God exists

Jumping right into the rebuttals. "Now, my opponent is wrong to say that the claim "out of nothing, nothing comes" somehow disproves God. The argument is referring to the beginning of the physical, material universe that had a beginning. As my convention clearly states, God is uncaused and timeless. Therefore, since God has existed for all eternity, God didn't come from anything. So my opponent would do well to stick with the definitions offered, and not create one that supports a straw man fallacy" My adversary seems to be confused as to what I was actually pointing out. If he says infinity is just a concept in your mind, and not something that is actually possible, then God logically cannot be eternal. "As for infinity existing, again context is key. The argument about the impossibility of infinity existing was made in context of our physical universe. God, existing outside our universe would not be included in such an argument" Just curious, how does Pro know this about God? Also, the argument doesn't have anything to do with the laws of the universe. Pro's argument on disproving infinity plain is proof that infinity is logically impossible, in or out of the universe. "As for the "simultaneous causation" argument, I would assert that it is an illogical possibility for the creation of the universe. When I say "out of nothing, nothing comes" the concept of "nothing" not only refers to having no material, but also no potential. So if there was no physical potential for material, this refutes the idea that an atom can cause another as it itself is coming into being. God is a more likely cause because God exists outside of the physical world, and therefore wouldn't be constrained by the rules of the physical world" It simultaneously causes into existence, it doesn't need material for it to occur. Pro hasn't proven that there is absolutely no potential for nothing. There isn't any "nothing" we can observe after all, so we can't prove this. If there was no potential, it would disprove the theory, but simultaneous causation would be the potential. Pro hasn't proven that it's impossible yet. "As for the evidence that objective moral truths existing, I would argue that they are self evident. For example, it's a fact that rape is wrong. Regardless of society's opinion about rape, it is wrong. Even if we lived in a society that believed rape was acceptable behavior, rape would still be wrong. But without God, objective moral facts can't exist. All you would have is opinions, and subjective morality. You really couldn't say that Hitler was wrong to kill six million Jews. All you could say is that it's not right for you. But objective moral truths do exist, so God (the objective law giver) must exist" It really isn't obvious that objective moral values exist. Under the moral view others hold for example, different societies would hold some beliefs to be true. Some other societies may disagree with them, but those are the moral values that they think are true. In other words, it's subjective. "Con claims that since "evil exists", God doesn't exist. But notice something here. The fact that Con admits evil exists is actually indirect evidence for the existence of God. Here's why: First let's talk about what evil IS. I would say that evil is something that has "gone wrong" in the world. But if something has gone wrong, then that implies there is a design for the world, and a design implies a designer. As for Con's premises, I would say they are flawed. They don't follow that God doesn't exist. For Con to show that the premises show that God doesn't exist, Con must show that it's logically impossible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil and/or suffering to exist. Under Christian theism, God can compensate victims of evil either in this life or the next with an infinitely larger amount of justice" This argument simply is not logical at all. I'd already said earlier that we can place pain and suffering in the place of evil, which God wouldn't allow if he's omni-benevolent. The argument that I must show that God cannot possibly have a moral reason for evil existing doesn't follow as well. The definition of omni-benevolent beings simply cannot allow evil, Regardless of whether something good comes out of the suffering. If God was all powerful he'd be able to achieve the greater good without resorting to evil deeds. "Con's second argument claims that in order for God to exist, we would have to need God to explain the mechanics of the universe. But this doesn't follow at all. For example, just because I may now how a mechanism works doesn't mean that no one created the mechanism. I may know how a watch works, but that doesn't mean that a watchmaker doesn't exist" I was saying we don't have a need for a God in order to explain how our universe works; how it came into existence. It'd be like saying we don't have a need for a Y in order to explain X. "Now on to Con's third argument. I want you to notice premise C. As Con implies, if C is true, Then the entire argument collapses. Therefore, since one of Con's premises negates Con's argument, the argument is self refuting" The argument is pointing out that if P would be impossible if there wasn't a God. Yet P is possible, so it's a contradiction. Thanks Pro.