God Exists

Thank you for a quick response and I am looking forward to an engaging debate. I am quite disappointed in my opponent that he has not provided any arguments for God's existence, but instead, just refuted my arguments.Presupposition of Atheism.Please forgive me for the confusion. I use this argument to justify my position that there is no god, rather than prove that there is no God.My opponent cited a few "proofs" for God's existence. They are:1. Cosmological Argument (origin of the universe)2. Contingency Argument (why anything exists in stead of nothing)3. Moral Argument (The presence of objective moral values and duties)4. Teleological Argument (Fine-tuning or design argument)5. Ontological Argument (Possible world rebuttal)6. The argument for Christ and his resurrection (Historicity of the OT and NT scripture, and how it helps us in understanding the meaning of man)Respectfully, I am debating you, NOT your sources. Please actually provide the argument so I can refute them with you and discuss them. It will be like me giving you a link to infidels.org and saying to refute this. I have recently updated the presupposition of atheism argument and neglected to mention that the evidence that is currently in use is "outdated" (i.e., has been refuted) and not compelling. The 6 "proofs" are far from compelling. Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family Ministry states, "[F]aith ranks at the top of God's system of priorities...This determination to believe when the proof is not provided and when the questions are not answered is central to our relationship with the Lord. He will never do anything to destroy the need for faith." [1]What can we glean from this? We know that God is not going to do anything to prevent us from needing faith. In other words, faith is necessary for belief in God because there are no compelling evidences for God's existence."That was a list of “extraordinary” evidence for the existence of God. So to say there is a complete absence of evidence is false, but I will accept the position of not believing these evidences to be valid. If so I’ll be glad to hear your reasons, but to say there is an absence of evidence is wrong. Also this entire concept is a logical fallacy of “an appeal to ignorance.” This is more commonly called “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”"This is not a list of extraordinary evidence, because all of them have been refuted. [2] In conclusion, my opponent has not fully responded to my justification for my rejection of God. The Argument of Incoherent AttributesWe have different views on what it means to be omniscient. Omniscient, according to my opponent is, "For every position p, if p is true then S knows p. So God knows only and all true propositions. Since there are constantly new true propositions, God's knowledge is constantly changing as he acquires new beliefs (?). Respectfully, I disagree with my opponent's definition. Matt Slick, founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, and theologian, states, "Omniscience is an attribute of God alone. It is the quality of having all knowledge (Isaiah 40:14). God knows all things possible as well as actual..." [3]So what we see is that God does not acquire "new beliefs." If God acquired new beliefs, then it would contradict his immutability. Immutability refers to the fact that God is unchanging in his nature and does not vary[4]. My opponent admits that God has the experiential knowledge of learning, but claims that experiential knowledge is not a requirement of being omniscient. So one could object here that God already knew what was going to happen, so he didn’t actually learn anything new. Correct The answer is that God has learned, or come to believe in a new truth. The truth here is the tensed version of the proposition. Take for example the fact that I’m a Paramedic. At one time I was not a Paramedic because I had not yet been licensed. At that time God knew the true proposition “I am not a Paramedic.” He also knew that I eventually would be a Paramedic, but he did not know the proposition that “I am a Paramedic” because at that time I wasn’t. So as time progresses new propositions become true, and therefore God learns knew propositions. (Omniscience, Tensed Facts, and Divine Eternity by Dr. William Lane Craig)William Lane Craig gives an example of him once being a paramedic, and him once not being a paramedic. God knew (from his omniscience and omnipresence) that person X would be a paramedic and that during present time, p, that person X was not a paramedic. God did not learn anything new.It appears my opponent neglected this argument in its entirety. If God came to learn or believe a new truth (?) then how can he possibly be perfect? God is perfect. if God is perfect then he knows all things true. God is all-knowing and present-everywhere so he cannot learn anything new. Therefore, all "new truths" God already knew and believed would happen. Thank you. PRO, please provide some arguments for God's existence in the next round. References[1] Dobson, James Dr. When God Doesn't Make Sense, pp 17-18[2] Barker, Dan. Refuting God, available online http://ffrf.org... [3] Slick, Matt. Dictionary of Theology: Omniscience. http://carm.org... [4] Slick, Matt. Dictionary of Theology: Immutability. http://carm.org...