There is no God

Many of Pro's responses touch little my arguments. Instead he refers me to linked articles from the Internet Infidels. As a response to the cosmological argument, he links me to Dan Barker's article, "Cosmological Kalamity." As a line of respond, I will do the same. Due to the fact that it would be a waste of space for me to respond to the entire article, I will simply follow what Pro has done and link to two responses by William Lane Craig and Shandon Guthrie, two professional philosophers who are much more qualified than Barker. [1] Some Clarifications for ProPro requests clarification on several issues related to my arguments. I'll be glad to clear them up. 1. The genetic fallacyPro argues that "our morals and sense of right and wrong has changed" from the fact that differing cultures seem to have different viewpoints of what is considered moral. My response to this was to simply point out tha this doesn't follow. Two cultures may as a matter of fact have different views on what is moral, but this in no way allows one to conclude that therefore morality itself is relative. It confuses the order of knowing with the order of being. After all, simply because two people or cultures may have a different idea on some issue, doesn't mean that said issue is therefore relative.My second argument under this heading refers to the fact that if we take Pro's arguments to its logical conclusions, we end up discounting our knowledge of anything and everything. For what is Pro arguing? He is arguing that since our moral sense is a byproduct of our evolutionary history, it shouldn't be regarded as something that's actually real. Yet this argument can be applied equally to other nonmoral sources of knowledge, such as our knowledge of math and science. This ends up in a global skepticism.2. Differing cultural views on morality does not imply anti-realismNow Pro asks, "If God was the source of our right and wrong sense, then why doesn't everyone follow the same laws?"The answer is simple, objectivity does not require that everyone know that something is objective. It once again confuses being with knowing. As Frank Beckwith and Gregory Koukl write: "The fact that objective [moral] truth exists does not mean that people's subjective perceptions, prejudices, biases, or faulty theories do not get in the way of it." [2]3. Relativism leads to wildly counterintuitive resultsMy final argument is relatively simple. Basically, since relativism leads to conclusions that are wildly counterintuitive, it's best to treat it with an air of skepticism. On relativism, propositions such as "It is wrong to torture babies for fun" and "Tolerance is a virture" are neither true or false. So why should we accept moral relativism when it leads to absurd consequences?Hopefully Pro will now understand my points better in light of these clarifications. I will now turn to Pro's counterarguments.Counterarguments to the Moral ArgumentPro argues that the first premise of the moral argument is without warrant. However, he does not respond to my arguments for the truth of the first premise. Let me therefore repeat it.According to the first premise, if there are objective moral facts, then these moral facts have their foundation in the nature of God. This is because morality is prescriptive and is expressed to us in the form of statements such as “Do not lie” and “Do not murder." These statements carry with them a degree of incumbency – that is to say, they communicate commands to us. Both commands and communication, however, can only originate from an intelligent mind. This mind must additionally be a competent authority in order for its commands to be binding on us. Therefore, moral facts require the existence of a supreme legislator who issues these commands to us. He then links to two criticisms of divine command theory. Obviously, a response to those articles are beyond the scope of this round. However, let me recommend to interested readers Dave Baggett and Jerry Walls' book Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality (Oxford University Press: 2011) as a rigorous defense of divine command ethics.Final Questions from ProIronically, I agree with Pro that the existence of actual infinities are impossible. I even started in my opening argument that actually infintie sets cannot exist because "one yields contradictory answers when applying operations of transfinite arithmetic to them. A prime example of this can be found in the Hilbert's Hotel thought experiment." As such, I'm not sure what Pro's point is here. He did not respond to my prior counterarguments regarding the infinity of God.___________1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...;2. Gregory Koukl and Francis J. Beckwith, Relativism (Baker: 1998) 80