God does not exist.

I would like to begin by noting that I am not a young earth creationist, nor am I a Biblical literalist. The majority of the Bible verses Pro quotes and objects to are not relevant, as I believe the theory of evolution to be true and I do not take stories such as 7-day creation to be literal. Creationism vs Evolution and even the Bible and Christian doctrine are not relevant to this discussion, as the assertion by Pro in the debate title reads "God does not exist." The discussion, then, must focus on the arguments for and against the existence of God, and not on arguments in favor of or against the Bible, Christian doctrines, etc. I would be happy to debate these issues, but that must be left for another debate. I will begin by addressing some of Pro's points (I won't respond to each quoted Bible verse for reasons I have already mentioned.) I will then move on to present arguments in favor of God's existence."God cannot be quantified. He does not have the qualities to do so. In order to be quantified (or measured), the object must be measured relative its size, mass, or distance. God, does not posses any of those qualities. Therefor, he does not exist."Since when has being able to be quantified been a requirement for existence? This seems to be a strange and unwarranted claim to me, and I would like to hear Pro's justification for it. I can think of several things that exist without being quantifiable. To give just a couple of examples, abstract objects (such as numbers) and objective truths exist independent of quantification. The idea that one must possess the quality of being able to be measured in order to exist seems blatantly false to me."Well, that is a possibility when it comes to creation. Except, then the question becomes what made god?. If you can't answer that and say "he is just eternal", then the idea of god creating the universe falls apart."I'm not sure why the idea of an eternal God causes the idea of God creating the universe to "fall apart." What reason does Pro have to believe this? "Because then, if nothing created god and if god is eternal, then it is possible that the universe can be eternal. So that means the universe did not need a creator."How does it follow that if God is eternal, then the universe is also eternal? Again, no warrant for the claim is provided. "Also, it is impossible for anything to be eternal."What reason does Pro have to think that it is impossible for something to be eternal? Does Pro think that objective truth is, then, finite? If so, where did objective truth come from? It seems to me that several claims of knowledge about God and the universe are being presented by Pro without a shred of justification. I would ask Pro to please provide some reasoning to back his assertions in the next round. "There is no scientific evidence of god. God cannot be quantified and he does not have any qualities to do so. Thus based on the lack of evidence, we can conclude god does not exist."There is vast amount of scientific data that support the idea that a God exists. I will give a few examples when I present arguments in favor of God's existence at the end of the round. However, even if this scientific evidence was not abundant, absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.Pro goes on take issue with literal Biblical creationism and miracles. To the first point I have already responded, I affirm the theory of evolution and I see no reason why belief in God would require belief in the idea of creationism as Pro seems to be implying. In the case of miracles, I would remind Pro that if in fact God exists, we have no reason to think that He is bound by the laws of physics so that miracles would be impossible. Miracles are impossible only if naturalism holds true. Let us then focus on the issue at hand, of whether or not God exists, rather than being sidetracked by issues with Biblical stories.I will present a few arguments due to space limitations. If more are needed, I will gladly provide them in the next round. In order to disagree with the conclusion of each argument, Pro must pick a premise to take issue with and knock it down in each of the arguments presented. If Pro fails to do this, then the arguments hold sound. 1. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.i. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.ii. The universe began to exist.iii. Therefore, the universe has a cause.i. Out of nothing, nothing comes. This premise is fairly self-explanatory, but if further background is needed I will provide it in the following round.ii. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, to give just one example of the scientific data that supports this premise, along with philosophical evidence (the absurdity of the idea of infinity in reality from Hilbert's Hotel) provide ample reasoning to accept this premise.2. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.i. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.ii. Objective moral values and duties do exist.iii. Therefore, God exists.i. Objective moral law cannot exist without an objective moral law-giver.ii. Our moral senses tell us that certain actions are objectively right and objectively wrong. An abandonment of these moral senses is equivalent to the abandonment of our physical senses (i.e. sight) in thinking that the external world is real.3. The very possibility of God implies His actuality.i. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.ii. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in in some possible world.iii. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.iv. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.v. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.vi. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. i. I have not thus far been given any reason to think that the idea of God is incoherent.ii-v. If it is even possible that a maximally great being (which would require the property of necessary existence in order to be maximally great) exists, then the maximally great being must exist in every possible world (including ours) according to the necessity of its very nature.4. Naturalism and Evolution cannot both sensibly be believed.i. The probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable given both naturalism and evolution is low.ii. Anyone who affirms both naturalism and evolution and sees that the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable given both naturalism and evolution has a defeater for the reliability of their cognitive faculties.iii. Anyone who has a defeater for their cognitive faculties has a defeater for any belief he thinks he has (this would include the beliefs regarding naturalism and evolution.)iv. Anyone who affirms naturalism and evolution has a defeater for naturalism and evolution.v. Therefore, the belief in both naturalism and evolution is self-defeating and cannot sensibly be accepted.Pro appears to affirm that the theory of evolution is true. Pro also appears to affirm (please correct me if I'm wrong) naturalism. However, the two beliefs are self-defeating. On naturalism, our beliefs are purely material (neuron signals from the brain.) But evolution is not concerned with beliefs, it is concerned with behavior. Evolution is indifferent to whether your beliefs are true or false, so long as they produce the appropriate behavior necessary for survival and reproduction. But if this is the case, it is just as likely that our beliefs are wrong as it is they are right. After multiplying this 50% probability by each individual belief we hold, it appears to be extremely unlikely that our cognitive faculties are reliable. If our cognitive faculties are unreliable, any belief that arises from them is unreliable, including naturalism.Sourceshttp://journals.aps.org...