God is not real

AcceptanceI accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!Burden of ProofThe burden of proof will be shared in this debate, with my opponent defending his claim that "God is not real" and myself defending the claim that God exists (God is real). As the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved, both parties in the debate will be responsible for presenting arguments and evidence in favor of their respective positions. At the end of the debate, the side with the more convincing argument will win. Rebuttal"God is a mythical and superstitious being created by primitive humans to explain natural phenomenon."This is merely an unjustified assertion. You've claimed that God is "mythical and superstitious" without providing the slightest hint of reasoning for thinking this is the case. I can just as easily respond by saying "God is not a mythical and superstitious being"."There is no logical basis for the existence of a God."Are you making the claim that God is logically incoherent? If so, I'd love to hear some justification, as atheists have tried and failed for over a thousand years to come up with an argument to support such a claim. Following my rebuttal, I will provide a logical argument which supports the proposition "God exists"."If there truly was a creator of the cosmos who is outside space and time then there had to be a creator for the creator, if your argument is that God is eternal and has no beginning our end, may I ask how is it that you know this about a being that has no measurable evidence at all?"This is a common misconception. If God exists, then it's evident that He must be transcendent (He must exist outside of space and time in order that He be the creator of space and time). But an entity that exists outside of time needs no beginning (as far as I can see; I invite my opponent to share his thoughts) whereas an entity that exists within time (i.e. the universe) requires a beginning. So, there is no need for a "creator for the creator" as my opponent asserts.As for how I "know" that God has no beginning, I'd say this conclusion can be easily arrived at through a relatively simple process of deduction. As I previously stated, an entity that creates space and time can't possibly exist within space and time. I can conclude from this that God, if He exists, must exist outside of time (and thus have no beginning)."If you only believe or have faith that there is a creator of your thinking then you can just leave it at that, pure belief, nothing else. If you are an academic who is here to present arguments as to why there has to be a god you are welcome to give arguments."A logical argument will be provided following my rebuttal."And please do not bring morality into this. This is another matter entirely."Out of respect for your request, I will not present the moral argument in favor of God's existence. However, it should be noted that by no means is morality "another matter entirely". Morality is by its very nature intertwined with the existence (or nonexistence) of God. I'd be happy to discuss this topic further if requested.The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentIn order to provide evidence in favor of the position that "God exists", I will present the Kalam Cosmological Argument as given by Dr. William Lane Craig. This argument is a deductive logical argument; this means that in order to reject the conclusion (God exists), one must reject at least one of the argument's premises. If both premises are more likely true than false, then it follows logically and necessarily that God exists. P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.Defense of P1:I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.Defense of P2:There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.Now, just what sort of viable candidates are there for a "cause" of the universe? It seems to me that there are two (if my opponent has any suggestions, I invite him to bring them forward): an abstract object (a number, shape, etc.) or an unembodied mind (God). We can then ask ourselves, "What sorts of qualities must a 'cause' of the universe have?" It seems to me that the cause of the universe must be transcendent (this entity must exist outside of space and time), immaterial (this entity cannot have a physical substance as it exists outside of space), beginningless (in order that this entity could have created the universe without an infinite regress), and extremely powerful (after all, it must take some degree of power to bring about a universe). But, clearly, abstract objects don't stand in causal relations (the number 3 can't cause anything). So, we are left with only one viable candidate for the cause of our universe: God.Due to character limitations, I only have room to present one argument in favor of God's existence. Upon my opponent's request, I'd be happy to provide additional arguments in a later round.SummaryIn order to win this debate, my opponent must (1) refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument by showing at least one of its premises to be false and (2) provide at least one sound argument in support of his own claim that "God is not real". If my opponent fails to accomplish both (1) and (2), then it seems to me that we can reasonably conclude that God exists.Thank you.Sourceshttp://now.tufts.edu...http://www.reasonablefaith.org...