God Exists

In my response, I shall point out several problems with his opening statement. "I'd also like to mention that my opponent has the wrong definition for God. " My opponent did not offer any reasoning for this assertion, he simply asserted his definition as valid without showing why mine is false. While the dictionary may define God in the way that my opponent does, leading texts on philosophical theology and the philosophy of religion do not. [1] But this is irrelevant, as I am defending an Anselmian conception of God, one that defines him as the greatest possible being. Thus, my opponent's definition of God does not matter, because it does not accurately describe the type of God that I am defending. Hence, my opponent must use my definition of God if he is to refute my arguments, otherwise he will be attacking straw men. To reiterate, if my opponent wants to refute my arguments, he cannot set up his own definition of God and precede to attack it (This would be a strawman argument). He must attack the concept of God that I am defending. "why does God have to be the uncaused cause? Why can't the Big Bang or the universe itself be the uncaused cause instead? " This attacks at premise two of my argument (The universe began to exist). In my OP, I gave several arguments for the beginning of the universe, which my opponent seems to have neglected. Though my opponent did respond (Inadequately, as we shall see) to my thermodynamics arguments, he completely ignored my argument from contemporary big bang cosmology. As such, premise two (The universe began to exist) still stands. "I don't believe everything came from nothing, and neither does any other atheist. " I never claimed that my opponent believed that everything came from nothing, merely that premise (1) is true on the basis that nothing does not come from something (ex nihil, nihil fit). "Another possibility is that the matter and energy of the universe always existed. You cite laws of physics such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics to back up your claims. Then you must also believe the Law of Conservation stating that matter can not be created or destroyed. According to this law, matter and energy could not be created by 'God,' nor could there be a point in time when there was no matter or energy. " My opponent misunderstands the nature of scientific laws. Scientific laws such as the first law of thermodynamics are not necessary truths, they are contingent. While it may be physically impossible for matter to be created or destroyed, there is no problem in affirming that God created matter ex nihilo. God is not bound by physical and contingent laws, he is free to supersede them at his will. It is true that according to the first law of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed. But this is a scientific law that God is not subject to. These laws do not apply to the origin of the universe itself, as relativity theory predicts that the laws of nature break down in the initial singularity. "This claim that the universe should have attained maximum entropy is not necessarily true, since it is unknown whether the universe itself is a closed system. Your claim that the universe began to exist violates the Law of Conservation, as I mentioned earlier. " Because he is an atheist, my opponent must believe that the universe is a closed system. If, however, he wishes to posit a multiverse theory or something akin to that, then he shoulders the burden of proof for demonstrating the existence of multiverses. According to Ockham's razor, we may shave away excess universes because they are entities that are multiplied beyond necessity. Moreover, according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, any universe that is in the state of a cosmic expansion must have an absolute beginning. " Why? Isn't the cosmological argument an argument based on the fact that things need to have a cause to exist? Why is God immune to this problem? The answer is because you want God to be the exception in the argument. Because you know that the argument would fall apart if you didn't decide that God was an exception to the cause argument, since there would be an infinite amount of causes. " My opponent misunderstands the argument I have given. I did not state that things need a cause to exist. According to premise one of my argument only things that begin to exist need a cause. God, since he did not begin to exist, does not need a cause. Moreover, my opponent simply ignores my argument and insists that his objection is valid. Since no valid counter-argument has been given, this argument still stands. I shall repeat my initial argument: It follows analytically from the very concept of God that he does not need a cause. For remember that the definition of God that I gave in the beginning is "a being who possesses the greatest possible array of compossible great making properties. " Since God is the greatest possible being, it follows that there is nothing that is greater than him (For THAT would be God). This entails that since that there is nothing greater than him, there exists no being that can cause him to exist. Hence, the very concept of God precludes his being caused. "and in another section he claims God has existed forever. " My opponent attacks a strawman, nowhere did I claim that God has existed for an infinite period of time. I believe instead that God is omnitemporal (Timeless sans creation, but temporal with creation). I conclude that my opponent has not adequately responded to my arguments. ___ SOURCES [1] See Thomas V. Morris, "Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology, Charles Taliaferro, "Philosophy of Religion", JP Moreland and William Lane Craig, "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview", Paul Copan, "Loving Wisdom: Christian Philosophy of Religion", Michael Murray and Michael Rea, "Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion