God more than likely does not exist

Thanks, Pro.RebuttalOccam's RazorHere, my opponent argues that Occam's Razor is evidence against God's existence because it "enjoins us to go with the least assumptions (God does not exist)". The fallaciousness of this argument is trivial. If you were to say to me, "I've written an autobiography which contains information about my career", I'd have a couple of options: One would be to assume that (1) an autobiography of your life exists and (2) this autobiography contains information about your career. Another would be to assume (1) an autobiography of your life does not exist. Occam's Razor would tell us we ought to conclude that the option with the least assumptions is correct. So, on Occam's Razor, I ought to believe that you're lying to me when you tell me that you've written an autobiography which includes information about my career. This is ridiculous, of course, for then we couldn't believe anything that anyone told us about anything! I submit that Occam's Razor is not sound because it entails that we can never choose the option "x exists". Divine Silence (1)Again, we are not debating the God of any specific religion in this debate. So the presumption that we ought to know what God wants of us does not hold. My opponent's entire argument here depends on the assumption that God takes interest in what is done in His name, an assumption which has no basis in this debate as we are not discussing the God of any particular religion. So, the divine silence argument has no foundation and as such it does not stand.Divince Silence (2)My opponent has dropped this argument. This argument does not stand.PrayerOnce again, this argument makes the assumption that God takes an interest in human prayer, an assumption which has no basis in this debate as we are not discussing the God of any prayer-endorsing religion. So, this argument has no foundation and as such it does not stand.The Best Possible WorldMy opponent has dropped this argument. This argument does not stand.Moral ParalysisMy opponent has dropped this argument. This argument does not stand.The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentI'll now address my opponent's objections to the KCA:"how exactly did Con come to the conclusion that these things are the only two things that exist or even possibly exist in this timeless non physical realm ?"Recall my statement in the previous round where I said that I can think of two candidates for the cause of our universe, both of which transcend space and time: (1) an abstract object (a number, shape, etc.) and (2) an unembodied mind (God). I think explicitly went on to state that if my opponent could conceive of an additional candidate for the cause of our universe, he ought to bring that candidate forward. So, once again, it seems to me that there are only two candidates. As my opponent has not suggested an additional candidate, I can only assume that these are the only two candidates he can conceive of as well."As such my counter here is that we have no idea what does or does not exist in such a realm."This is false. We know that abstract objects transcend space and time. We also know that God, if He exists, must transcend space and time."Absurdity does not justify falsity"When I say a proposition is "absurd" I mean to say that the proposition in question is incoherent. So, when I say that the proposition of infinity existing in reality is "absurd", I don't mean it's crazy, strange, etc.; I mean to say that the proposition "Infinity exists in reality" is incoherent. This incoherence is demonstrated in the coin example I gave in my opening statement, as well as by other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel). So, contrary to my opponent's statement, absurdity (incoherence) does justify falsity. If a proposition is incoherent, the proposition cannot be true. "(A)Material things come from material things.(B) Nothing is ever created out of nothing.(C) Nothing is ever caused by anything that is not itself in time.(D)The mental lives of all persons have temporal duration.(E) All persons are embodied."(A) There must have, at some point, been a first material "thing". Otherwise, we would fall into an infinite regress. So, there must have been at least one material thing that has not come from another material thing. (B) This point supports the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Unless you're willing to believe that our universe is eternal (a proposition which is incoherent), then our universe had to have been created by something. (C) This depends on what you mean by "cause". There are things which cause other things outside of time. One example: 2 and 2 cause 4, despite the fact that numbers transcend space and time. (D) I don't see how this point is relevant, even if it were true.(E) If, by this, you mean to say that all humans are embodied, then I'd agree with you. But again, I don't see the relevance of this point. If you mean to say that all entities are embodied, then this is of course false. Abstract objects are an example of entities which are not embodied."Mind & brain/matter connection"I don't see any reason to think that the mind is entirely independent of the brain, so this objection doesn't really take us anywhere."Absent the universe there is no "time" therefore there was no time prior when the universe did not exist, thus the universe did not begin to exist."My opponent seems to be arguing that if time began to exist, then there should have been time before time began to exist. But this is absurd. There cannot be a "time" before time itself began to exist. I contend that there was nothing (no space and no time) before the universe began to exist. As I state in my justification for the KCA, this contention is supported by both scientific and philosophical evidence, neither of which my opponent has even attempted to refute.SummaryRecall that the burden of proof in this debate rests on the shoulders of my opponent. He must show that "God more than likely does not exist". So far, he has dropped three of his original arguments. Two of the other arguments are completely invalidated by the fact that we aren't debating the God of any specific religion. The final argument (Occam's Razor) is not sound for reasons that I've described in my objection to the argument (which can be found above). Moreover, my opponent has failed to give any reason to think that either of the two premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument are not more likely true than false. As such, the Kalam Cosmological Argument in favor of God's existence stands.My opponent has yet to present a sound argument against God's existence. In addition, he has not succeeded in refuting the Kalam Cosmological Argument. As my opponent has (thus far) failed to carry the burden of proof in this debate, we can reasonably conclude (for now) that the debate resolution should not be affirmed. Thank you.Sourceshttp://now.tufts.edu...http://www.reasonablefaith.org...