The God Of The Bible Exists

The Axiological Argument: So it appears that my opponent rejects the first premise of the argument. First he says, "yes, I am completely fine with saying that there are objective morals, despite the lack of a creator of the universe. because there are objectively immoral sufferings." My question for my opponent is as follows: Since you claim to have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard from since an objective standard is one that is not based on your opinion or your experience? And what proof does my opponent have that there are objective immoral sufferings? If there is no God, my opponent has no right to say that murder or that slavery is objectively wrong. Why not? Because without God there is no universal standard of morality. And if there is no universal standard, he would only have his opinions on what is moral/immoral (which would have no affect on any person). Now, he claims that there is a universal standard and that it could exist without a God. I now again ask my opponent to state where this objective standard came from? Then he states that there are "stimuli that objectively induce suffering in all humans/conscious animals like being burned alive, having stones thrown at your face, being beaten severely, or being forced to do something without consent." But why are these things objectively wrong? You have shared your opinion about these things being wrong. Other people might tell you that murder is okay. What makes you right? What objective standard are you referring to? You realize that without an objective reference point, you could never say that Hitler was wrong? Then it was stated that "actions that lead us further away from these types of objective sufferings of humans/conscious animals are objectively discernible from their moral counterparts, and this discerning requires no god." Before responding, lets review what objective morality is. William Lane Craig states that "to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so." Hitler believes that what he was doing was right. How can my opponent objectively state that he was wrong if God doesn't exist? My opponent has claimed to be able to objectively state what is right/wrong. But another person like Hitler could easily dismiss what my opponent says and claim that they know what is truly moral. My opponent couldn't objectively say that Hitler was wrong since he has no justification in saying that his morality is objective. Next it was said that "this is a bare assertion (objective morality can only come from God), and, as I've pointed out, morality exists in opposition to objectively suffering-inducing actions/stimuli." But again, what justification does my opponent have for claiming that there is a real right and wrong? He seems to think that since he sees murder and slavery as wrong then that makes it universally wrong. But this isn't the case. Suffering may convince my opponent that certain things are wrong but on the other side we have people that cause suffering and sometimes they say that what they do is moral. How can my opponent objectively say they are wrong if God does not exist? Lastly I was accused of contradicting myself and it was stated that "Pro, how is it that benefiting society is a part of being moral, but it's not a reason to be moral?" My answer is that being moral and benefiting society are the same thing. Asking someone "why be moral" and "why benefit society" are the same question. So you can not say that you are moral to benefit society because benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral. It would be like asking someone why they play football and then they say "to score points." They wouldn't actually be telling you why they play football but instead would be telling you what football is. That is exactly what you are doing...you are just telling us what morality is but are not actually speaking the reason you have to be moral. The Teleological Argument: First it is said that "complexity does not always indicate a creator, because snowflakes are complex, ordered, and six-fold radially symmetrical, yet they have no creator, rather they are results of the water cycle." But the water still had to come from somewhere. I mean...my opponent's argument could be used to say that ice cubes weren't created by God since humans are the ones that freeze the water in their freezers. But the water still came from somewhere and the complexity seems to indicate that there is a God. Second it is asked "how were these odds calculated by Roger Penrose?" My answer is that he did it by analyzing the universe's low entropy conditions. You are curious if the numbers are fabricated...the man is an atheist for whatever that is worth. But he is an honest atheist that recognizes that the universe is fine-tuned. Lastly it was asked "even if these numbers were true, they don't show a 0% chance, so they still allow for "existing by chance." I understand what my opponent is saying. Let us look at an analogy to help explain things. If there is a lottery, someone must win. I think that is what my opponent is trying to say. The odds are a million to one...but someone still must win. But the problem is that not only does our universe win this lottery and therefore exists, but our universe is also life permitting. For example, if there was a lottery in which "billions and billions of white ping-pong balls were mixed together with just one black ball...and that if it's black you'll be allowed to live; if it's white, you'll be shot" (William Lane Craig). But you have to get the black ball five times in a row (putting the ball back each time) in order to win. Getting the black ball is no more probable then getting the white ball. But it is way more probable that you would get a white ball instead of a black one. So if the black ball is the first picked...and it happens five times in a row, something would feel rigged about it. That is why there must be a God. The Cosmological Argument: First it is said that the argument "exempts god from being caused, because, thanks to special pleading, he's always existed and never BEGINS TO exist." It is not special pleading. Since the God of the Bible is eternal (and also all powerful) he would not have a cause. He exists necessarily. I don't know why my opponent has a problem with this. Then it is stated that "the assertion that god didn't begin to exist in the premise is simply repeated by saying that god is the only member of the didn't begin to exist set in the conclusion, which is begging the question." This is not begging the question. It is perfectly logical to say that God did not have a cause since he would be the cause of time itself. And the cause of the universe has to be timeless (since it created time). Therefore it is completely logical to say that God did not have a cause. Then it is said that "Pro, could you explain the mechanism by which god accomplishes this exemption?" I kind of just did but I will summarize. The creator of time has to be eternal and therefore it is logical to say that God does not have a cause. The Existence of Jesus: First my opponent says that "Jesus's existence is actually irrelevant to whether or not there is a creator of the universe." I disagree. My opponent is debating me on whether or not the God of the Bible exists. So naturally I have to talk about Jesus. Then he asks "Ok, what does Jesus's resurrection have to do with creating the universe or a proving a source of moral authority?" Well, it establishes that there is proof for the Resurrection of Jesus and that he is the God of the Bible. As I recall, the debate is not just about proving that someone created the universe or that someone is the source of moral authority. The debate is also about the existence of the God of the Bible (like the title of the debate says). I mean...how can you not talk about Jesus when he is the God of the Bible? You ignored all of my arguments on this point. But do what you want. Quantum Fluctuations: He says "Yeah, because in our current universe, in order to get to nothing by stripping empty space of positive energy, particle physicists have to use a vacuum to get there." But my opponent also said earlier that the universe came out of nothing. But this is not true since the vacuum is not nothing. So my opponents argument fails. Then it is said that "we mere humans are not required to produce nothingness with a vacuum." What does that statement have to do with anything being discussed? Then it is said "Yeah, check my articles, on a quantum level, quantum fields fluctuating in and out of existence are ubiquitous and are always fluctuating." But again, the particles do come from something (the vacuum). They do not come from nothing like my opponent keeps asserting. They may be nothing but they still come from something. Then it is said that "Pro doesn't fully grasp the idea of a temporal process." That is not the problem. The problem is that my opponent makes the assumption that the creation of the universe was a temporal process. Talk about begging the question... Then the most ridiculous thing happens. My opponent says that "the universe has an origin, not a causation or creation. An origin is a point, while a creation or causation is a process CONTINGENT on the passage of stative time." The problem here is that my opponent is redefining the word creation. Creation is defined as the "the action or process of bringing something into existence" (https://www.google.com...). Nothing about the definition indicates that the process is contingent on time. Rest of my response: http://www.debate.org... Sorry for that but I wanted to get those last few words in.