God Exists

I am going to tie up some loose ends pertaining to this debate and show why my opponent's arguments fail, and why mine stand to critical scrutiny. Good and Evil It simply does not matter if Atheists can account for morality or not; this is nothing more than a Red Herring[1]. So I do not know why we have wasted so much time on this. Pro simply ignored my main argument here once again. .. One only needs to assume that suffering and killing would be evil if Theism was true to run William Rowe's Argument from Evil[2], as this would show a contradiction in the notion of God. One does not need to suppose these things are evil under Atheism. My opponent also attacks Moral Relativism by claiming that people who hold this position can never truly say anything is really wrong. This does not show Theism is true, or most plausibly true, as Pro has shown no problems with the idea of Moral Relativism actually being true. This makes this section from Pro, once more, completely trivial. Existence of MatterMy opponent assumes a non-sequitur[3] here. Even if it is true that we have no natural explanation for 95% of the universe, does not mean there is no natural explanation for 95% of the natural universe. Pro has not even made a valid prima facie case for this notion. Also, there are models which describe The Big Bang without appealing to God just fine. This means the claim from my opponent that "there is no basis for an atheistic Big Bang" is false. There are plenty of ways to explain The Big Bang Atheistically. Alexander's model of comic origins[4] describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a sufficient cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). It's plausible that the universe emerged in a symmetric vacuum state without an initial cause, which then decayed with the inflationary era beginning; and after this era ended, the universe evolved according to the standard Big Bang model. Space-time and energy would emerge out of a void with no space or time. This means that there is no infinite regress implied by the model. Then you have Steven Hawking’s idea, which involves starting off with four dimensions of space[5]. A quantum fluctuation would break symmetry and cause one of those dimensions to turn into time and this would be the “beginning”. However, the universe would not really come into being when time did as it already “pre” -existed as four dimensions of space timelessly. This would explain the universe without an infinite regress of questions due to the fact that the four dimensions of space did not come into being; meaning they do not require a cause. It seems we have good reason to believe that Atheism can easily account for The Big Bang. At the very least, Pro gave us no good reasons to think that supernatural cause is the most likely. Not even a philosophical attempt was made. Nietzsche's ProphecyPro is implying that either the divine is responsible, or this prophecy is just some unreasonable coincidence. I fail to see how this is a true dichotomy. My opponent has not ruled out any natural explanations which might involve the prophecy being self-fulfilled in the future from the time of the prophecy in some way. Perhaps the Nazi's were influenced by this his writings in some way; we have no clue (this would actually be more plausible than the notion that someone saw the disant future magically). Thus, no strong case has been made here. Argument from EvilMy opponent's three objections here are Red Herrings and have no bearing on William Rowe's Argument from Evil. Even if we assume that God cannot be certain about the future, he could still be certain about the present. This means he is certain of probabilities with regards to results hypothetically produced by natural disasters, and he is aware of the intent of the agents he has created meaning he can determine with fair accuracy which actions are going to happen, and which ones are not. Therefore, what is being provided here really has no effect on this argument I have presented. Pro also claims that God could only "create" good. However, this does not undermine/ falsify any of the premises in the argument I provided. In addition, even if Satan is the source of evil, this does not mean we would not expect God to prevent evil. It seems my opponent keeps forgetting that his God is also supposed to be omnipotent. The truth of P in Rowe's argument has not been contested by Pro. The inference from P to Q was not contested, and the inference from Q to R was not contested. Thus, this is basically a concession. William Rowe's Argument from Evil stands. God's non-existence has been established. Argument from Temporal MindsMy opponent is accusing me of circular reasoning and begging the question, but of course this is not the case as he is simply confusing cause and effect. Begging the question is when one presupposes the truth of the conclusion of an argument in order to show one of the premises of that argument true[6]. However, my argument derives the truth of the conclusion from the premises, as one does not have to assume the conclusion in order to show any of the premises are true. If one accepts that mental processing is required for a functioning mind, then it would follow then that God's mind would fall into this larger set called "minds". This means that the conclusion follows from the premise, and not the other way around. This is why my opponent's rebuttal to my argument here fails. One could deny the truth that mental processing is required for a functioning mind, but then they would be forced to say things like this are false:(i) A moving vehicle is required for a car ride(ii) Arm lifting is required for bench pressing(iii) Movement is required for muscle spasmsThis would be denying seemingly self-evident truths simply to delve into the world of radical epistemological skepticism, which is not reasonable at all. This debate is about which position is more reasonable, and it seems as if Atheism walks out of the battle without a scratch. ConclusionI have always found the existence of God to be a profound one. It is not a question I think is analogous to the existence of ferries or Big Foot, like some Atheists try to make it seem. It is a genuine question that we should all take seriously. In my quest for knowledge, Atheism has seemed to be the most sensible worldview to me. I am aware that many others (in fact, most others) have come to a different conclusion. When it comes to this debate however, I hope you put your biases aside and vote objectively as we all should. Pro's arguments simply did not hold, and mine were not refuted properly but were presented sufficiently. Sources[1] . http://www.nizkor.org...[2] . http://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] . http://www.princeton.edu...(logic).html [4] . http://mukto-mona.net... [5] . http://everythingforever.com... [6] . http://www.nizkor.org...PS. Pro, just in case you forget; please put "No argument will be posted here, as agreed" as your next round. I thank you for the intellectually stimulating debate, as I cannot think of a more fun topic to discuss. Bye for now.