Existence of God

In order for my opponent to win this debate he must tear down the three arguments that I have erected for theism while then creating his own case for atheism. Problem of Evil My opponent thus far has illustrated a single argument titled the Problem of Evil. As I stated in my refutation of this argument it is logically possible that God has a moral reason for allowing evil. It is incredibly arrogant to assume that we have know to know the reason for it to exist. Allow me to give an analogy, if a father takes a sick child to the doctor to receive a large shot of medicine the child may see this act as an evil one. Although he may not understand the reason it is a valid reason. The reason itself is not dependent on the child's awareness or understanding. Cosmological Argument My opponent makes a blatant contention with no evidence of an argument. He/she states that I must prove that there must be a cause for anything that has a beginning. This, however, is a basic principal of causality. It is the onus of my opponent to prove or at least provide an example of something that began to exist that does not have a cause. I believe that my opponent will fail to do so. Teleological Argument My opponent provided the example of evolution to prove that life can occur out of chance occurrences. However, my opponent fails to understand the gravity (pun unintended) of these constants. The universe itself would become desolate, unable to support stars or planets in any way. For instance, were α (the strength of the electromagnetic interaction) to change by 4%, stellar fusion would not produce carbon, so that carbon-based life would be impossible. If α were > 0.1, stellar fusion would be impossible and no place in the universe would be warm enough for life. ^2 I fear I did not express the vanishingly small possibility of these constants falling as they do. The number of seconds in the history of the universe is about 10 to the 18th power. The number of sub-atomic particles in the entire universe is about 10 to the 80th power. Now with those numbers in mind, consider the following: Donald Page, one of America's eminent cosmologists, has calculated the odds of our universe existing as being one chance out of 10 to the power of 10 to the 124th power, a number which is so inconceivable that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement! ^1 Unless and until my opponent can provide an explanation for these chances occurring the third explanation, design, is far more likely. Objective Morality My opponent appears to have made no specific contention to this final argument. For this argument to be invalid my opponent must prove that either (1) Without God, objective morality can still exist, or, (2) Objective morality does not exist. I'd like to point out that my opponent's argument appear to be fallacious. The fallacy is known as the argument from personal incredulity. The argument is laid out as: (1) I can't see how these arguments are valid (2) Therefore these arguments are invalid In order for my opponent to win this argument he must not only STATE that the arguments are invalid but show WHY the arguments are invalid. My opponent's only logical contention "post hoc ergo procter hoc" does not apply to any of the arguments I have laid out. Each of my arguments are known as "deductive arguments". They are not reliant on the linking of causal variables. Such a contention applies more towards "inductive arguments" which focus on the linking of a single event and arguing up towards the conclusion. ^1 Donald Page, cited in L. Stafford Betty and Bruce Cordell, "God and Modern Science: New Life for the Teleological Argument," International Philosophical Quarterly 27 (1987): 416. Betty and Cordell actually get the number too small. ^2 D. Barrow (2001). "Cosmology, Life, and the Anthropic Principle". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 950 (1): 139–153. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb02133.x.