Evidence for God

Good luck! First of all, I would like to clarify that I accept my opponent's definition of God as 'the greatest conceivable being'. I also accept the shared Burden of Proof - I assume that you will win if you provide a proof for God that I cannot refute and I will win if I successfully negate each of your proofs. With that, I will begin my next argument, and wish Pro good luck once again. It seems that my opponent has provided three logical evidences for God's existence - the two which I provided in my first argument along with the argument from morality. I will attempt to refute all three of these arguments - if I do so successfully and my opponent fails to provide any more valid evidences, I will win the debate.1. Kalam Cosmological Argument:Unfortunately, my opponent has failed to refute my initial objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He didn't address most of the main points I made regarding Kalam, instead only providing a short objection to my argument that the law of cause and effect doesn't apply to the creation of matter and energy, as well as my argument regarding Occam's Razor. I will now explain why my opponent's rebuttal, as well as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, are invalid. My opponent begins his rebuttal by stating that the theory that the law of cause and effect doesn't apply to the creation of matter and energy is "absurd". He asserts that I argue that "matter and energy can be created out of nothing" - this is far from true. I don't think that matter and energy can be created out of nothing because I don't know. Nobody knows. The scientific community currently doesn't know how matter and energy came to be, if they came to be at all. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that matter and energy ever came into existence - the Big Bang theory instead simply states that all matter and energy started expanding from a single point 13.8 billion years ago. Nobody knows if matter and energy were actually created in the Big Bang, or if the universe has actually been in a longer cycle of expansions and contractions with the Big Bang as only a beginning of one of the expansions, or if the single point before the Big Bang was there forever. It's simple - nobody knows. My opponent, the real "absurd" one, asserts that he somehow knows that matter and energy began to exist - how does he know this? He can't, as there is literally no evidence whatsoever that supports the theory that matter and energy came into existence. Furthermore, my opponent is being completely unrealistic in saying "we should see objects (made up of matter) popping into existence from nothing all the time" if the law of cause and effect doesn't apply to the creation of matter and energy. There is currently no scientific or logical evidence whatsoever that matter and energy can randomly 'pop' into existence - once more, nobody knows how matter and energy are created (if created at all) because there is no evidence regarding the topic. My opponent continues in saying that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows how "it is not logically possible that there be an actual infinity in reality". He's being self-defeating with this claim - if the Theorem is true, how can God be infinite? You have admitted that you believe there is no actual infinity in reality - how, then, can you believe in God? If God is not infinite, then he too must have been created. Regarding Occam's Razor, my opponent incorrectly asserts that I think my explanation is better because it is simpler. The amount of premises or complexity of an argument have nothing to do with Occam's Razor whatsoever - Occam's Razor regards assumptions, or statements that have not been shown to be true. My argument is better in the eyes of Occam's Razor not because it is simpler or has less premises, but because it has less unproven assumptions. The hypothesis that the universe needs no creator requires only two assumptions (the universe began & it has no creator), while Kalam requires four assumptions (the universe began, God created it, God has no creator, and God exists). My opponent is stuffing words into my mouth by saying that Occam's Razor has to do with the simplicity of an argument - this simply isn't true. As shown, my opponent is yet to successfully rebut my objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Kalam assumes, with no scientific or logical evidence whatsoever, that matter and energy (the components of the universe) must have a cause - there is no evidence regarding the 'creation' of matter and energy that supports the assumption that they do have a cause. Therefore, Kalam is invalid, as clearly shown through its assumptions and failure to realize the lack of evidence regarding matter and energy's creation.2. Modal Ontological Argument:As with Kalam, my opponent has failed to successfully rebut my objections to Modal (he says he fails to "see any logical contradiction", though he probably would if he actually understood the axiom S5 objection). Pro completely fails to discuss my objection regarding Modal logic axiom S5 - instead, he only discusses my objection regarding necessary existence as a good property. As my opponent has failed to discuss my objection regarding axiom S5, I will reiterate my argument here so he hopefully notices it. The Modal Ontological Argument uses modal logic axiom S5, a branch of logic that defines possibility as relating to something that exists in at least one possible world (or hypothetical scenario). The ontological argument uses axiom S5 to state that as a maximally great being is possible, it must exist in at least one possible world or hypothetical scenario. However, because a maximally great being is not yet necessarily existing in all possible worlds at this point in the argument, we must also realize that, due to axiom S5, there is certainly a possible world or hypothetical scenario in which a maximally great being does NOT exist. Therefore, we know for sure that a maximally great being does not exist in at least one possible world. To then say that a maximally great being is present in every possible world is contradictory - we have already deduced that due to axiom S5, there is a possible world in which the maximally great being does not exist. Therefore, it is impossible that the maximally great being exists in every possible world. If this has not already convinced you that the Modal Ontological Argument is untrue and invalid, I must now rebut Pro's initial rebuttal of my objection regarding existence. My opponent argues that necessary existence (existence in all possible worlds) is an attribute of a maximally great being. My opponent asserts that "the quality of necessity is greater than the qualities of being contingent or incoherent" and that "it is better to exist in all possible worlds than it is to merely exist in some worlds". However, there is absolutely NO evidence to back these claims. There an absolute lack of any evidence or logical proof that it is greater to exist in all worlds than in some - if there is evidence or logical proof for this, I beg my opponent to give it to me, as I am unaware of it. While it might seem that it is better to exist in all worlds than in some, this is not necessarily true. Just because something seems true doesn't make it true - this applies to if existence is 'good' or not. My opponent may argue that my claim is 'absurd' or 'clearly wrong' - why? Where is the evidence that necessary existence is good? There is none. I have clearly rebutted the Modal Ontological Argument - as shown above, it is invalid and simply untrue.3. Argument from Morality:I'm running out of characters, so I'll have to make this short. My problem with this argument is Point 1, which asserts that "if God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. " My opponent argues that "if there is no God, then we have no standard from which to deem particular moral acts 'good' or 'evil'". However, this is untrue. First of all, let me clarify that both my opponent and I agree that objective morality exists. We can both cite examples of objectively good things (altruism, kindness, etc. ) as well as objectively bad things (rape, torture, etc. ) Why, we ask, are these things objectively good or bad? The answer is simple, and does not require God. An objectively good action is one that maximizes the well-being of oneself and others, while an objectively bad action is one that depletes well-being of others. Obviously, this holds true to both my opponent's and my views on objective good and bad, as objectively good actions (altruism, kindness, etc. ) maximize well-being, while objectively bad actions (rape, torture, etc. ) deplete well-being. The theory that objective morality depends on well-being is quite simple to explain. Every individual (regardless of religious affiliation) tries to maximize their own well-being. We can deduct from this that the most well-being (including that of the individual) would be present if everybody's well-being was maximized (an individual must only apply their own personal interest to others to realize this), leading us to believe that morality, quite objectively, can be achieved by maximizing everybody's well-being. When committing an act, one must consider whether it maximizes or depletes the well-being of oneself and others - through this can be derive whether an act is objectively good or bad. Obviously, objective morality exists and can be tested through an action's well-being - all without a God required. Overall, I believe that I've shown how all three of my opponent's arguments are faulty and untrue. Unless my opponent can successfully defend his arguments, I win the debate. Thanks, and good luck! :DSources:1. tinyurl. com/pfarh9v2. tinyurl. com/neg7zss3. tinyurl. com/o9o5c2q4. tinyurl. com/om8vopw5. tinyurl. com/m85wro46. tinyurl. com/yj49dph