God exists

R1) Problem of evil The whole argument Con provided fails for an unexpected reason : they fail to define what evil really is. Evil whether climate change, starvation in africa, etc. are all the results of man-made choices made in the present or in the past. Man-made evil could be explained by the freewill that God gave humans. God provided human with the capacity to think and make their own choices (whether their choices were to donate to charity or colonize Africa). Everybody will be judged accordingly. Those who did good decisions and created good on this Earth like build schools, donate to charity, fundraise for specific causes, etc. will be rewarded accordingly. Those who did evil in this world and caused mischief (colonized and decimated africa, climate change, etc.) will be punished accordingly. The free will of humans is compatible with what you would expect if there was a divine supreme judge who has granted his test subjects free will in order to test them and to get as accurate of results as possible since their decisions and what they will be judged on is not influenced by him and mostly the result of their decision-making. The coup de gras to this rebuttal is that nobody can agree on what is evil. If you take your kid to get him vaccinated against a virus, they will feel pain of the needle and they will call you evil and cruel for letting them through this and not intervening to stop this 'evil' but is the parent really evil for trying to protect their child from a virus? The less common source of evil like natural evil such as hurricanes, lightnings, etc. is used by God to test the faith and the strength of the belief of the people who are undergoing this crisis. Things like diseases, volcanoes etc. are used by God to test the patience, love and faith of his test subjects to him. R2) Incompatible properties The nature of omnipresence : When theists speak about omnipresence, all they really mean is that God has incomprehensible power but this has nothing to do with how God uses this power. He could have incomprehensible power (omnipotence) and not use it all and still be omnipotent. He could have infinite power and only use it on tasks that are compatible with his nature and other properties and still be omnipotent. He can do whatever he wants. What he wants are determined by his other properties such as benevolence. Other questions like can God go to some place he has never been before or can he learn something are logically incoherent and they misunderstand God right in the first premise that God already knows everything and he is everywhere. This however does not necessarily take away from his omnipotence as proven before since he can do anything and any task he wants (infinite power) but what he wants and will do is determined by his other nature (perfect justice, mercy, love). Boulder: God can create a boulder as heavy as comprehensibly possible and he would still be able to lift it. On omniscience: No he can not know anything new because he knows everything. Therefore, since God can do anything he wants, he would not want to know anything new since it would go against his nature of omnipresence. Similar to how if you ask the strongest man in the world to open your pickle jar, he would be probably refuse. Not because he does not have the power or the capacity to do so, he just does not want to. On omnipresence: God is everywhere so this question is logically incoherent. Evil: Yes, God could technically create evil depending on the situation. For example, he created hell to punish the wrongdoers. Hell is evil but he created this evil in accordance with his other properties such as perfect justice. R3) Brute method "same logic can be applied to God- we cannot observe God directly, and nor can we find any evidence of any God(s). This is exactly what we would expect if we were living in a universe in which there is no God." There is tons of evidence and arguments for God - Improbable Fine tuning of the universe, Ontology of God, kalam argument, contingency argument, argument from adequation, Personal experiences, etc. To some the fact that there is something rather than nothing is good evidence for God and all they need. To some they will only believe in God if they can see and touch him. No body can agree on what counts as evidence. Atheists are generally less open-minded to the evidence [1] R4) Hitchen's razor This is the same thing as the lack of evidence in Con's third argument. Rebutted above in R3. New arguments : A1) Cosmological argument Premise 1 : Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, whether in the necessity of its existence (necessary) or in an external explanation (contingency). Premise 2 : If the universe has an explanation, it would be an external explanation due to the contingency of the universe Premise 3 : The universe exists C1) The universe has an explanation for its existence (from P1 and P3) C2) The universe's explanation is grounded in a necessary cause due to its contingency (from P2 and P3) Premise 3 is uncontroversial Premise 1 defended : Science ) To reject that everything has an explanation would be to undermine the foundations of science that entail curiosity and finding an explanation for everything. The law of cause and effect perfectly embodies this principle. The law of cause and effect bluntly states that every effect has an explanation in an external cause. This is of course assuming that the object is contingent. However, science agrees that abstract objects like numbers do not really have an explanation and they just are which means that abstract objects are necessary. This is a demonstration by science that everything has its own explanation whether in an external cause (law of cause and effect) or in the necessity of their nature (numbers). Logic and philosophy ) Principle of sufficient reasoning (PSR): a well-accepted principle among ancient and contemporary philosophers alike is that everything has an explanation, cause or reason. To illustrate this, I will provide a scenario. Imagine that you were hiking with a group of friends through the woods and you stumbled across a ball, You would intuitively wonder how it got there? You wonder to yourself why is this ball here? Did a kid throw it here? Did a previous hiker accidentally drop it? You definitely would not just waive it off as being necessary and it must exist there and its explanation is grounded in the necessity of its nature. You would intuitively assume that it must have had a cause or an explanation for being there. This scenario would not change based on the size of the ball or multiplying it by incomprehensible folds to the size of the universe Premise 2 defended : It is commonly held that the universe is contingent for two reasons: it had a beginning and it is changeable. Background : a necessary entity is that which accounts for its own existence. In order to account for your own existence, you would have to be independent of others who will not change you or influence you at any time. Therefore you and your explanation would have to be eternal (no time for anything before it to explain your existence) and mute (no influence from others). a non-necessary entity by contrast is not eternal, had a beginning and can be changed and is contingent. a non-necessary contingent entity does not have an explanation in its own existence and therefore reuires an external explanation. [2] The universe is changeable and is not eternal, and is therefore contingent and reuires an external explanation. I will demonstrate so using science, philosophy and logic. Science) On change : The universe changes all the time. Some stars are born, some die, some explode. Energy is transformed from other forms to heat. The second law of thermodynamics acknowledges this change and states that entropy tends to increase overtime in a close system. If the choas and disorder increases in a system, this is an illustration of change. If the universe changes, it does not have to be that way as in the preceding state, therefore it is contingent and does not have to be "one way" like numbers. On the beginning : Scientists believe that the universe began to exist started expanding fourteen billion years ago. This is confirmed by the big bang which in its classical interpretation states that the universe had a start. [3] Secondly, there is empirical evidence that the universe began expanding such as the CMBR and the redshift of galaxies. The BGV theorem entails that *any* universe that had been expanding over its history has had a space-time beginning (even if there is a multiverse). Moreover, the second law of thermodynamics reveals that the universe can not be eternal because had that been the case, we would have no usable energy by now and the only available form of energy would be only heat. If the universe had a beginning, it is not a necessary entity because its explanation does not exist within it and had to rely on something else to account for its beginning (an external explanation) Logic) On beginning : There is tons of empirical and definitive evidence that the big bang happened. However, assuming that the singularity prior to the big bang was past-eternal raises a few questions. If the singularity of the big bang is past-eternal, then it would have to undergo an infinite past sequence of events (due to being forever in the past) before getting to the big bang meaning that the singularity would never get to the rapid expansion of the big bang due to being eternally stuck in past infinity before getting to the big bang (infinite regress). Implications : The external cause would be have to be independent of nature, the universe and its dimensions since it had to exist before the universe in order to create it. The cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical, etc. (Independence of dimensions) and supernatural (outside of nature).