God Is Existent

== Rebuttal ==R1) Ontological Argumenta) Pro *drops* the entirety of the modal ontological argument they presented, dropping reverse MOA, my questioning of the MOA demonstrating the differences between epistemic and metaphysical possibility, and all my refutations to the MOA via. reductio ad absurdum, instead presenting two entirely different ontological arguments that do not employ modal logic. This can be considered a new argument, which contradicts the rule that Pro's R2 and R3 are only for rebuttals and defense. b) I shall address the Anselm ontological argument here. The second premise is a *bare assertion*, thus is entirely unjustified and is an unwarranted argument. The entire argument relies on the second premise, thus it must be justified, but no justification is given. Premises 4 and 5, and the conclusion 6, all rely on the assumption that 2 is true, which is questionable. Now, I shall also question 1 via. the subjectivity of "greatness", via. the argument from non-cognitivism. A property such as greatness, being subjective, requires a *standard* to be great. Since eternalism is justified via. the Andromeda paradox, it is assumed that God is transcendent to the universe as God is an external cause of the universe. Without a standard, "greatness" is incoherent, viz. in a universe with only a pencil, one cannot remark that the pencil is a "sharp" pencil, since "sharp" is subjective and there is nothing "less sharp" to compare it with, thus the term "sharp" is undefined. Thus, without a standard, we lack objective definition for greatness. Thus, God cannot be the "greatest conceivable being" unless God is not an external cause of the universe, which he is by this debate's definition, thus lacking a standard to be *objectively* "great". c) The Godel ontological argument's axioms and theorems are *all* bare assertions. Specifically, axioms 3 and 5 are subject to questionability, and all axioms must be *demonstrated* to be considered an "axiom". The property of being transcendentally God-like cannot be "positive", since it is vulnerable to a similar objection from non-cognitivism, wherein "positivity" is a subjective property, thus lacks objective definition external to the universe without a *standard*. Furthermore, the Godel OA has the assumption that "existence" is a predicate and a positive property, which is philosophically dubious. [1]R2) Kalam Cosmological Argumenta) This "pool table" argument only justifies P2, *not* P1. Thus, the first premise is *dropped*, with absolutely no justification given. The pool tabele argument merely asserts there is an uncaused cause, but there is *no* reason to believe this uncaused cause was the cause of the universe. The question begs - the cause of *what*? Not necessarily the universe, unless demonstrated otherwise. Pro also drops the zero-energy universe hypothesis. Pro drops P1, so presume Con. b) While an uncaused cause cannot have been caused naturally, it could have been *determined* naturally via. determinism, since causality of the universe is not required, thus this is begging the question. The cause need not act freely, since natural laws would have come into existence with the universe, thus it *need not* act freely. Intelligence is also dismissed in the same manner, since there is an unbacked assumption that this uncaused cause was the cause of the universe. Furthermore, that there is a finite number of past causes is a bare assertion. c) Breaking the physical laws is arguing for my side, and is *irrelevant* to the resolution, or at least Pro's side. If physical laws can be broken, then so can the causal principle via. the exact same logic. Also, causality is *not required*. And that there is "some missing key part" is a bare assertion, with no justification whatsoever. d) The entire kalam cosmological argument, as William Lane Craig concedes, assumes the Presentism ontology of time and the A-series to be correct, both of which are dubious in light of special relativity. R3) Teleological Argumenta) Pro *drops* my refutation that Pro has only attributed telos with no justification, and has still *not* proven that telos indeed exists objectively. b) Pro also drops P1, no justification given, and P1 remains a bare assertion. Lannan also *concedes* that "telos can be [generated by] anything", yet Pro justifies that God exists by begging the question, asserting "God exists so telos exists", while he is *supposed* to prove "telos exists, so God exists". c) The implications of telos being subjective are important. If telos is truly subjective, then all telos is attributed and there is *no* prescribed telos. While Pro claims with P2 that "telos exists", I digress, since telos is entirely subjective and, thus, cannot be objectively demonstrated. Pro *concedes* that telos is subjective, and fails to note the impact - there may not be any such telos. R4) Occam's razora) Pro asserts that the universe having a maker is a "lesser assumption" than it coming from nothing. But that is (a) a bare assertion, (b) not my assumption, since I'm not giving support for any particular model, only that God does not exist. Also, Occam's razor does not dismiss the *greater* assumption, rather the explanation with more assumptions in number. The existence of God is an additional, unnecessary complication. Secondly, "nothing" has a mathematical value of 0, thus the universe coming from nothing is a *zero* assumption, thus can be considered a "lesser" assumption. b) Pro asserts that he will prove God is true a posteriori, but no such evidence is given; religious experiences are the sole flawed claims to a posteriori evidence, which is easily falsified via. neuroscience. I have refuted all of Pro's a priori arguments for God. c) My arguments from atemporal minds and the incoherence of a caused universe are *entirely dropped*, so presume Con. Thus, Pro has dropped the *majority* of my propositions. == Summary ==// Ontological Argument //Pro drops MOA entirely, and weakly makes bare assertions using the Godel OA and Anselm's initial ontological argument for God's existence, both if which are falsified. // Kalam Cosmological Argument //Pro drops P1, no justification given, and makes a pool table argument to further defend P2; pool table argument has some unsupported assumptions that are falsified via. their own usage of bare assertions to support their claims. // Teleological Argument //Pro concedes my refutation but fails to understand the impact and proper link; Pro also drops the attribution versus prescription of telos, so presume Con. // Occam's razor //Argument from atemporal minds and the incoherence of a caused universe contention both entirely dropped by Pro, so presume Con. Furthermore, Pro makes bare assertions and confuses "less" assumptions with "lesser" assumption. == Conclusion ==The resolution is resoundingly negated. == Sources ==[1]: . http://wiki.ironchariots.org...