God exists

To begin with, as anyone can see by reading the rules above, my opponent has violated the rules of the debate established by him/her. According to the rules of the debate, Con is only allowed to give contentions in round 2, but instead has also offered rebuttals to my contentions. This will give my opponent three rounds of rebuttals, while I will only have two (under the current rules). Please consider this when deciding which one of us had the better behavior. Now, my opponent is wrong to say that the claim "out of nothing, nothing comes" somehow disproves God. The argument is referring to the beginning of the physical, material universe that had a beginning. As my convention clearly states, God is uncaused and timeless. Therefore, since God has existed for all eternity, God didn't come from anything. So my opponent would do well to stick with the definitions offered, and not create one that supports a straw man fallacy. As for infinity existing, again context is key. The argument about the impossibility of infinity existing was made in context of our physical universe. God, existing outside our universe would not be included in such an argument. As for the "simultaneous causation" argument, I would assert that it is an illogical possibility for the creation of the universe. When I say "out of nothing, nothing comes" the concept of "nothing" not only refers to having no material, but also no potential. So if there was no physical potential for material, this refutes the idea that an atom can cause another as it itself is coming into being. God is a more likely cause because God exists outside of the physical world, and therefore wouldn't be constrained by the rules of the physical world. As for the evidence that objective moral truths existing, I would argue that they are self evident. For example, it's a fact that rape is wrong. Regardless of society's opinion about rape, it is wrong. Even if we lived in a society that believed rape was acceptable behavior, rape would still be wrong. But without God, objective moral facts can't exist. All you would have is opinions, and subjective morality. You really couldn't say that Hitler was wrong to kill six million Jews. All you could say is that it's not right for you. But objective moral truths do exist, so God (the objective law giver) must exist. Now on to my rebuttals of Con's contentions: Con claims that since "evil exists", God doesn't exist. But notice something here. The fact that Con admits evil exists is actually indirect evidence for the existence of God. Here's why: First let's talk about what evil IS. I would say that evil is something that has "gone wrong" in the world. But if something has gone wrong, then that implies there is a design for the world, and a design implies a designer. As for Con's premises, I would say they are flawed. They don't follow that God doesn't exist. For Con to show that the premises show that God doesn't exist, Con must show that it's logically impossible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil and/or suffering to exist. Under Christian theism, God can compensate victims of evil either in this life or the next with an infinitely larger amount of justice. Con's second argument claims that in order for God to exist, we would have to need God to explain the mechanics of the universe. But this doesn't follow at all. For example, just because I may now how a mechanism works doesn't mean that no one created the mechanism. I may know how a watch works, but that doesn't mean that a watchmaker doesn't exist. Now on to Con's third argument. I want you to notice premise C. As Con implies, if C is true, Then the entire argument collapses. Therefore, since one of Con's premises negates Con's argument, the argument is self refuting.