God does exist

1. The ontological argument It's possible for god to exist as you haven't shown it's impossible. Since we don't have all knowledge we have to say "it possible." Yet when you say it's possible then it must exist if it's a great maximal being. " . You could say, "There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is not instantiated," This fails since a great maximal being not existed is not necessarily true and cannot be. " Juan Manuel Correa argued that the argument can be used to prove that God does not exist simply by affirming that it is possible that God does not exist: A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. It is possible that there is not a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise) Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. However, Forrest Baird argued that the principle of ontology always works toward reversing its opposite but doesn't work the other way around. In other words, anytime the Ontological Argument is reversed it leads back to inversion. But if one reverses a human being it does not. In this case Correa's reverse argument would fail in premise 4 because it is not logically incoherent (self contradictory) the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being, so its inexistence can't be considered as necessarily true." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#section_2 2. The moral argument So can you give a case where rape is Ok since it's not objective. We know it's objective based on the moral code written on our hearts. Matt slick completely takes down the idea morality is not objective by asking these questions If you do not have an objective standard of morality * by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals? * how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions? * then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible? * then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong? * then who decided that your subjective standard is the one that anyone should follow? carm.org/questions-on-standard-of-morality "let's look at the five pieces of evidence that objective moral values exist. If objective moral values exist and we can intuitively perceive them, this hypothesis explains five pieces of empirical evidence 1.Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of morality. In addition, there exist in all cultures truly altruistic acts which lead to no personal or genetic benefit. 2.The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists. 3.There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong. 4.The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts. 5.Many naturalists (like Sam Harris or Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world" From www.shenvi.org/Essays/ObjectiveMoralValues.htm 3.The Christological argument This is an argument for the existence of god since rising from the grave is impossible and would have to be a miracle. Since Jesus was claiming to be god made flesh this would prove god. 3a. Empty Tomb J After 40 days the body can still have identifiable parts [1]. Someone could've produced a shroud that clothed him. E Con doesn't address the full argument . The enemies wouldn"t coincide to an empty tomb sinceb it would hurt their case against christ. T The point is, they wouldn't of included the women"s testimony even in a naritive. It would've been useless to do it. Con"s two objections to the resurrection don"t fly. 1. The absence of evidence of Paul mentioning a tomb is not evidence of absense. 2. A tomb burial was a common thing for upper class jews. The Romans wouldn't of resisted as he claimed to be a prophet and had a following 3b. The Transformation of the Disciples and the Emergence of the Christian Faith Con uses hand waving to escape from this. The disciples really believed jesus rose. Con has yet to prove that wrong. Con rejects the evidence of the deaths of the disciples because it's too late. Why do we need contemporary proof? As new evidence is appearing all the time from this era. Con hasnt fully refuted the arguments. Nor has con proven atheism is true or correct. Con tries to do his best to defend the madness of atheism but no one can reasonably. [1] Field, Brad "Facts about dead bodies" 2005.