A god exists, as defined by PRO; Take 2

1. Burden Of Proof I see that you have recognized this statement of mine into a declaration of my claim. I acknowledge that it might be taken as a statement of a claim, and for good reason. What I meant by this was that it is a reasonable claim to make in the absence of evidence for the alternative. I apologize for the misleading wording, and repeat once more that in this debate I intend to deny your claim rather than push my own. 2. Definition Thank you. I find this description of God easier to understand. You may remember my previous points: 1. That I may indeed be able to disprove the existence of a logically impossible God 2. That my argument from the problem of evil can disprove a God with these attributes (this will be addressed later in my rebuttal to your rebuttal of my argument) 3. Rebuttal The problem of evil: You agree with P1 and P2, so I will skip ahead to P3. P3: I think that your God would hypothetically be doing something very strange here. He creates a set of creatures (humans) that he cares about, loves and does not want harm to come to them. He then knowingly gives them a free will and allows them the freedom to do what they decide is best for them. Why would he do this? He knows (remember his omniscience) that his creations have the freedom to love and care, but also to kill, rape and enslave. He knows - knows better than anyone! - that allowing his creations free will would cause what one might call "evil" - the suffering and death of humans time and time again, including genocidal acts such as the Holocaust and the Armenian and Rwandan genocides; terrible bloody wars of epic proportions such as the great wars of the 20th century in Europe and the proxy wars of the Cold War such as the ones in Korea and Vietnam; crushing poverty in countless nations; terrible diseases such as the Bubonic Plague, the influenza outbreaks in 1919 and 2008, the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s, and the recent Ebola crisis; what "omni-benevolent" God would allow his creations free will with the knowledge that these catastrophes would occur? It must be that, by creating humans with free will, with full foreknowledge of the consequences, is tantamount to causing those atrocities, personally! 4. Arguments Cosmological argument: When I said that it may have been Satan, I was only providing an example. The point of my rebuttal was that I wanted to explain that assuming that it must have been your idea of God, and your idea alone, that was the only possible explanation for the origin of the universe. The cause of the universe is unknown to even the most brilliant theoreticians, and it's safe to admit one's lack of knowledge of these things, rather than automatically attributing the cause to God. As for your point on the BGV Theorem, I find it mildly suspicious that the top results on a Google search were creationist websites. *ahem* But besides that, and I quote from the 2003 on the theorem directly: "What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event." Far from saying "Yeah, the universe had a beginning so it must have had a creator", the paper provides an example of an event that might have arose purely physically to cause the universe. Onto the argument from morality: I acknowledge that evolution may not be the sole origin of morality. However I have no doubt that it played a part. Other parts of morality may be purely societal; imagine the religious clergyman that might tell the populace that God says it's good to follow rules A, B and C because he wants to exert control over the people. Some rules may be advantageous directly to the clergyman (do not question the word of the church leaders, donate 10% of your income to the church, etc.) while some may be enforcing earlier, more subtle evolutionary moralities (the rule against adultery might have arisen because having a male and female in close monogamous relationship increased the chances of child survival). Now to the argument of the maximally great being: My main issue is with P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. How do you back this up? I am genuinely confused by this. Why must it be the case that existence follows directly from possibility? You fail to provide proof for this assertion. The argument can be condensed like so: "If God can exist, God must exist." This is not a logical following of premise-to-conclusion, but a preposterous assertion. 5. A new argument against God Now that you have properly defined what you mean by God, I have some arguments that can show the logical impossibility of such a God. We begin by restating an argument that I have already brought up and defended earlier in this round: P1: There is evil in the world. P2: An omnibenevolent god would want to stop that evil. P3: An omnipotent god would be able to stop that evil. P4: If a god that was both omnipotent and omnibenevolent existed, there would not be evil in the world. C: There is no omnipotent and omnibenevolent god. I place this here only for completeness. I also have another argument to make: Drange's argument from non-belief (http://wiki.ironchariots.org...) P1: God is omnipotent. P2: God wants people to believe in him. (I acknowledge that you may not agree with this, but I;m putting it up in the case that you do.) P3: If God is omnipotent and wants people to believe in him, everyone would believe in him. P4: Atheists exist. C: God does not exist. And another argument, which I recently have discovered and find very interesting: http://wiki.ironchariots.org... P1: God is perfect (let's call it "maximally great", for your sake) P2: God created the universe. P3: If God created the universe, he must have needed or wanted to. P4: A maximally great being has no needs or wants. P5: A maximally great being could have not created the universe. C: God does not exist. 6. Summary I continue to hold down your arguments for God. Now that you have properly defined what you mean by God, I can safely say that it is not only unproven, but logically impossible. I rest my case. Arguments for God remaining: 0 Arguments against (a particular kind of) God: 3