God Exists

The Problem Of EvilIf God is omnibenevolent, then he must stop gratuitous suffering. This is because if God does not have morally sufficient reasons for permitting some sort of horrible act, but allows it anyway, then this being would be self-evidently morally inferior to a being who did not allow the atrocious act. Meaning, that if this act took place and was gratuitous; God does not exist. Now, my opponent gives examples, like Christ's death, to show that God has morally sufficient reasons to allow things like this (they would lead to more good in the long run). The problem is that God is defined as omnipotent. This means that if God exists, he can do anything logically or metaphysically possible. Prima facie, there is nothing logically or metaphysically impossible with the idea of God injecting the world with the same amount of goodness if Christ did not have to suffer and die. This means that Christ's death would still be considered gratuitous suffering. My opponent mentions free-will again, but since God is defined as omnibenevolent, then by definition, he is not logically free to commit an evil act even if he is free internally, or externally. It is possible to have this logical determination for good acts without the need for omnibenevolence. This means, it is possible for God to have made us logically determined for good, and still have free will. This means, that the ability to do evil is not necessary for free will. No omnibenevolent God would give humans logical freedom for evil, when God is the perfect example of how it is more morally valuable to have a logical determination for good. However, we do have the freedom to do evil. Thus, God probably does not exist. Problem Of Objective EvilFirstly, the Problem of Evil can be run even if one assumes that rape is only wrong if Theism were true. Rape would be wrong if Theism were true, and the Problem of Evil shows a contradiction in the idea of God. It is not necessary to assume morality is actually objective to run the argument. Also, Pro says that objective morals can only come from God. No argument was given to support this. Thus, It remains a bare assertion: "There is no obvious contradiction between a strong commitment to moral realism and disbelief in God. That atheism and moral realism are in tension is a philosophical position that must be argued for." - Jason Thibodeau[1]Pro never defended his crucial points. Quentin Smith’s Logical Freedom Exists And Does Not Contradict God’s NatureOne cannot choose to do something that violate the laws of logic, not even an omnipotent being. One can think of a scenario that is illogical, or contradict themselves semantically, but nobody can actualize a contradictory situation ontologically; which is where the meat in Smith's argument lies. Pro completely missed the mark. Additionally, my opponent conflates logic with rationality.Omniscience, Omnipotence, OmnibenevolenceThe rules of this debate specifically define God as a tri-omni, maximally great being. To appeal to a different conception of God, Pro is actually blatantly violating the debate rules. Therefore, this whole subset of Pro's argumentation is trivial with regards to the context of this exchange. Naturalism And Unscientific Modal Arguments For Atheism Do Not Disprove GodPro has to assume there was a cause of the universe in the fist place to make his claim that God was the cause; which was not accomplished in earlier rounds. Also, he just asserts the cause has to be conscious with no explanation. Regardless, there does not have to be any pre-existing energy that causes the universe. The universe most likely has a total energy sum of zero and many calculations demonstrate this [2]. This view is held because the negative energy of gravitational attraction and the negative energy stored in space, exactly offset the positive energy in the universe to equal zero. This is hypothesis is no fiction either; as negative energy has even been experimentally verified between Casimir plates [3]. If there was no universe there was be a sum of zero energy; we we have the same sum with a universe. This means that no additional energy is required for a universe. This makes this argument from Pro about needed pre-existing energy rather trivial.Pro also tries to diminish the Modal Ontological Argument but falls flat. He claims:"(i) All sentience is physically realized but God thru energy fluctuations in the quantum vacuum shows that God has a physical manifestation."The above fails, as the physical world is logically contingent. God, by definition, is a logically necessary being. Thus, the idea of God being physical is a contradiction according to the definition outlined. "(ii) The universe was created by a mindless supernatural mechanism but Energy and Consciousness are not supernatural"If the universe was created by a mindless mechanism, that would mean it wasn't created by God. Atheists also accept that energy and consciousness are not supernatural, so this plug is futile. "(iii) Naturalism is true so does a cause of the universe that exhibit consciousness, which is natural"Even if the universe did exhibit consciousness, that wouldn't mean the being was maximally great or tri-omni. Pro keeps on forgetting the definition relevant to this debate."(iv) There are no omnis the same way there are no omnis outside of Western philosophy"The above actually helps my case, because if there are no tri-omnis, then God cannot exist by definition!Pro had no fruitful objection to the Modal Ontological Argument for Atheism; thus it stands. Retro-Causality And Wave Function CollapseMy opponent has a habit of completely ignoring my arguments, and made absolutely no sense. I already debunked this whole section from Pro. A realist interpretation simply means that wave-function collapse is not real, and that the certain states of a particle are already determined regardless of observation (a deterministic view). However, like I said in my last round, local and non-local realism have been debunked by Bell's inequalities, leggett's inequalities, and the before-before experiment (Pro never responded to that). Deterministic views are simply not feasible in light of these discoveries in quantum mechanics. This means, that retro-causality is indeed a scientific fact. Paul Davies' account for the fine-tuned universe has not been scratched by Pro.Positive Cosmological Constant And The Fixed Space-Time BoundaryStephen Hawking's no-boundary proposal is indeed compatible with a positive cosmological constant after revision, as I stated in my last round, and Pro seems to concede. Then, in a bizarre attempt to undermine imaginary time, he claims that it cannot precede this pre-existing energy and consciousness. But he never demonstrated this energy or consciousness in the first place. Information Theory And Other Causes For The UniversePro claims that I side-stepped the fine-tuning argument, but I did not. I appealed to Paul Davies' theory which is based on scientific fact. An observation at t2, can collapse a wave-function at t1. There is no limit to how far back in time this can go. Our observations could collapse wave-functions of the past into a bio-friendly history. Nothing rules this out, and it has more explanatory rigor than the God hypothesis. It does not have to appeal to anything outside the universe, or appeal to another entity unnecessarily. ConclusionNone of Pro's arguments succeeded. Even if they did, God as defined has still not been established. All of mine remain unscathed; the resolution has been negated. Sources [1] http://www.strongatheism.net...[2] http://arxiv.org...[3] http://www.universetoday.com... [4] http://www.closertotruth.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...In the next round, Pro must only put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed."