God does exist

At the end of his last post, Pro observed that I had not "proven atheism." I can only assume that I have not proven strong atheism, which is the view that no gods exist. It wouldn't make any sense to say that I had not proven weak atheism, which is just a lack of belief in gods, since in that case there would be nothing for me to prove. If he meant strong atheism, then he's right. I haven't even attempted to prove strong atheism. But he is Pro in a debate on the existence of God that he initiated, and he did not stipulate at the beginning that I would have to share the burden of proof or prove the opposite of what he's trying to prove. So I don't have any burden in this debate other than to offer rebuttals to his arguments. The burden is on him to show that God's exists. It's not on me to show that he doesn't.The ontological argumentThe soundness of the ontological argument depends on which of these two premises are true:1. It is possible that a maximally great being [MGB] exists.or2. It is possible that a MGB does not exist.If 1 is true, then a MGB necessarily exists. If 2 is true, then a MGB necessarily does not exist. The ontological argument does not prove that God exists unless you can show that 1 is true and 2 is false.Pro gives three reasons to think 1 is true:I haven't shown it's impossible.Well, Pro hasn't shown that 2 is impossible either, so by his reasoning, 2 is true, which means God does not exist.Since we don't have all knowledge, we have to say it's possible.By that reasoning, we have to also say that 2 is possible, which means God does not exist.An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being is not logically incoherent.By that reasoning, 2 is true because the non-existence of such a being isn't logically incoherent either.So far every reason Pro has given to think 1 is true equally applies to 2, which means that none of these reasons are sufficient to make us prefer 1 over 2. They still seem equal, which means the ontological argument fails.Pro attempts to show that 2 is false with two arguments:2 is "not necessarily true and cannot be."Well, he hasn't shown that 1 is necessarily true either, nor that 2 "cannot be." So this argument fails.His next argument is a cut and paste job from wikipedia. I don't totally understand what the argument is because I don't know what is meant by "reversing its opposite," "leads back to inversion," or "reverses a human being." But I do understand that he's basically saying the argument doesn't work in reverse and that it doesn't follow from 2 that a MGB doesn't exist. And he appears to be basing that on the fact that since a MGB isn't logically incoherent, then it's non-existence isn't true. But that's a question-begging argument. He's basically denying 2 on the basis that 1 is true, and I already addressed that above.If a MGB exists in any possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds. So if there is a possible world in which a MGB doesn't exist, then a MGB doesn't exist in any possible world. So the non-existence of a MGB does follow from 2.Moral argumentPro thinks Mat Slick's questions "take down the idea morality is not objective," but a question is not an argument. What we need is an argument. If he can turn these questions into arguments, then I'll have something to respond to.He also offers 5 pieces of evidence that objective morals exist (another cut and paste job).1.Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of morality. In addition, there exist in all cultures truly altruistic acts which lead to no personal or genetic benefit.To be objectively true means to be true independently of human opinion. But here, he seems to think the objectivity of morality depends on human opinion, so he is confused. If all people liked ice cream, it would still be a subjective preference.2.The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists.This is an ad hominem fallacy. It doesn't follow that because people who deny objective morals are inconsistent that therefore their point of view is wrong.3.There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.And it is up to Pro to demonstrate that this intuition corresponds to reality and is not just in our heads. Truth is not arrived at by counting noses.4.The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.This is the fallacy of argument ad populum. Something isn't true just because most philosophers say so. Most philosophers deny the existence of God, too.[1]5.Many naturalists (like Sam Harris or Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world"People believe all kinds of silly things. It hardly follows that there are objective morals. This is a plainly fallacious argument.The Christological argumentPro thinks if the resurrection of Jesus happened, it proves God since if Jesus was raised from the dead, it would be a miracle and because Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh.This argument is weak for a couple of reasons. First, because it's doubtful that Jesus made any such claim. Second, because there are other alternatives. Maybe Jesus was raised from the dead by a sorcerer. Maybe Jesus was raised from the dead by some spiritual being who is not God.At the risk of neglecting to respond to every point Pro made, I want to make an argument of my own against the historcity of the resurrection of Jesus. Whether you believe in God or not, let's face it, a resurrection is an extremely improbable event. While we might think that the cumulative effect of the empty tomb and the disciple's willingness to die for their beliefs is strong evidence for a resurrection, we have to pit that against the prima facie improbability of a resurrection.I grant that it's highly unlikely that somebody would willingly risk their life for something they knew wasn't true, but surely that is not nearly as unlikely as somebody rising from the dead who has been in their grave three days. Likewise, in spite of the historical evidence for the empty tomb, surely it is more likely that the evidence was fabricated than that a dead man came back to life after three days.But Pro has yet to substantiate his claim that the disciples died for their beliefs. He asserts that the "disciples really believed jesus rose," and claims that I have yet to prove that wrong. But it's not up to me to prove it's wrong; it's up to him to prove it's right. He has the burden of proof in this debate.It may be that the apostles were lying. Paul claimed that there were "false apostles" who wanted to be regarded as real apostles, so apparently, being an apostle was an attractive prospect to a lot of people in spite of the risks involved. So it is not unreasonable that the original apostles may have made up the story of the resurrection just to keep their status as apostles. The desire for power and influence has corrupted many people. Just look at all the people in the ancient world who wanted to be kings even though most kings ended up being assasinated.On the other hand, it's possible that the apostles really did believe in the resurrection, but not because they had any good reason. Perhaps Peter was the only one who "saw" Jesus, but it was a hallucination. Nevertheless, he convinced a few of the others who then claimed (dishonestly) to have seen him as well, and pretty soon all 12 apostles claimed to see him as well as scores of other people. Everybody believed everybody else, and their faith was strengthened as a result. We may not know what actually went down after Jesus died. It may be lost to history. But surely it's more reasonable to think there's a perfectly natural explanation for the origin of Christianity that we simply don't know about rather than to jump to the conclusion that a dead man came back to life. [1] http://philpapers.org...;