The Existence of God

Cosmological Argument Pro committed a straw man fallacy. Nothing Pro said was relevant to my objection. I didn’t argue for an infinite regression. Premise 1 of your original argument isn’t justified, therefore your argument’s conclusion isn’t valid . Pro changed his argument to focus mainly on a regress. However if something can be uncaused, there’s no regress problem, because it didn’t exist for an infinite amount of time. If a regress is impossible then how did God create the universe? In order to get to the point of creation, we have to pass an eternity with God. Pro must make a special exception for God, but then something else could fit other than God. Sentience What exactly do you define “change” as? Aren’t the things I listed changing reality? Technically only physical things can change reality. A mind in and of itself can’t change anything except what goes on in its own mind. A mind still needs something physical to change. Try to type your next argument using solely your mind and nothing else. You still need physical arms and hands to do it. Natural Mechanism Pro’s inquire can be made against God. What caused God? Where did he come from? What caused God to create the universe? Pro would probably answer in saying God is outside the universe and can exist infinitely with no cause. Then I can say the natural cause existed outside of the universe infinitely and was just always on. The natrual cause isn’t a part of the universe, so it doesn’t need to begin to make reactions. It always made reactions. Pro can’t object to this without making an objection to God. Epistemological Issue Pro doesn’t really answer this one. He just says he looks upon the universe and determines there was a first cause. You maybe at the most could claim there was a first cause, but to determine what this cause is like is what I’m arguing against. Pro then asks why is it wrong to do determine the cause from the universe, then makes an irrelevant comment about quantum mechanics. I already said why in my last round. We have no idea what was before the universe, that’s why. There could be things that we have no knowledge of before, so it’s wrong to make a conclusion about what was before. Going to my dimension analogy, do you think it’s wrong to make a conclusion about what’s in the dimension. Pro asks, if I think it’s meaningless to inquire about before, why debate him on it. The point is you believe it’s not meaningless and are trying to defend that it’s not. This is like asking “If you disagree with me, why debate me on the subject?” Morality Pro concedes, however he then claims without God, you can’t have objective morals. Despite that I demonstrated this to be false. Morality has nothing to do with the majority and religious morality often has the same problems that religious people claim secular morality has. The "Because I said so" Argument Wait a minute... if “this statement is false” is true, then the statement would be false, meaning it’s not true, meaning Pro was........*gasp*....wrong! Meaning his argument is refuted, meaning I was innocent, meaning the police can’t arrest me because I wasn’t even there when that guy was killed. I mean sure his blood was all over me, but it wasn’t me. Problem of Evil Unfortunately, I’m not conceding on this. Because the free will defense is flawed. First, Pro asserts we have free will. If Pro wants to have a free will defense, he must prove that free will exists in the first place. From what I’ve studied, you can’t make sense of free will philosophically or scientifically. Second, why couldn't God make man in such a way that he would always freely choose good? If God is omnipotent he would be able to do such a thing. Don’t we all commit sin because our nature is flawed? Do we have the free will to never sin? Why couldn’t God make it so we always choose good in the same way that we sin. Two other questions can be raised. Is there evil in heaven? And Is there free will in heaven? I'll expand on this when Pro answers these two. Even with free will we're still limited. For example, many things can be done to a building We can 1. Paint the building 2. Pee on the building 3. Punch the building However we can't 4. Jump over the building 5. Turn the building into an invisible pink unicorn 6. Lift the building above my head Does the inability to do 4-6 violate free will? Why couldn't God put evil in the same category as 4-6? Free will doesn’t explain natural disasters or genetic problems in newborn babies. Pro said the universe would be distorted if there were no natural disasters. How? How would the Earth be any different? It would be great, I don’t see any distortion the the idea that the Earth won’t do something that will kill many. Natural disasters don’t happen all the time, so obviously the universe would be just as “authentic” since it would just be as it is a majority of the time. Nothing incoherent or distorted. Pro says the God of classical theism tests us. However the God of classical theism also is all knowing. So he wouldn’t need to test anyone. If God tests someone, it’s because he wants to see what they’ll do; that implies he’s unknowing. Argument from Temporal Minds. It’s quite clear why we need temporal duration for processing. Mental processing is dynamic, but change can’t exist outside of time. For state “A” to change into state “B” there must exist A before B. This would require time, otherwise “before” wouldn’t exist since “before” presupposes time. Time has past, present, and future states; these also obviously allow change. Something in the present would affect something in the future and something in the past affected something that happened which caused the present. However without time, these states don’t exist, thus no change can exist. Thanks, back to Pro.