The Evidence Points to Atheism

Thank you for your response. I am sure that my opponent will agree that if his first premise is proven false, then so is the whole argument. By saying that “God is outside our understanding our experience,” my opponent is self-refuting his own argument. Anyone who asserts the proposition that “God is unknowable” is purporting to know something about God, namely that he’s unknowable! That is exactly what premise one is doing, contradicting itself. It shows that my opponent’s whole argument is based on this contradiction. “The terms“smaller” and “closer” are ambiguous. What is it meant by these? How small and how close?” Steven Hawking stated in his book, A Brief History of Time, that if the Universe were changed by a thousandth-millionth-millionth, the world would not be able to sustain life. [1] “Con claims that liquid is the rarest form of matter in the universe. This is uncited, because it's false. Hydrogen is the most common chemical in the universe and Oxygen is the third.” My opponent believes that liquid means “water.” Water is a liquid, but liquids, any liquid, are the rarest form of matter in the Universe [2]. H20 can be a solid, and a liquid, my opponent’s arguments are full of holes. “But that just raises the question of where the energy came from.Keep in mind E=mc^2 shows energy and matter are basically one in the same, they can transform into each other” That is false, even if matter could become energy, which it can’t, there would still be a finite amount. My opponent’s arguments have been refuted. Leibnizian Cosmological Argument [3] 1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause 2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God 3) The universe exists 4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3) 5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4) Warrant for Premise One one is a modest version of PSR: Anything that happens does so for a reason. One merely requires any existing thing to have an explanation, which is compatible with their being brute facts about the world. Think of a translucent ball in the forest, that ball would require an explanation, no imagine that same ball the size of the universe, the universe is no exception to explanation, you cannot just dismiss the universe needed an explanation like a taxi cab. Warrant for Premise Two Two is the logical equivalent to what atheists often affirm, that if atheism is true, then the universe has no explanation of its existence. For the transcendent cause must be immaterial, and there are two things which fit such a description: abstract objects or Minds. But abstract objects don't stand in causal relations, they don't fit our criteria for existence, hence the cause of the universe must be an ultra-mundane mind. The universe clearly exists, so therefore it follows logically that the universe has an explanation, that explanation being God. The evidence points to God. [1] Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time[2] http://www.windows2universe.org...[3] https://bearspace.baylor.edu...