There is no God

You, contradiction, are a worthy opponent--one that I am glad to call a friend, and one that I would love to debate time and time again. I ask that because this is the last round that no new arguments are made. I will do the same. This round is JUST for rebuttals. In this round, I will start off with the very last things that you have said. Ironically, I agree with Pro that the existence of actual infinities are impossible. I even started in my opening argument that actually infintie sets cannot exist because "one yields contradictory answers when applying operations of transfinite arithmetic to them. A prime example of this can be found in the Hilbert's Hotel thought experiment. " As such, I'm not sure what Pro's point is here. He did not respond to my prior counterarguments regarding the infinity of God. The existence of an actual infinites are impossible. You have admitted that. You agree that "One yields contradictory answers when applying the operations of transfinite arithmetic to them"However, you say, I'm not sure what Pro's point is here. He did not respond to my prior counterarguments regarding the infinity of God. The problem is, this is my argument. Let me make this clear1. Infinities cannot exist2. God is infinite3. Therefore, God cannont existGod cannot exist because he is infinite. As you have stated, "An actual infinite yields contradictory answers when applying the operations of transfinite arithmetic to them. " Let us look at a couple rebuttalsRebuttal 1: God exists outside the universeWhy this fails: The universe, by definition, is EVERYTHING! So, God cannot exist outside the universe, because there IS NO OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE! (Emphasis added)Rebuttal 2: God is not infiniteWhy this fails: Well, if God is not infinite, then what makes him God? Someone had to create him. This contradicts the other cosmological argument that I will touch up on later in this debate. Pro argues that "our morals and sense of right and wrong has changed" from the fact that differing cultures seem to have different viewpoints of what is considered moral. My response to this was to simply point out tha this doesn't follow. Two cultures may as a matter of fact have different views on what is moral, but this in no way allows one to conclude that therefore morality itself is relative. It confuses the order of knowing with the order of being. After all, simply because two people or cultures may have a different idea on some issue, doesn't mean that said issue is therefore relative. I agree that it may confuse the order of knowing with the order of being,but why does God have to be the author of morality? Let us look at the objective moral argument one more time.1. If there are objective moral values then God exists. 2. There are objective moral values. 3. Therefore, God exists. There is no ground for the very first point in that argument! Why do objective morals HAVE to exist if God exists? Couldn't we have gotten the objective morals somewhere else? If you can prove that objective morals exist and that objective morals have to exist with God, then that argument stands ground--very strong ground; however, you have failed to provide evidence that the very first point is true. Enough said. The answer is simple, objectivity does not require that everyone know that something is objective. It once again confuses being with knowing. As Frank Beckwith and Gregory Koukl write: "The fact that objective [moral] truth exists does not mean that people's subjective perceptions, prejudices, biases, or faulty theories do not get in the way of it. " I can agree with the fact that objective morals does not require that everyone knows that something is objective. I will allow you to this argument as it is strong and to the point. My final argument is relatively simple. Basically, since relativism leads to conclusions that are wildly counterintuitive, it's best to treat it with an air of skepticism. On relativism, propositions such as "It is wrong to torture babies for fun" and "Tolerance is a virture" are neither true or false. So why should we accept moral relativism when it leads to absurd consequences? The fact is that we all know that torturing babies for any reason is wrong. This is more of a straw-man argument. Why should we accept moral relativism when it leads to absurd consequences? The fact is that society expects you to act a certain way and to behave a certain way. If the only reason that we should follow morals or the laws in different texts is to please a God or to gain his favour, then you're doing it for the wrong reasons. Hopefully Pro will now understand my points better in light of these clarifications. I will now turn to Pro's counterarguments. Thank you for clarifying. I understand your arguments and your viewpoint. According to the first premise, if there are objective moral facts, then these moral facts have their foundation in the nature of God. This is because morality is prescriptive and is expressed to us in the form of statements such as “Do not lie” and “Do not murder. " These statements carry with them a degree of incumbency – that is to say, they communicate commands to us. Both commands and communication, however, can only originate from an intelligent mind. This mind must additionally be a competent authority in order for its commands to be binding on us. Therefore, moral facts require the existence of a supreme legislator who issues these commands to us. You claim that these statements carry with them a degree of incumbency--I agree and allow you to this point. However, you then say that it must only originate from an intelligent mind and later say that it is a supreme legislator (i. e. God. ) I agree with your first point--but does it have to be a "God"? Why can't it be a philosopher or someone else that was a king or a leader over a vast majority of the world? Cosmological KalamityI feel I need to touch a few things with this argument. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. The main point is the fact that earlier, you said that Actual infinities do not exist (i. e. everything has a cause) so what caused God? Think about it. That is all for this debate from my arguments. Final appeal for voters--Why vote pro?1. My opponent never shown why God has to be the first cause2. My opponent never shown why God has to be the author of objective moralities (in fact, that is another debate that we are debating)3. My opponent never provies evidence that God exists.4. My opponent never refutes my claim that actual infinities cannot exist; therefore, everything (including God) has to have a cause