for a good purpose, then premise 5 fails. Again, you have to prove that there cannot be any way in which a loving God would allow evil. If you fail to do this, your entire argument fails. Remember, BOP is on you! Which seems tough given that throughout history atheists have failed to convince theistic philosophers that premise 5 is true. Plus proving a negative is very difficult. Summary: 1) My arguments stand 2) Your argument rests on an unproven assumption