The Abrahamic God Does Not Exist

Let us remember that last round I established it is Pro who must show the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, I don't have prove God exist. "Five Ways" "These can essentially be used as a defense for any deistic or (if you prefer) theistic entity. This includes all of the other gods humanity has conjured up. The points do not prove a theistic deity, let alone the Abrahamic one. " Aquinas himself believed in the Abrahamic God and used this system. Therefore we can use it unless Pro shows the Abrahamic God fails in characterization for this argument. [1] Lets see how Pro fared in his rebuttal. (1) Argument from motion "This argument begs the question, I'm afraid. The logic is faulty. One could ask what motivated this deity to make the first move? " Pro says this argument begs the question then he follows himself by begging the question. This logic is far from settled or faulty. 'Motion' has a much wider meaning, it is a synonym for 'change', it does not only refer to change of position. Newton's first Law Newton's first law of motion declares that a force is not needed to keep an object in motion. The law never states the cause of motion needs no mover to cause motion in the first place. Prime Mover Pro attacks my argument by attacking Aristotle. A fundamental insight of Aristotle unused by Newton was the concept of power, the power that causes all motion. [2] General relativity and Newton deal only with motion that is already in place or motion without any acceleration. They do not deal with the original cause of motion to drift in line. Therefore the need for an original mover. "If God created us, who created God? " Pro obviously ignored my video. Pro ignores the understanding of eternal only when applied to God. God was not created therefore not needing a creator. God has always existed not needing a beginning. This is no cop-out it is simple logic. Pro cannot stand in the position that the universe has always existed because the current view of cosmetology maintains a Big-Bang occurred which caused the universe to expand. This leaves us asking what caused the Big-Bang? They do not know. Therefore making his claim even more confounding than God did it. (2) Argument from efficient cause "Not "everyone" gives it the name "God". Some people give it the name "Brahma". Others "Ra". It is not reasonable to say that everyone gives it the name God. " This is off topic and unless Pro shows how I cannot use the Arbahamic God for this argument then it my argument stands. "What Hume is saying is that the observable succession of events require no beginning since we can conceive of it going back to infinity. " I mentioned how modern science contends that the universe had a beginning and until my opponent dismantles modern cosmetology and the Big-Bang theory my contention stands. Which is the universe had a beginning and is not infinite. Pro asserts we have no rational reason to think things are finite. We are born, we live, we die, the same for all physical things. We have much reason to believe all physical things are finite. [3] (3) Argument from necessary being "This argument assumes the conclusion in one of it's premises. Again, if we must admit a necessary existent entity, why shouldn't it be the universe itself? " It cannot be the universe until the Big-Bang and modern cosmetology are proved wrong. (4) Argument from gradations of goodness "This is perhaps Aquinas' weakest argument. Although a sense of fairness, decency, and right and wrong is innate in us, most social standards and norms are ultimately subjective. Therefore it is unreasonable to conclude that this argument has any serious gradation. " The Argument from Degree Something is the maximum or there would be no standard at all. "Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. "[4] (5) Argument from design. "Natural bodies work for a goal? What is this goal? Therefore, it is impossible to make the assertion that inanimate objects or processes always seems to move towards a "goal". " Pro offers us no reason not to believe in our natural instinct to see design. Humans design things and if something out there is intelligent like humans, and designs things, we would also expect to find design. If we find design, we have evidence of intelligence. If an intelligent agent caused design like humans do, and then we should find objects with human-like design, we do, we then can assume they were also designed by an intelligence like our own. "It is not at the end but at the beginning of our conclusions, among original principles, that we must place the truth, that such arrangements, manifestations, and proceedings as we behold about us imply a Being endowed with consciousness, design, and will, from whom they proceed. " (Whewell 1834, 344) The problem of evil "The existence of evil is contradictory to a god who is supposedly omniscient and omnibenevolent. " For true love to occur there must be freedom. If God does not allow beings to choose then He is not benevolent. It is therefore against God's goals and against love to stop the possibility of evil. "God created Lucifer, knowing that the angel would rebel against him, thus creating evil, thus making God the ultimate cause of evil, since he created Lucifer. " God did create Lucifer. God also loved Lucifer and allowed him the choice. If God did not allow this choice then He denies freedom and love to occur willingly. Lucifer beget evil not God. Pros argument is like saying it is my fault if my child kills or robs someone. "Also, a God who punishes people with an eternity in Hell for failing an unspecified test during the few decades of life is wicked and deserves no respect. " Pro simply inserts his own opinion and objective moral compass. This helps his case none. If there is a God, then He has made Himself known and therefore Pro has no excuse to deny God could exist. He also has no excuse for blaming God for his own fate. We obviously have the right to reject whom has created us. God is not "simple" and materialism "A being who is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, can answer prayers and actually cares about us is anything but simple. He is complex in every sense of the word. " The imagination of man can envision such a God and therefore that shows us how simple God is. We require movement and work which is complex. How many of us have wished things would just happen without having to work? It is simpler to not have to move or work. God is this simple. Pro asserts that everything that exist is natural but has not validated this point. Argument from Superfluity Pro showed that people used God to explain things they did not understand. He has not shown us that God does not exist. He has not shown why people today do not use the 'God did it' explanation but still believe God exist. My opponent uses a fallacy when he says, "God did it" is a answer that stops people from thinking. " I contend for people to say God did it requires thought to find a conclusion when no answer is available. Summation The link below shows Pro used an entire article for his rebuttal this round and not his own argument. Pro still has not shown the Abrahamic God does not exist. Pro has dropped arguments. His rebuttal to 'five ways' is shaky at best. Thank you and back to Pro. Resolution Negated . http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net... Sources: [1] . http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com... [2] . http://www.mlahanas.de... [3] . http://home.wlu.edu... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...