There is no God

You have presented fairly good arguments--but those that can be refuted. The Kalam Cosmological Argument1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause2. The universe began to exist3. Therefore, the universe has a cause The first premise is relatively uncontroversial, and is rooted in the metaphysical principle that out of nothing, nothing comes. If the causal premise were false, then it is quite odd as to why we don’t observe things coming into existence uncaused and out of nothing in our everyday experience. William Lane Craig observes:"To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic. Nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause. But if we make the universe an exception to, we have got to think that whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. " I am not denying that the universe has a cause. My question is what make you think that the only possible explanation for the begining of the universe is God? In fact, there is scientific evidence supporting the big bang. Let me re-phrase that argument and show how, in reality, it is self refuting.1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause2. The universe began to exist3. Therefore, the universe has a cause1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause2. God began to exist3. Therefore, God has a cause. (More on this later)The Moral Argument1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists2. Objective moral values exist3. Therefore, God exists Do objective morals have to exist if God exists? I'll be looking at a few arguments used in Richard Dawkin's book The God delusion on this matter. Richard Dawkin, The God delusion "If our moral sense, like our sexual desire, is indeed rooted deep in our Darwinian past, predating religion, we should expect that research on the human mind would reveal some moral universals, crossing geographical and cultrual barriers, and also, crucially, religious barriers. The Harvard biologist Marc Hauser, in his book Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, has enlarged upon a fruitful line of thought experiments originally suggested by moral philosophers. Hauser's study will serve the additional purpose of introducing the way moral philosophers think. A hypothetical moral dilemma is posed, and the difficulty we experienced in answering it tells us something about our sense of right and wrong. "As we see, our sense of right and wrong has developed over time. In fact, other cultures in the past have laws that we would think are barbaric. We can clearly see our evolution in the right and wrong phase. This argument fails. How does God's inability to change the future imply that he is not omniscient? It may imply that he is not omnipotent, but the conclusion that he is not omniscient simply does not follow. But let's again be charitable and assume that Pro is talking about omniscience. Omniscience: The capability to know everything If God doesn't know everything that can be known, what makes God different from man? It doesn't. So, back to the argument, if God knows for a fact that man is going to sin and fail, then can he possibly change that? No. Therefore, he cannot be all-powerful. If God does not know everything, he is not omnisience. Final Questions from ProIn response to the two questions Pro asked me:1. Yes, for reasons that I elaborate below. 2. By definition, God is uncaused. Since he is a maximally great being, he does not owe his existence to any higher being, for there is nothing higher to which his existence could be dependent on. Therefore, it is impossible for God to have been brought into being. Okay, remember the argument that I made earlier that said that that information would be needed later? Well, here it is now.1. You said that God is eternal. Well, if he is eternal, then he does NOT exist. A. An actual infinity is impossibleB. An actual Infinity commits the fallacy of the floating abstraction, which makes it illegitimate. By definition, God is uncaused. Since he is a maximally great being, he does not owe his existence to any higher being, for there is nothing higher to which his existence could be dependent on. Therefore, it is impossible for God to have been brought into being. Kind of goes hand in hand from what I was saying. I'll touch on that more in the next round. Final statements from this round1) If God exist, why is there evil? There is that problem because if God is all-good, how can he allow suffering and evil? That is all I have time and space for in this round. More will be touched on in the next round.