God Probably Exists

I will begin by attacking my opponent's case and then building my own: 1. The Argument from Evil There are several problems with the so called problem of evil. One is the freewill argument, my opponent supposes this argument and fundamentally drops it claiming irrelevant to natural disasters and disease. Now that he seems to fundamentally accept the freewill argument, I will suppose an argument to deal with other forms of "bad" stuff. The reason is because anything that is perfection is de facto God. God could not have created the world perfectly or without flaw unless the universe would be unto god himself. God is perfection and when creating the universe he created the best universe possible, a God given the three-omni traits could only create the best of all possible worlds. Due to our inability to see all factors or be omnipotent we cannot see that this is the best of all possible world (Dr. Tom Morris once said "epistemology should not dictate metaphysics") but logically we can see that this is the only possible world for if God exists than he could have only created the best of all possible worlds therefore the problem of Evil fails. 2. Evolution in no way interferes with the concept of Judeo-Christian god. Suppose you were on the planet Jupiter, how long would a day be there? 10 hours clearly less than an Earth day. The fact is time is subjective to place and reference point, for example if one has been to school repeatedly it may not seem to be as long as it actually is. Time is relative. The fact is not all Christian's are fundamentalists and many have no quarrel with Evolution myself included. Now assuming evolution occurred refer to point about the best of all possible worlds, if evolution occurred it was because it was the best possible way for everything to occur. It is the only possible way things could occur. 3. Poor Design It seems ridiculous to suppose that the Bible is suggesting the physical appearance of God rather the characteristics of virtuousness that are inherent to his being. The Bible is not suggesting individuals are made to look like an incorporeal being rather that individuals possess inherent qualities that the being represents. 4. He claims two instances so I will address both: Exodus:"God was acting in perfect justice. The Egyptians had selfishly mistreated the Israelites for decades, using people who were created in God's image as their slaves. They had also enforced a barbarous system of infanticide that must have brought untold suffering to the families of Israel. (Pharaoh decreed that every newborn Israeli boy was to be cast alive into the Nile River) The loving God could not remain passive. What did the ancient Egyptians deserve? They deserved to die. People who kill other people's babies deserve to die. Still, God showed them mercy for years, giving them time to repent. Finally He had to act. Love and justice demanded it..... Too many people only see God's judgments in this story. But can you see the incredible mercy of God? Pharaoh could have averted God's final judgment if he had heeded the warning of God's initial, more minor judgments. But he didn't." David Servant Amalakites: The Amalekites attacked the Israelites without apparent provocation (Ex 17:8). "When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind" (Dt 25:17-18). They later attacked Israel during the time of the Judges (Jdg 3:13) and often raided the Israelites' land after they had planted crops, leaving them with nothing (Jdg 6:2-5). God punished the Amalekites by ordering Saul to destroy them (1 Sam 15:2-3) - over 300 years after they had first attacked Israel. During that time, the Amalekites had contact with the Israelites and would have heard about God. They could have repented and changed their ways, but they continued to raid and plunder other cities up to the time of Saul and David (1 Sam 30:1-3). Argument from Reason C.S. Lewis originally makes this argument in Miracles. Standard form of argument is as follows 1. For an assertion to be capable of truth or falsehood it must come from a rational source (see explanation below). No merely physical material or combination of merely physical materials constitutes a rational source. Therefore, no assertion that is true or false can come from a merely physical source. The assertions of human minds are capable of truth or falsehood Conclusion 1: Therefore, human minds are not a merely physical source (see explanation below). (5) A being requires a rational process to assess the truth or falsehood of a claim (hereinafter, to be convinced by argument). (6) Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a rational source. (7) Therefore, considering element two above, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a non-physical (as well as rational) source. (8) Rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality. That is, no arrangement of non-rational materials creates a rational thing. (9) No being that begins to exist can be rational except through reliance, ultimately, on a rational being that did not begin to exist. That is, rationality does not arise spontaneously from out of nothing but only from another rationality. (10) All humans began to exist at some point in time. (11) Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, there must be a necessary and rational being on which their rationality ultimately relies. Conclusion 2: This being we call God.