There is no God

The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentRecall that I argued the following:1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause2. The universe began to exist3. Therefore, the universe has a causePro, 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. Pro also mounts a second criticism of the KCA, namely that it is "self-refuting. " He argues:1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause2. God began to exist3. Therefore, God has a cause. First, we have to note that even if we grant the premises, the KCA is not self-refuting. Self-refutation occurs when an argument is self-referentially incoherent -- that is, it contradicts itself. Even granting these premises, all that follows is that God has a cause, not the falsity of the KCA. 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. The Moral ArgumentIn responding to the moral argument, Pro argues that morality is a result of our evolutionary development. Unfortunately, this has several problems: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. 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!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.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]Pro's Arguments Against GodIn regards to Pro's argument based on the incompability of omniscience and omnipotence, he doesn't seem to have responded to my prior criticism. Let me therefore repeat it:Can God change the future? No, for this is self-contradictory. Is this a limitation on divine power? No, for this simply is a perfection expressed in the negative. When you are perfect, you are unable to be unperfect -- but that isn't a liability, it is the perfection simply expressed in a negative form. For God to change the future would be for him to recognize that his perfect plan for humanity was somehow imperfect. But since God is by definition perfect, he cannot change the future. Moreover, the very idea of changing the future is self-contradictory, for it involves making not happen what will happen. Pro's argument therefore fails. Pro also mounts an argument against the eternality of God by arguing that the existence of an actually infinite set is impossible. This argument faces two difficulties. First, it is not true that God has existed for an infinite amount of time. Time itself is finite, since it began to exist at the moment of the big bang. Causally prior to that moment, God existed, but not in time. Secondly, Pro confuses a qualitative infinity with a quantitative infinity. When it is said that God is infinite, we do not mean that God literally has an actually infinite number of parts. Rather, the term is an umbrella term for the intrinsic maxima of God's unsurpassable attributes. An actual infinity is to be understood quantatitively as a set containing a denumerable subset, whereas God's infinity is to be understood qualitatively as an umbrella term for his superlative attributes. The Problem of Evil (And a third theistic argument! )As a final argument, Pro invokes the problem of evil as an argument against the existence of God. This argument could take up a debate in itself, but let me make some preliminary observations. Evil itself counts as evidence for the existence of God. To see this, we have to reflect on the nature of evil. What exactly is evil? Well, evil is a departure from the way that things ought to be – it is a lack of the good. But this assumes that there is a way that things ought to be. It assumes that there is a moral lawgiver. As C. S. Lewis put it: My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I com­paring this universe with when I called it unjust? [1] In essence, there is only a problem of evil if God exists. Writes Eric Mascall: The problem of evil is one which religion creates for itself, it is not one which it finds waiting solution. If there is no God, there is no problem. And while the atheist may with reason urge against the theist that it has a problem of evil which it can't resolve, the atheist has no business feeling resentment about evil. An actual fact, however, is that very many atheists appear to labor under a general sense of resentment for the existence of evil, although by their own hypothesis there is no one there to resent. [2] So ironically the existence of evil itself is evidence for the existence of God! We might not know the exact reasons why God may permit evil, but we can be rest assured that it is compatible with -- indeed, it even entails -- his existence. ________Souces1. Timothy J. Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York, NY: Dutton. 2008) p.1562. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (HarperCollins: 2001ed) 383. JP Moreland, in his debate with Clancy Martin