The existence of God conflicts with science.

Con’s C1: God is necessary for science Con says God is necessary for science because science depends on absolute truth. Which only the theist can account for. However, truth can be from the nature of something. The very nature of existence contains logic , like existence = existence, it’s not existence and nonexistence at the same time, ect. This is the basis of absolute truth. It can easily be accounted for on an atheistic worldview. However Con just asserts God is the the creator of truth. He does nothing to demonstrate that, making his case a bare assertion fallacy. Con’s C2: Science as a criterion for God This isn’t a contention at all. It’s a rebuttal to an argument I never made. It doesn’t matter if science doesn’t need to prove God to convince someone or if there is no scientific evidence in support of God. All that matters is if scientific evidence contradicts God. For example, many people think homeopathy works. It isn’t necessary for someone to be convinced scientifically that it does, nor has science proven homeopathy works. This doesn’t mean homeopathy doesn’t contradict current scientific evidence. Con’s entire C2 is an irrelevant straw man fallacy. The Universe Never Began Con’s first rebuttal is an absolute strawman. I never made the argument that God cannot be free and omniscient. Nothing I said suggested it either. His only other argument is that something can be created, but not begin. Christian Philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig disagrees. “On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived." [1] He has also said “[On a B theory of time] There is in the actual world no state of affairs of God existing alone without the space-time universe. God never really brings the universe into being; as a whole it co-exists timelessly with Him.” [2] So, I would negate premise 4 as being incoherent. The definition of creating is Bring (something) into existence: [3] So Con is saying the universe didn’t begin, but it was brought into existence. Nothing is ontologically created on the B theory of time either, otherwise “(ii) t is the first time at which e exists” would be true. However, all I have to do is cite Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The bible itself says things begin. Furthermore, time dilation would show the past exists. Because to a future clock in space, the clocks on earth are in the past. The Bible is Wrong Con here says the bible is just making an observation of what happened. However, Con would have to reject the bible. 1 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” If the bible speaks in an untrue observational matter, then it’s not useful for teaching. Furthermore my other verse is ignored. Habakkuk 3:11 states "The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear." The sun doesn’t live in the sky, it lives in space. Con’s rebuttal is an ad hoc moving goal post fallacy. No matter what scientific error is brought up, Con could use the exact same excuse. If the bible said “The moon is made of cheese” he could say it was just an observation. Your argument of long day stories would only work if you show the all originated from the exact same time period. I couldn’t find a date on either of the stories Con talked about. Although he claims all of these other religions claim it just happened. This is false. The Maori say a man named Maui stopped the sun [5]. He directly contradicts himself, because he says why the Greek story has the sun stop, although I couldn’t find the day slowing in the story of the greek Phaethon [6]. Furthermore, how would all of these sun stopping commands just happen to correlate with everyone stopping the sun at once? Why assume the biblical God did this and not the gods or people of other cultures? Con’s first argument is refuted. His second argument is irrelevant. His rebuttal to my argument is based on misunderstandings and his rebuttal against my second is full of ad hocs. My arguments remain standing. [1]Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology pp 183-184 [2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [4] http://www.gotquestions.org... [5] http://www.deeknow.com... [6] http://www.theoi.com...