It is likely that God exists

I thank my opponent for accepting, I will begin by making arguments for the existence of God, then I will responds to Con's arguments. Argument for the existence of a transcendent being My initial premise is that all physical entities have contingent existence, which is to say that all physical entities are currently existing because of some external circumstance or entity (1). We can inductively verify this premise a posteriori - every single physical thing we have ever observed has contingent exercise. Of course this does not deductively prove that the premise is correct, but as this is an inductive argument, the premises need not be deductive. For example, Q exists because P exists, and P exists because R exists. Due to the contingent nature of physical existence, we can deduce that there is a causal chain between physical entities going back in time. However, this cannot be an infinite chain because an actual infinite cannot exist (2)(I commend this axiom to the voters). Therefore, this chain must have started off at a certain point. As we have established that physical entities exist contingently, a physical entity cannot have initiated the causal chain because it would have a preceding reason for its own existence. Therefore, there must be a non-physical entity to start off the causal chain that has caused the existence of all the physical entities we observe today. The gist of this argument is that a non-physical entity must exist. By definition, this non-physical being is transcendental. I will now argue that this being must hold the other properties I have defined God as having. Argument for the omnipotence of God This argument takes the form: P1: God can be defined as a 'being that which nothing greater can be conceived' P2: We can attempt to conceive of a God that is not omnipotent as well as a God that is omnipotent P3: A God that is omnipotent is greater than a God that is not omnipotent C: A non-omnipotent God is an absurdity This argument may initially appear to be odd, but it is sound if one takes the time to examine it. The definition in P1 is fairly axiomatic, as such a definition is concordant with a theistic understanding of God. P2 is also true a posteriori, as I can personally attempt to conceive of both an omnipotent and a non-omnipotent God. P3 is correct, as potency is a factor that contributes to greatness. The conclusion logically follows from the premises, as if God was non-omnipotent then we could conceive of a being greater than him, which is a logical contradiction and so God cannot be non-omnipotent. As God is not non-omnipotent then he must be omnipotent. Argument for the omniscience of God This takes a very similar line of logic to the omnipotence argument: P1: God can be defined as a 'being that which nothing greater can be conceived' P2: We can attempt to conceive of a God that is not omniscient as well as a God that is omniscient P3: A God that is omniscient is greater than a God that is not omniscient C: A non-omniscient God is an absurdity The very same criteria for proving that God is omnipotent can also be applied to omniscience. Argument for the wholly-good nature of God Again, this uses the same logic to the above two arguments: P1: God can be defined as a 'being that which nothing greater can be conceived' P2: We can attempt to conceive of a God that is not good as well as a God that is good P3: A God that is good is greater than a God that is not good C: A God that is not good is an absurdity These arguments prove the following: 1. A transcendent being exists 2. This being is omnipotent 3. This being is omniscient 4. This being is wholly-good. All these conclusions amount to the final conclusion, that God exists. Now I will respond to my opponent's arguments. Immorality? The issue with biblical evidence is that its veracity is doubted when it makes assertions about God. This is especially the case for the Old Testament. Interestingly, Con asks that I argue by 'hopefully not always referring back to ancient text'. I take this to mean that he does not believe scriptural evidence to be sufficient evidence for arguing that God exists. However, it works both ways, if the Bible is not sufficient evidence to prove that God exists, then it is not sufficient evidence to prove that God does NOT exist. If this was not the case, then the examples of apparent divine immorality should somehow be a lot more reliable than the far more frequent examples of apparent divine morality. As most people dispute the reliability of the Bible as a whole, my opponent cannot use biblical evidence to prove that God is immoral. My opponent goes some way to acknowledge this, when he says: 'Note that there is no evidence to suggest that such an event ever occured, proving both points about God being a wholly-good being as well false events, maybe to the point of disproving god.' But he makes the unwarranted assertion that God does not exist because some of the biblical events were actually false. The reality is that, just because some biblical events did not occur, this does not actually disprove God's existence. For example, there are many myths concerning love (3), but it does not follow that, just because they are myths, that love does not actually exist. It is entirely possible, albeit likely, that people wrote stories and fables about God in order to convey their personal thoughts on God. Taking this into account, just because the Bible contains accounts of God apparently acting immorally, this is insufficient evidence because of the unreliable nature of the Bible. Moreover, the unreliability of the Bible does not do anything do disprove that God exists. Omnipotence My opponent misunderstands the implications of what 'logically impossible' means. He seems to forget the 'logically' part and only focuses on the 'impossible' part. I never denied that God could do the impossible, I deny that God could do the logically impossible. Only actions that are contradictory or paradoxical (such as creating a square circle) are logically impossible (4). Noah's Ark, on the other hand, is not logically impossible. It may be impossible in the sense that it would not have happened naturally, but it is not incoherent to postulate that the animals could have all fitted on a boat and not eaten each other. We do not need to attempt to explain how this occurred, all we need to do is conclude that it is not paradoxical. Again, it is not logically impossible that Jesus walked on water because it is not incoherent to suppose that it could have possible occurred. It may be physically impossible but it is not logically impossible because it does not cause a logical paradox. 'Turning bread into wine' There is no biblical evidence of this happening (5). If it did, I would say yet again that it is not logically impossible, 'Moses splitting the red sea into two?' It is not logically impossible that the sea could split. 'If what is untrue in an all perfect book, what does that say about the actual book itself?' But I never asserted that the bible is perfect. I think it is an interesting book to read and reflect on in context but it should not be taken literally. Atheism My opponent asks why atheism exists if God exists. I will explain... It is good that God would want to have a relationship with people, and so, if God did exist, then he would want to be in a relationship with us. However, a relationship must be freely chosen, otherwise it is not a good relationship. As God is wholly-good, he would not want a relationship that was not freely chosen. Therefore, it is a good thing that God allows us the free-will to chose to be in a relationship with him. But if there is to be a free choice, there logically must be two alternatives. If one is being in a relationship with God, then the other is not being in a relationship with God. The latter is atheism. Consequently, atheism must exist as the necessary consequence of God giving us the free will to chose to be in a relationship with him. It is like going on a date with a women that you love; you want her to love you but you want her to choose to love you freely. If you were a hypnotist then you could hypnotise the woman into loving you, but this would not be a quality relationship because she did not choose to be in it. If God presented undeniable evidence of his existence then it would not be possible to deny God (and therefore not possible to choose to embrace God), as no rational person can deny undeniable evidence. Morality Con asks whether a perfectly moral being would go out of its way to cause chaos and evil, but as this relies on fallible scripture, I will dismiss it as evidence of God behaving in the aforementioned manner. He then asks whether we should get our morals from the Bible. I would answer that the Bible is a useful reference point for morality if it is taken in context and not literally, but it does not have to be the source of ALL our morality. We can still get morality from our conscience, utilitarianism or deontology. All of these sources of morality could be endorsed to some degree by God but are not reliant on belief in God, and so an atheist could act morally. Science? 'As opposed to numerous amounts of physical evidence science has given us that all points towards the direction of evolution, subsequently disproving god.' I would be interested to see why my opponent believes that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://ed.ted.com... (3) http://www.thehellenictimes.com... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) https://www.biblegateway.com...