God does exist

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. Although you've probably already seen a gazillion debates on the existence of God, maybe, just maybe, something will come up in this one that you haven't seen before, and just maybe it'll have some influence on your belief, or at least it will pique your curiosity enough to do a little more searching.Let's get right to it, shall we?1. The ontological argumentThis argument hinges on the premise that there is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated (i.e. it's possible that a maximally great being exists). Since maximal greatness is defined as having maximal excellence in all possible worlds, and since the actual world is a possible world, it follows that a maximally great being exists in the actual world.The problem is that there's no way to know if that premise is true. In fact, if you begin with a different premise, you end up with the opposite conclusion. You could say, "There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is not instantiated," which would result in there being no maximally great being in any possible world, including the actual world.Alvin Plantinga himself, who came up with this argument, said, "But obviously this isn't a proof; no one who didn't already accept the conclusion, would accept the first premise."[1]2. The moral argumentThe moral argument depends on a premise that is neither analytically true nor provable--that morality is objective and absolute. It may be that we percieve morality as if it were objective and absolute, but there's no way to verify that our perceptions correspond to reality. Iit's at least possible that morality is all in our heads. Since objective morality has no epistemological grounding, we are within our epistemic rights in doubting it. Pro must give us an argument for objective morality before the moral argument will go through. Since he hasn't done that yet, the moral argument does not show us that God exists.3. The Christological argumentIt is curious that Pro offers this section in his debate on the existence of God, but he never explains how the resurrection (if it hapened) proves the existence of God.3a. the empty tombMy opponent gives three arguments for why we should believe the tomb was empty.J - Jermusalem factorThis argument is horribly weak because according to Acts, the disciples didn't start preaching until 40 days after Jesus' death. If Jesus' body was still around by then, surely it would've been unrecognizable because of decay. So nobody would've been able to use the body of Jesus to disprove the resurrection.E - Enemy testimonyThe earliest account of Christianity's opposition admitting to the empty tomb comes in Matthew, which by most accounts was written in the 80's, a full 50 years after Jesus' death. Matthew's community was unlikely to have been in Judea (much less Jerusalem) since it was composed after the Jewish war.[2] Matthew's neighbors could not have known whether the tomb was empty or not. They probably just took the Christians' word for the tomb being empty and attempted to explain it away. That's often how people react to things like that. For example, if a Mormon missionary came to your house and said, "Joseph Smith was an uneducated man who completed the entire Book of Mormon in just 90 days, which proves that he had devine help," your first reaction wouldn't be to doubt that he was uneducated or that he completed the BOM in 90 days. You'd probably grant that and come up with some other explanation, like maybe an example of sombody else doing something similar without devine help.T - Testimony of womenThis argument is irrelevent since neither the gospels, nor the apostles in acts, nor any of the epistles use the testimony of women to prove the empty tomb. The women finding the tomb empty was just part of the narrative. It wasn't part of a proof of the empty tomb. In all accounts, you have men verifying that the tomb was empty.The tomb may have been empty, but so far Pro hasn't given a particularly strong argument in favor of it. There are at least a couple of reasons to be doubtful, though.First, in the earliest records we have of the death and resurrection of Jesus (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15), there is no mention of an empty tomb. Paul gives appearance traditions, showing a desire to prove the resurrection. We'd expect him to appeal to the empty tomb, too, if such were known.Second, it would've been unusual for anybody who was crucified to have been put in a tomb in the first place. The usual practice would've been to throw the dead body in a common grave with all the other criminals where it would've been decomposed or eaten by scavengers.[3]3b. The Transformation of the Disciples and the Emergence of the Christian FaithPro explains that the disciples did not expect the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus since the messiah was supposed to "triumphantly defeat the Romans and deliver the kingdom of God to the nation of Israel." Since Jesus didn't do that, we need an explanation for why they were later willing to die for their beliefs, change their day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, and worship Jesus even though Jews were monotheists. The reason for all this, according to my opponent, is that "something happened on that first Easter morning," presumably the resurrection.The gospels report that Jesus told them he would die and be resurrected (Matthew 16:21). They may not have been able to wrap their minds around that, but after Jesus was crucified, surely they remembered what Jesus said. That alone ought to have made them wonder if Jesus might rise from the dead, too. At the very least, it would've given them the idea that they could keep the movement alive by claiming Jesus did rise from the dead.The evidence we have of their martyrdom comes too late to be historically reliable. Most of it comes from the third century or later. We really don't know what happened to most of the apostles since all the earliest records are silent on the matter. The only good evidence we have of any of them dying for their faith is the martyrdoms of Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. But if Josephus is to be believed, James wasn't arrested and tried where he would've had the opportunity to repent. Rather, he was killed by a mob. Joseph Smith was killed by a mob, too. Surely my opponent doesn't think Joseph Smith was telling the truth about the Book of Mormon just because he was killed by a mob. Peter, on the other hand, was crucified, but we don't know whether he had any trial or was given any opportunity to repent, so his death doesn't tell us anything about the strength of his convictions.Pro's claim that the early Christians changed their day of worship from Saturday to Sunday is false. In the beginning, Jews who had converted to Christianity continued to go to synogogue on Saturday, which is evident throughout the first 13 chapters of Acts as well as in Jesus' prediction that they would be flogged in the synogogues (Matthew 10:17) and kicked out (John 16:2). Christians gathered on Sunday in addition to Saturday. The change from Saturday worship to Sunday worship was gradual, so clearly the change from Saturday to Sunday had nothing to do with the resurrection.The worship of Jesus only shows that the Christians believed the story. It doesn't tell us anything about why they believed it.So far, I've only rebutted Pro's case for the resurrection. I haven't made an argument against the resurrection. I'll do that in the next round if I have space, but since Pro has the burden of proof in this debate, I don't have to do that.ConclusionThere you have it. Three arguments for God all rebutted. [1] Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, p. 112[2] Kenneth G. C. Newport, "Gospel of Matthew," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume IV, p. 624 [3] John Dominic Cross, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 153