God exists

"As for Con's "simultaneous causation" argument, my opponent asserts that non-existent atoms can cause other non-existent atoms. But this is not how atoms act. I challenge Con to give us one example of this happening in nature. Point us to the empirical evidence. Without this, I am sure Con will understand if we reject such unsubstantiated, unscientific claims" I was asking why we should accept God over simultaneous causation as a cause of the universe. I don't need to prove simultaneous causation in order to ask why we should accept God over simultaneous causation. We don't have an example of God creating something, yet that by itself doesn't disprove God. Further, voters should note that Pro gives absolutely no evidence of his claim that this is impossible. "Now concerning the existence of moral truths existing, I would simply point to Con's own words: "Evil exists"" I actually said in the argument that we can replace evil with pain and suffering, then I also clarified in the last round and pointed out that I was stating that if God exists. evil exists, yet that's a contradiction. Pro is twisting my words in this. Further, "My opponent claims that the existence of suffering is somehow inferior to a scenario without suffering, but offers no evidence to support such a claim" I never made this claim actually, Con is twisting my words again. I was pointing out that an omni-benevolent God wouldn't allow pain and suffering at all because he's completely good. Omni-benevolence mean that one is kind and generous towards everyone and everything. [1] Yet if we look at examples of evil happening in our world, wouldn't that contradict with God being "Kind and generous?" We can look at for example. Her father kept her locked in a dungeon for over 25 years, raped her constantly, and the children from the rapes were often forced to see this. [2] Can you imagine the pain she must have felt? How much she begged God for an escape route? You can't erase this from happening. Many people who have lost a family member, been raped, or even lost a limb point out that even though justice in the courtroom may have been served, they still lost something dear to them. This contradicts with God being completely kind to everyone. Pro makes no attempt to refute my counter rebuttal to point 3. "I want everyone to notice that at this point of our debate, Con has not even attempted to refute my first contention: There are no good reasons to believe atheism is true" This is downright false. I've given the problem of evil for example, which showed that the God we're discussing contradicts itself. That would be a good reason to think that atheism is true. He then goes to make a case about that, which I've already proven to be false. So let's look at what's happened in the debate: Pro's arguments were concerning objective moral values, and saying that God must exist because the only cause of the universe could have been God. With the moral values argument, I've pointed out that we don't have a need for a God in order to have objective moral values, and Pro failed to prove the existence of them. He did attempt to twist my words and claim that I agreed that they exist. However, even if we do assume that they exist, it doesn't prove that God is real as Pro gives literally no logic on why we need a God for them to exist, he merely claims it to be so. With the cosmological argument, when I asked why simultaneous causation couldn't have been the cause he merely concluded that it couldn't have been the cause with no evidence other than that we haven't seen simultaneous causation before. But this argument doesn't follow, as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. With Pro's logic God would be false because there's no cases where we have seen this happening. Just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Further, even if we assumed simultaneous causation is impossible, the claim that the universe must have had a cause, therefore God exists, fails. Pro needs to show evidence that the premise "If the universe had a cause, it was God" is true. As he hasn't done that, his cause falls apart. I didn't even need to provide any arguments as the BOP was on Pro but I did, and I also succeeded in disproving Pro's contentions. Pro fails at proving God, meaning the BOP has not been fulfilled. I also want you to notice that Pro, other than saying where his arguments came from, has not used a source to support his arguments, while I have used several in this debate to support my arguments. This is a clear choice folks. Thank you, make good choices. [1] http://www.collinsdictionary.com... [2] http://www.crimelibrary.com...