God Exists

Contention 1: Ontological ArgumentAccording to Con, the greatest problem to my Ontological Argument is that of my S5 model. If he had observed my opening argument he would've seen that the move from <>[]P -> []P is perfectly warranted and axiomatic given the S5 axiom of modal logic. If the said being exists in one world it must exist in all possible worlds by following the model and thus proving MAXIMUM GREATNESS. Which not only proves this argument but Con's Greatness argument as well. [3]My opponent's counter-syllogism fails from the beginning. P1 is false because it conflates epistemic possibility with metaphysical possibility. It may be epistemically possible that a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, but its metaphysical possibility does not follow. After all, it's epistemically possible that Goldbach's conjecture is either true or false, but it does not follow that either is a genuine metaphysical possibility. In the same way, one may be able to conceive of assert the non-existence of an MGB, but there was no metaphysical implications from this. Conceivability does not entail possibility. Thus proving that there has to be a MGB and God has no logical choice, but to exist. [3] I'll attack the OR in a later contention. My opponent's attack is flawed as this has indeed been proven already as scientists have tested this theory and found that it is logically sound. [4] and [5] Contention 2: KCA There has to indeed to be causality. If there wasn't then we could see anything just "pop" into existance. I have already shown in my last round by using Neil Tyson's book, "Death by Black hole" showing that the entire universe that we currently live in can actually be created from a black hole and this matter and everything was just simply created by teh nuebla's and star dust that got sucked up by the black hole. [1] In fact, we see that it is a logically necessary truth, the denial of which is self-contradictory. As David Oderberg argues:We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything followed by the existence of something. The words “followed by” are crucial — how are they to be interpreted? What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed toinclude time: to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists — hence something did exist. But it is hard to see how else we are supposed to understand “followed by”; or when the denier of the causal principle says that it is possible for something to come from nothing what are we to understand by “from”? Again it cannot have a causal sense because something is supposed to have come into existence uncaused. All that appears to be left is a timeless contradiction — the existence of nothing and the existence of something. [1]Dan Baker, a nutorious opponent of the KCA, has argued upon several times that the only thing in existance that does not need a valid cause is actually that of God. Everything from the creation of the universe, to a kugelblitz all need some sort of causality and it is obvious that God has to be the only one to have created us. First, the modified-P1 is simply not logically equivalent to P1. If we recast the KCA using M-P1, then the argument becomes structurally invalid. Second, M-P1 confuses meaning with reference. The two premises may refer to the same object, but their meaning is obviously different. Third, whereas M-P1 is framed in terms of being an existential statement (One which asserts the existence of something), P1 is a universally quantified statement. Consider the formalized version of the argument:1. (x) (Bx -> Cx)2. Bu3. CuWhere B = begins to exist; c = cause, u = universe.My opponent argues that my usage of the BVG theory is flawed, but that is incorrect, because we have no choice but to see that the universe is exspanding and contracting in several different areas even to the point some argue of a Big Crunch. (see video for physical evidence on teh BVG theory) (http://www.youtube.com...) My opponent is incorrect on theory of time, because time is a constant stream like a river, not always constant all happening at different points at once. I have shown the flaws with Eternalism in my last round and my opponent has not refuted it, so I'll extend that argument across the board. Contention 3: TA arguement I thought I was being specific on teleos. My opponent is highly incorrect as he tries to shake off teleos as mere natural addaptions, but this is incorrect. Teleology is understood to be mere goal-directedness, final causality, which is shared by both natural and artificial teleology (Both involve goal-directnedness). His distinction is thus useless.Con dropps my Steven Hawkins and Neil Tyson evidence on God and the theories of the universe, so I'll extend those across. Contention 4: Occam's RazorOccam's Razor sides with the group that makes the least assumptions. We can see that the universe having a maker and creating everything is a lesser assumption than the universe being created out of nothing at some point. (though I thought I already argued this in an earlier contention) Plus my opponent has already conceded that the universe has to have had a cause and when you add in the fact when he dropped my Steven Hawkins argument that God didn't need a cause we can see that this case and this point withstands the OR. I would like to thank my opponent for this wounderous debate and I would like to ask my viewers to please vote Pro. Thank you.