God exists

Thank you Con for your reasons you believe make my argument false and Id like to show the misunderstandings and twisted logic behind your attack on my arguments for the existence of God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Your first objection is due to a clear misunderstanding and arguing about an entirely different premise. This premise simply affirms that anything that comes into existence has a cause for its existence. And here Con refutes this by saying that things don't come into existence in our universe but are already were here but this is already flawed because the first premise says nothing about our universe but simply states that if anything were to begin to exist then it has a cause and here Con is attacking the second premise of the universe beginning from entirely nothing which I will happily solidify that point next but after reading this refute against the first premise I see no actual reason to not believe in this first premise. Because my point pretty much is that I believe it is impossible for objects that BEGIN to exist have to have a cause and that objects do not merely pop into existence out of nothing but IF an object begins to exist then it has a cause. I am not talking about the universe beginning but am talking about something much simpler about all objects that the Con I confidently claim cannot refute and he is refuting the second premise and not the first which is logically sound. And Con is very, very wrong about claiming that an actual infinity of things has no possible self-contradictions. An actual infinity of things is very flawed and is not an actual possibility but only in our minds. David Hilbert, the great German mathematician gives a good statement for my position of an possibility of an infinite series of causes: "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought...The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy in our universe constantly increases. And the law of entropy entails that over time the usable energy of our universe constantly decreases as energy is constantly converted into non-usable heat energy so if our universe were to go back for infinity and not have a beginning then technically since its an infinity by this point of the present we would have run out of usable energy by now considering you could go infinitely into the past. But this is something which we do not find to be true today. In reality an infinite universe is not possible. And if you look at his refute of bringing up the A theory and B theory of time to dismiss the kalam cosmological argument then I perceive his argument here against my argument as blasphemy in the fact that I may have not provided evidence for a certain theory of time but he has not provided any reason to believe in the B theory of time. And since none of us have given any reason to believe in A theory or B theory of time we are left with my kalam cosmological argument versus no cosmological argument for atheism so I still have the upper hand when it comes to explaining why there is something rather than nothing. Then he goes on about how the multiverse could ultimately replace the need of a God to cause our universe and he later uses this multiverse theory to refute my fine-tuning argument for God. But yet again atheist always talk about how they want evidence why God exists when there are many instances where an atheist is devout of evidence for claims he is forced to make. The multiverse is to me there last big attempt and trying to dismantle the powerful fine-tuning argument and kalam cosmological argument. But the fact of the matter is that Con has given us not one reason to believe in the multiverse and it is merely a theory and he has given us no evidence to believe in this theory. Also it is kind of amusing to me how if the multiverse theory were true there would be a permutation where God exists and moreover a permutation where a God exists who created a fine tuned universe and thus, we have came full circle logically back to the conclusion that God exists.His use of the multiverse theory to disprove God is futile. And then he finishes his full objection to my cosmological argument by arguing that it doesn't support theism but at best deism when really the Kalam Cosmological argument would entail a personal God who cares about us and that is true because a God who created us would have a purpose for us so already the fact that he would have created us gives us reason to know that this kalam cosmological argument supports theism rather than Deism. His attacks on this argument are filled with his own lack of evidence for his objections and I hope you were able to be shown why his objections to the kalam cosmological argument were false and not grounded in evidence which atheist so vigorously support referring to. Because he asked me of evidence when he had none of it himself to believe God does not exist. Firstly, I expected that the audience of the debate would be educated about the definition of objective moral values and I apologize for forgetting to give a thorough definition of what objective moral values are. Objective moral values are certain morals or values which you adhere to which are not affected by society and in any society the Holocaust would be evil even if they raised kids teaching them about how great the Holocaust was then if there was objective moral values then the Holocaust would still be morally bad in every society. And then when he proposes that my claim about objective moral values existing is not true he is making a grave mistake because he hasn't told me as to why there is not objective moral values and my question to the audience about the Holocaust is an argument because I think we can all agree upon the same answer that the Holocaust is evil and I simply used that as a rhetorical question for effect but I went on to explain how objective moral values exist despite the objections of socio-relativism so my moral argument still remains untouched. Then he goes on to criticize my fine tuning argument by proposing yet again the multiverse theory as his only defense which I shown should be taken with as grain of salt considering the lack of evidence supporting it that he laid out. And he tries to say that I only am complaining about the implications of atheism when really I'm making a strong case for my claim at the start of the debate which is that I believe that theism is more reasonable or probable to believe in rather than atheism and the fine tuning argument gives you a clear idea of the chances and the probability of how such complex biological life could come randomly into existence through chance (1 in 10^250) and It gives tremendous support for the probability of intelligent design. Cons objections to my arguments were merely a collection of misunderstandings and false objections without evidence and my arguments for God remain strong reasons with sound logic on why theism is still and always the more reasonable option than atheism. On the bottom of the page and in the comments section I site links to great videos if you want a some further yet brief and clear info on the 3 arguments for God I presented also. Sources: 1.http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu... 2.David Hilbert "On the Infinite" 1964, pg. 141 3.http://www.truefreethinker.com... Argument Overviews: http://www.reasonablefaith.org... http://www.reasonablefaith.org... http://www.reasonablefaith.org...