God Probably Exists

And now the final round has arrived. I will again start by quoting my opponent and then responding to it directly underneath the quote. "Firstly, Craig justifies this premise by intuition, "out of nothing, nothing comes". But this justification is a logical fallacy; the appeal to intuition [1]. There"s no reason to believe that human intuition would work outside the universe, a place lacking space and time." First let us define intuition (not a resolutional definition). An intuition is "the faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Knowing that something doesn't come from nothing is not an intuition. It is something we know based off of our observations of the universe. Everything we think of in the universe has a cause. To say that the universe is the exception is committing the taxicab fallacy. What you are doing is assuming a certain system of thought in an attempt to make a particular point but then you leap out of the system of thought when it suits you. You can't do this. There is also the fact that science supports that the universe has a cause. The standard Big Bang theory even indicates that the universe had a beginning. This is a fact that you can't get away from. As for it being impossible for something to come from nothing...that rule applies with or without the universe. It is logically impossible that the universe could come from nothing. Why? Because nothing is nothing. Nothingness cannot be the explanation for anything... "The cause of the universe could not exist within the universe because the universe would have to exist for that to happen, but since this is prior to its existence (its causation), it must exist outside the universe." Sure. So God existed outside of the Universe when he created it. I don't really see your point here. Your point only establishes that nothing in the universe created the universe. "But without the universe, there is no time." Right...so the cause of the universe would have to be eternal. "Our entire comprehension of cause-effect relationships assume that time exists, and is flowing. Thus, it is impossible for us to comprehend this level of causation, and foolish to invoke it. Therefore, there is no ground on which to adduce causation." Well, since science supports that the universe had a beginning, it is completely logical to say that the universe had a cause. Not completely understanding the cause does not mean there is no need for an explanation. So your reasoning here is fallacious. "Premise 2) The universe began to exist. This is directly negated by my Eternalism argument. Thus, if Pro fails to disprove Eternalism, he loses this premise, and thus loses the entire argument. " Well, I think I did a pretty good job refuting that argument. Modern science presents strong evidence of the theory (as I have already provided). "Truth can be defined as universal if it is valid in all times and places [4]. Thus, Pro"s example of 1+1=2 would still be true regardless of whether a universal mind exists or not. Therefore premise c) does not necessitate d) true, and does not prove the existence of God." Okay...let us take a look at the truth argument again. a. Truth is a statement that agrees with reality. Or in other words, truths make statements about what is real. For example, if I were to say that Obama is currently the President of the United States, I would be making a statement that agrees with reality. b. Truth requires a mind. Sine truths are statements...and because statements are made by a mind, then it follows that truth requires a mind. c. There are universal truths. 1+1 will always equal 2 no matter who is aware of this fact. d. Therefore it follows that there must be a universal mind (God). My opponent claims that 1+1=2 would be a universal truth. I am okay with that, I did after-all say that first. But then he goes on to say that premise c does not necessitate true but this is problematic for my opponent since he just admitted that universal truth exists. But he also says that the universal truth would still be true whether a universal mind existed or not. But this is merely a case where my opponent has misunderstood the argument. Since all truths are statements about reality and because all truths require minds (opponent has made no objection to either of these)...therefore universal truths also require a universal mind. Someone had to make those universal truth statements and they had to come from someone that completely understands and knows all truth. Therefore it can't be a human being since we don't know all true. Therefore it must be a universal mind. But since my opponent has no problem with the first two premises, then it logically follows that since all truths require a mind, that universal truths also come from a universal mind. "The Axiological Argument My response to this argument is based off the counter-argument proposed by Plato in "Euthypro". The argument can be summed up as follows [3]." This is the second time someone has used this argument on me. And I always get excited when they do because it seems like an impossible trap for the theist. "If the argument is true, then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God." Your argument fails at the very first premise. But the answer to the euthyphro dilemma is that something is good because God is by nature good. And this makes sense considering that the creator of this perfect objective moral law would have to be perfectly good. Why? Because the creation of a designer reflects characteristics of the creator. This perfect moral law had to be created by a flawless and moral being. After-all, you can't get perfection from an imperfect being. "Defense of 2 & 3) If (i) is true, it would mean that they must be morally good prior to God commanding them, or else God would not will them. If these facts are morally good prior to God commanding them, then they are independent from God. Thus, God is not needed for objective morals to exist (they are not dependent on them as the Pro"s argument holds)." Moral truths are not good prior to God. God is perfectly moral and this is the reason why he is the ultimate authority on what is right and wrong. "Defense of 5 & 6) If the argument is true, all morality depends on God"s decision what to command. Thus, God"s decision on what to command can not be informed by morality. If morally good acts are morally good because they are commanded by God, then they must be commanded by God before they are morally good. It must be that God makes his decision what to command in a moral vacuum [4]." Nope. Again, God is good by nature which allows him to objectively know what is right and wrong. "This means that any decision God makes on morality has just as much validity on as any other, and there is no reason to follow God"s command over any other." No. God is perfectly moral and this makes him the ultimate judge of what is moral/immoral. I thank my opponent for a good debate. According to the rules I must waive my final round so I ask my opponent to make sure he only defends his case in round four since that is what the rules say.