God exists

IntroductionI will now raise more objections to my opponent's arguments. With that said, let me begin. The Kalām Cosmological Argument I'm not sure I understand Pro's response to my attack on the first premise of the Kalam argument. He says I misunderstood this premise, but the reasons he gave for why I was mistaken about it were unclear. Therefore, I don't feel like I can give a proper response to what he said. Pro said I was mistaken about claiming that an actual infinity of things has no contradictions and that it is not possible. He offered no arguments for that claim. He simply appealed to authority. Pro said that it is true that he did not give us any good reasons for why we should believe in the A-Theory of time, but that I also did not give any good reasons to believe in the B-Theory of time. Therefore, since we both did not give any reasons for believing in our particular view of time, we are stuck with accepting the Kalam argument. But this line of reasoning is silly. Just because we both did not give evidence for our different view of time does not mean that therefore we should accept the A-Theory of time by default and believe in the Kalam argument. It means that we should suspend judgement until one theory of time is shown to be better than the other. Again, if Pro wants us to believe in the Kalam argument, he must give us good reasons to believe in the A-Theory of time. Pro said that I gave no evidence for the multiverse hypothesis. But this objection misses the point. Whether or not there is evidence for the multiverse is irrelevant. The point is that even if we grant that the Kalam argument is true, it does not follow that the God of monotheism is the first cause of our universe. This is because the first cause could have come from a multiverse, not God. If forced to choose between God and the multiverse hypothesis, it seems like the multiverse is a more plausible explanation. Like I said earlier in the debate, we already know that at least one universe exist. Unlike the God explanation, we don't have to invent a new type of entity. We are just multiplying one thing we already know of. Pro said that the Kalam argument does entail that the God of monotheism was the first cause of the universe, because a God who created us would have a purpose for us. But earlier in the debate I claimed that even if a disembodied mind was the first cause of the universe, this does not mean that it was the God of monotheism. This is because the first cause could have been an all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly evil God or an all-powerful, all-knowing and morally indifferent God. So, the Kalam argument does not show that the first cause of the universe was the morally perfect God of monotheism. The Moral Argument In response to my criticism about Pro not defining what an objective moral value is, he now provides an account of what he is talking about. Pro said that objective moral values are certain morals or values you adhere to that are not affected by society. But how is this even an argument for the existence of God? If this is what Pro means by objective moral values, it's not exactly clear how this gives us good grounds for believing in the God of monotheism. Pro said that I claimed that objective moral values do not exist. But this is false. Nowhere in my objections to his arguments did I ever make such a claim. In regards to the first premise of the moral argument, I claimed that even if theist and atheist agreed on it, that does not mean it's true. This statement I made is clearly different than me explicitly saying objective moral values do not exist. So, again, if Pro wants us to believe in the first premise of this argument, he must give an argument as to why we should. Appealing to agreement among people does not in itself show why something is true. Pro said that his question to the audience about the Holocaust is an argument because we all agree that it was evil. But, again, this is a question not an argument. The fact that people will agree with your question does not make it an argument. The Fine Tuning Argument Pro again said that the multiverse hypothesis should be rejected as an explanation for the fine tuning of our universe, because there is a lack of evidence supporting it. But, again, as I already pointed it in my objections to the Kalam argument, whether or not there is evidence for the multiverse is irrelevant. The point is that even if we grant that the Fine Tuning argument is true, it does not follow that the God of monotheism is the reason for why our universe is finely tuned. This is because the fine tuning of our universe could be because of a multiverse, not God. Conclusion Pro's arguments still have many difficulties and his responses to my objections are unsatisfactory.