God Exists

I appreciate my opponent's thoughtful and detailed response. Allow me to address Con's arguments under the same headings he used. Non-Cognitivism of Greatness First of all I would like to state that I agree greatness is a subjective property, if God be excluded as the standard. Con correctly states that subjective properties require a standard to properly describe the level of that property. I do not however see the necessity of proving the objectivity of greatness which is external to God. I agree, as Con claims, that attempting to formulate a standard external to God contradicts His transcendence. Certainly if God exists, greatness, being an inherent characteristic of God, could only be measured against God Himself, especially given that all things proceed from Him and are thus subsequent to Him. So I do concede that any standard of greatness must be that which is internal to God, however, Con's claim that either God is not great or God does not exist is an example of the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Even if the premise concerning God's greatness were true, it would not result in the impossibility or even implausibility of God's existence. Essentially all one would be able to state is that one cannot objectively claim that God is "immensely great," but the inability to do so would not in any way negate His existence. Therefore such an argument as Con has presented concerning God's greatness serves no purpose in this debate. Nevertheless, God's greatness is surely a consequent of His existence and status of Creator of all that is. If we considered the greatness, in any aspect, of anything in existence, we would have to concede, given God's existence, that since these things were brought into existence by God, God must of necessity be at least greater than anything in our universe. Since, as Con stated, a standard of greatness internal to God assumes His existence, we must ultimately look beyond potentially subjective characteristic or properties of God for evidence of His existence. To claim that God created all things does not require any standard to determine the veracity of said claim. To claim however that God created all things originally "very good" would require a standard to judge by. We could not ultimately determine the truthfulness of such a claim outside of an absolute, objective standard which of course would of necessity have to be God himself, and as I believe, would be found in His written, inspired and preserved word, the Bible. Therefore I assert that this particular argument posited by Con is unhelpful for the purposes of this debates. Incoherence of a Caused Universe Con's first paragraph defending his claim that the universe cannot have a cause fails to take into account that God, being transcendent, brought time (which is of course relative), and the laws of nature into existence at the time of creation. His argument would only apply to a purely naturalistic universe and "pre-universe," which seemingly refutes the idea that the universe came into existence via purely naturalistic processes. Before the existence of our universe, time is not relevant since God is eternal. So as Con says, we cannot talk about before or after but until the universe begins. Genesis 1:1 states that "In the beginning" (time), "God created the heaven and the earth" (transcendence of the universe). God set time and the laws of nature into motion at the first moment of creation. Concerning Con's argument from eternalism, God can easily be the absolute moving reference point. Con's claims concerning an unchanging "block" universe are arbitrary. I agree with the findings of general and special relativity, but we must remember that time is relative and therefore, being finite beings stuck in a particular "present" if you will, we of course cannot understand the eternalism of God. However Con's argument concerning eternalism again seems to be leaving out the claim of God's transcendence and creation of time itself. Just as Con states that if eternalism is true causation is incoherent, I too can state that if God be the creator of space and time, naturalistic eternalism is incoherent. Again, this argument seems to be unhelpful in determining the existence of God. Argument from Atemporal Minds I agree that God is an atemporal being with a mind, however Con's argument falls apart at his second claim that all minds require processes. Surely minds within and subject to this universe and its laws require time-based processes. God on the other hand is outside of time as Con seems to understand, therefore His mind cannot logically function in the form of time-based processes. This is not to say however that His mind does not function via any kind of process as this would be incoherent. While I do not claim to understand how the processes of God's mind function, scripture is clear that God is omniscient, even knowing the end from the beginning. Therefore, He eternally knows all things: difficult to fathom, but not illogical. Our understanding of the processes of mind from scripture are indeed time-based, but this is not to say that this applies to His thought processes themselves. In either case, I do not see the relevance of this argument to God's existence. Con also seems to be guilty of the fallacy of affirming a disjunct, where disproving non time-dependent processes is claimed to disprove the possibility of an atemporal mind. Since there are so many unknown factors concerning God's thoughts, as His thoughts and ways are far beyond ours, this argument seems to be futile. Law of Parsimony Con's deductive argument is erroneous in that a theist must only assume God as the progenitor of the universe and the laws which govern it. His subjective argument is faulty since greatness and intelligence are inherent to God's character and of course must be at least greater than all that is in the universe. The lack of a quantitative understanding of God's omnipotence does not negate the claim that He is omnipotent, and certainly none of these concerns even remotely negate the possibility of His existence. We must consider also that God's existence as well as His characteristics are not ultimately left to assumption. While they may begin as axioms, as the rest of scripture, when evidence of such is discovered, such claims are no longer axioms but demonstrable realities. As a Christian I believe the ultimate evidence and revelation of God is scripture itself. One can certainly have surety of His existence and characteristics through it by receiving the Holy Spirit through believing the Gospel of Grace. While this is certainly not empirical evidence, it cannot empirically be ruled out. The idea that all things must be proven via empirical methods is itself a philosophical position which cannot be supported by empirical methods. Counter Argument Against Con's Usage of Logic Why should accept Con's argument based on logical constructs (faulty or not), if he has no ultimate and absolute basis for logic itself? If he is a naturalist/materialist, then his thought processes, including those which lead to any philosophical or logical construct, are derivatives of unguided cognitive chemical processes. The recent cover of the April 4-10, 2015 issue of New Scientist magazine reads "Belief: They drive everything we do. But our beliefs are built on…nothing" (http://www.newscientist.com...). This is an amazing statement by a magazine, supposedly dedicated to science, in that it presents its readers with a philosophical conundrum. How can scientists, who must depend on a strict belief in logic and order, make such a statement? To better understand this we should first define "belief." What exactly is belief that it should be held in such derision by a subset of men and women? Merriam Webster defines belief as: A state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing Something believed; especially: a tenet or body of tenets held by a group A conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). According to these definitions all human beings, including all scientists, practice belief in some form or another. Some place their belief in a philosophical system, some in a person, some in money, some in hedonistic enterprises, and some in science; although this particular belief should properly be called by another name—empiricism. But more pertinent to Con's usage of logic, how can we trust his logic if he claims to have no standard for such? It of course must be assumed, and therefore it is one more thing Con must add to his list of axioms whereas I can again point to my single axiom, God, as the author of logic and reason. Conclusion Since scriptural claims concerning God's characteristics or properties are known ultimately through scriptural revelation alone, I would not argue for these things outside of scripture. But scripture does claim that God has made Himself known, at least His existence and powerful position as the Creator God through His created universe. Therefore I have made arguments from creation which are demonstrable and do not require potentially subjective properties as "greatness." Thus far I do not believe Con has made a valid argument against God's existence. I do not mean to come off as bigoted or even unwilling to engage in the details of the arguments presented by Con, but from reading through them I honestly do not see a valid line of argumentation outside of speculation and faulty logical constructs. Con's attempt to use logic is not rooted in trustworthy or objective standards since He rejects an absolute standard and reason for logic which cannot be found apart from God.