Convert me

On the prime mover theory. For something to come into existence, something needs to happen. There needs a cause, and somebody who caused it. The cup needs somebody to move it to be moved. I am its prime mover as I am the person who moved it. For the cup to become a cup, it needs to be assembled from plastic or whatever other material and formed so that it becomes a cup. Somebody needs to do this. This somebody would be the prime mover. Similarly, the Universe needed something to cause it to come into existence. This is accepted to be by the explosion of the Big Bang. For the Big Bang to occur, something must have made it to explode. Anything capable of doing such a thing would be considered to be a superior being, thus God. Indeed there is subjective beauty. However, one would agree that we also have objective beauty and order. I seriously doubt there is somebody who believes that an albino looks the same as a normal animal. Therefore, one can assume that, apart from subjective beauty, there is also objective beauty. If there wasn't, then human beings would find it impossible to agree on anything. His next point leaves me confused. How do gravity or thermodynamics explain objective beauty/morality/order? I have never asserted that there aren't non-random processes. I have said that there are also random processes. There are both. The features highlighted can only be obtained by random processes. Love and morality are not physical properties of a person/animal, correct? They are sentiments that they may feel. Therefore, the Universe has properties that are non-physical. Often, love is experienced independent of the mind's wishes. Therefore, these non-physical properties cannot be explained by using the argument that these are epiphenomena in the mental world. I shall not discuss objective morality as I have already discussed it above. The transcendental argument is that logic and science do not exist without God. Logic and science go hand-in-hand with a belief in God. For there to be logic, there must be something that controls that logic. For me to know that jumping from an eight story building shall result in my death without studying physics or observing it happening must mean that there is something telling me it will kill me. The same would go for any other person. We shall call this a collective spirit. This collective spirit is present in every living creature. It tells us what is right and what is wrong. What we should do and what we shouldn't. This would be best explained by God. If this collective spirit did not exist, then science could not exist, as it is heavily built upon logic and reasoning. Without logic, there is no reasoning. The argument my opponent makes about the mind having physical components is the logical (notice the irony (;) approach anybody would make. Therefore, I shall elaborate. I am sure my opponent agrees that a thought, that imagination, is not caused by the brain's physical components. The electrical impulses it produces, yes. But not thoughts and imagination. Not dreams. There is no evidence better than brain damaged people of this. These people can still imagine and make thoughts. They are also able to rationalise. Albeit not as well as you and I, but they are able to. The impulses aren't as efficient in these people because of the external, physical components of the brain. As mentioned previously, the mental world exists because of the physical world. The physical world would hold no meaning without the mental world. The two are just as important as the other. This is also evident by how many people feel "happy" when they do a good deed. They have earned nothing materialistically, rather mentally/spiritually. The person's mind is satisfied, providing evidence of the existence of the mental world. Now that I have answered my opponent's criticisms, I shall move on to new arguments. To deny the existence of God, we would be denying a fact that has been around for over 50,000 years. We would need a great amount of evidence and render the idea of God utterly nonsensical for such a thing to be accepted. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all assert that God intervened in key moments of history. The sheer number of witnesses demonstrate God's existence. The Resurrection of Jesus is also something that demonstrates God's existence. If a being is dead, how can he return to life? Moving on to Hinduism (this section may be larger than previous ones as I am more knowledgeable in Hinduism than other religions), we see countless amounts of evidence: ï¿½ The law of karma and karmic actions. Karma has been proven to work time and time again. How then, if we are to assume that there is no superior judgement, can this occur? How can actions provoke future results? How can an action result in a merit or demerit? ï¿½ Super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrsta, an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result, by themselves should not able to mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. These fruits, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent. Such an agent can be qualified as a superior being, therefore God. ï¿½ Judgement. How can humans judge an action without knowledge of right and wrong? To have knowledge of right and wrong, we must also have something that tells us; this is right. This is wrong. As said before, this is objective morality, and therefore, God. SOURCES: All mentioned previously and; . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)