There is no God

In my opening argument, I will be presenting both arguments for the existence of God and responses to the arguments delivered by my opponent. Let me first start, however, with a word about the definition of God.As I previously stated, I will not be arguing for the truth of a particular religion. Rather, I am arguing for the existence of a maximally great being with great-making properties such as omniscience and omnipotence. Though this conception of God, known as Anselmian perfect being theology, has been supported by Christian, Jewish, and Islamic theologians, their mere support does not make this about any particular religious tradition. As such, this debate is not about the Christian God, but a generic conception of God that is shared by these three religions. The debate is therefore not over the realm of special revelation (Truths about God known only through revealed texts), but general revelation (Truths about God that can be known through reason alone). Accordingly, I will not respond to Pro's concerns about the Biblical conception of God, such as his argument against penal substitution.With this clarification in mind, let me outline two arguments for the existence of God.The Kalam Cosmological Argument1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause2. The universe began to exist3. Therefore, the universe has a causeThe 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 (1), we have got to think that whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever." [1]The second premise of the kalam cosmological argument is supported by both philosophical and scientific arguments. Philosophically, the past cannot be of an actually infinite duration because one yields contradictory answers when applying operations of transfinite arithmetic to them. A prime example of this can be found in the Hilbert's Hotel thought experience.In modern cosmology, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the beginning of the universe. Scientific support for the second premise comes from big bang cosmology, the prevailing view in modern cosmology. Factors such as redshift, the cosmic background radiation, and the second law of thermodynamics all are pointers for an absolute beginning of the universe.But why think the cause is God? It must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused. Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Interestingly enough, this also lends credibility to the notion that the cause was personal, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. We are therefore warranted in concluding that God exists.The Moral Argument1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists2. Objective moral values exist3. Therefore, God existsBy "objective," I refer to the state of being true regardless of human opinion. For example, to say that X (Say, torturing babies for fun) is wrong is to say that "it is wrong for anyone to do X, that X is universally undesirable, that it is wrong to do X even if a person finds pleasure in doing it, and that everyone ought to refrain from doing X." [2]According to the first premise, if there are objective moral facts, then these moral facts have their foundation in the nature of God. This is because morality is prescriptive and is expressed to us in the form of statements such as “Do not lie” and “Do not murder." These statements carry with them a degree of incumbency – that is to say, they communicate commands to us. Both commands and communication, however, can only originate from an intelligent mind. This mind must additionally be a competent authority in order for its commands to be binding on us. Therefore, moral facts require the existence of a supreme legislator who issues these commands to us. But why should we think that morality is objective? Well, the objectivity of morality accords with pre-existing beliefs regarding morality. Beliefs such as "It's wrong to beat your wife," "Child sex-slavery is immoral," and "Treat others fairly" all seem to express true moral facts. Why should we accept moral relativism when it leads to conclusions that are counterintuitive? The objectivity of morality also accounts for moral judgements through which we condemn others as blameworthy or praiseworthy. Finally, objective morality accounts accounts for the apparent moral progress we observe throughout history. This is because for the latter two, objective morality provides a standard through which we can measure progress and make judgements.Can God Change the Future?Pro's syllogism faces a variety of problems. First, it's logically invalid, such that even if I grant the premises, the conclusion does not follow. Argument validity has to do with the way an argument is structured, whereas argument soundness has to do with the truth of the premises. If an argument does not satisfy the validity criteria, then it cannot be sound. Pro's argument is structured as follows:1. P -> Q 2. Q -> S3. S .: ~PWhich is invalid.But let's be charitable to Pro, for his point seems to be clear enough. I take it that Pro is arguing that: If God knows the future, then he cannot change it. This is suppose to imply that he is not omniscience. Unfortunately, this conclusion doesn't follow through any process of logic. 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.Can God change the future? No, for this is self-contradictory. Is this a limitation on divine power? No, for this simply is a perfection expressed in the negative. When you are perfect, you are unable to be unperfect -- but that isn't a liability, it is the perfection simply expressed in a negative form. For God to change the future would be for him to recognize that his perfect plan for humanity was somehow imperfect. But since God is by definition perfect, he cannot change the future. Moreover, the very idea of changing the future is self-contradictory, for it involves making not happen what will happen. Pro's argument therefore fails.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.I now turn it over to my opponent for his rebuttal. ______Sources1. William Lane Craig and James Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" in Craig and Moreland (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Blackwell 2009) 1822. Hadley Arkes, First Things (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1986) p.24