The existence of the Christian God is logically indefensible.

Hi, thank you for your response. I think that what i will do, is refute your points and then offer one more argument to support Christianity. CONCEPT OF GOD (1) The first objection my opponent has towards the concept of God, is that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God cannot co-exist with sin. However, Sin by definition, is: "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law" ( source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... ) and so sin is completely compatible with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient being, as all it means is going against that being's will. Considering we are free creatures, to let us be free is 'more good' than God intervening. (2) My opponent's second objection is that an omniscient God and free-will cannot co-exist. However, this is just not true; there is no contradiction between the two. All it means is that God knows what we would freely do in any set of circumstances. By no stretch does it mean that we have no free-will; all it means is that God knows what we will do, considering we have free-will. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT For the Cosmological argument, I will respond to Pro's objections, then offer an improved argument for Pro to respond to. Firstly, Pro cites Hume, and says that we cannot say that the universe has a cause, as the same rules may not apply to the universe itself. However, it is a basic fact that being cannot come from non-being. That is logically impossible, and contradicts metaphysical laws - out of nothing, nothing comes. Additionally, we now know, due to modern science, that the universe does indeed has a cause. This is because of the Big Bang - and so we know that the laws of cause and effect are actually applicable to the universe itself. However, it is up to Pro to show just why the same rules DON'T apply. The burden of proof is on Pro, as we are using inductive reasoning to suggest that the universe must have a cause. Secondly, my opponent says that a chain of causes can go on forever. But, an infinite regress is impossible - because otherwise nothing would ever exist. At every moment, a cause would be producing an effect, and the universe would never come into being. By the mere fact that the universe exists, we can say that there was no infinite regress - the universe is an 'ending' in the chain of causes. Finally, my opponent says that the Cosmological argument does not prove the Christian God. And I agree with this. But the argument doesn't set out to achieve that - rather, it seeks to prove a necessary being that is the first cause of everything that exists. This is essentially what we call 'God'. This is the improved argument, as described by William Lane Craig. 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause 2) The universe began to exist 3) therefore the universe has a cause This cause has to transcend both space and time - and so be timeless, immaterial, changeless, hugely powerful and personal. (Personal simply because the being decided to create the universe) Only 2 possible things fit in this description; either abstract objects (such as numbers), or an unembodied mind (so, 'God'). Abstract objects cannot cause anything. So the cause of the universe is an unembodied mind (so, God). We know premise 1 to be true because of the simple fact, 'out of nothing, nothing comes'. Being cannot come from non-being. And, if something did come from nothing, it then becomes inexplicable why anything comes into being from nothing. Why only universes? Why don't horses come into being from nothing? We know premise 2 to be true because we now know that the universe came into being at the big bang. The conclusion then follows. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Firstly, Pro states that life could have arose from means other than God - such as evolution. But merely because life evolved does not at all imply that God was not behind it. Moreover, there is no reason to think a blind process such as Darwinian Evolution can account for such delicate codes like DNA. In fact, for Darwinian evolution to take place on it's own could never happen in the short amount of time life has been on earth. Next, Pro cites Hume. But how can you make parallels between cabbage and life on earth? I think that is simply obscene, to compare something such as intelligent life to a vegetable. I don't see how intelligent life is at all unordered or chaotic. My opponent also says that considering the evil and suffering on earth, it implies the failure of the ceator. But according to Biblical Christianity, it is rather the failure of men that causes all of the evil and suffering - as described in the fall of man in Genesis 3. I think that the teleological argument stretches much further than merely life on earth. I think that it also includes the position of the earth itself, and also the fine-tuning of the original conditions of the universe. FAITH As for your example, i don't think that it works. Because we CAN disprove that there is no teapot orbiting around pluto - We have positive proof that no such teapot has been launched into space. Whereas we can give some evidences for the existence of God - as has been provided in this debate, assuming they are sound which I intend to prove. I would now give you a historical argument for Jesus' resurrection, but it takes too much time to explain. So instead, I'll give you an Ontological argument, and a link to a resurrection argument. 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in Some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world 5) Therefore a maximally great being exists I look forward to my opponent's response. RESSURECTION I don't have enough space, but here's a link http://www.reasonablefaith.org... God Bless