God Does Exist

I accept this challenge. I will be arguing that the resolution "God does exist" doesn't have enough evidence or that the logic behind it is unsound. Therefore the burden of proof is on Pro's side. This is fine with Pro's rules: "he(Con) is free by virtue of his philosophical capacities to argue which ever hard or soft thesis he would like."Rebuttal: 1.The Lebnizian Cosmological Argument "Philosophers have argued that numbers, properties, and even the laws of logic are all necessarily existent"Let me disagree here. Why should we consider numbers necessarily existent? Or why should we consider that numbers exist in the first place?Some philosophers have argued that numbers are necessarily existent, Platonists. But can Pro really say that numbers, properties and even the laws of logic are necessarily existent?Not really. Do numbers are an invention or a discovery? They are an invention. Mathematics and numbers are just systems, set of rules created by humans and they cannot exists without humans. The same happens with the laws of logic. Those systems are models from reality, but they don't exist, and definitely they are not necessarily existent.Now I will be analyzing every premise of the argument:P1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.I would argue that this statement is actually controversial. It is controversial that everything has an explanation or needs an explanation. But still, I don't need to deny this because the arguments have other problems. Problems that I already showed and problems that I will show.P2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.This implies that the universe is contingent, but why would the universe be contingent and not necessarily existent?One reason could be that there are parts of the universe that are contingent, but this commits the fallacy of composition. Simply because parts have certain property doesn't mean that the whole has the same property."God just is"The universe just is. [2]Now, this also imply that God is necessarily existent. And I know one of the properties in the definition is "necessity", but you also add this:"By necessity I do not mean in the logically necessary sense. Rather, I mean that God exists by the necessity of his own nature; he cannot come into existence or go out of existence. "What Pro is talking about is called "Factual necessity". You definition implies that God is the necessary being, but we can not say this is real unless God has logical necessity and factual necessity. And God doesn't have logical necessity, therefore it is contingent (if real). [3]P3: The universe exists.I'm going to agree on this one. [1]The next 2 points are conclusions based on the first 3 premises. The first 3 premises have to be true so the conclusions are true.2. The argument from Design."We notice that houses and even watches have properties such as “the adjustment of parts into a whole” and “curious adapting of means to ends.” It is the case that the universe has these properties as well."This is a non sequitur. First Pro assumes that you can conclude that p is a design if p has this properties, but this is fallacious, then Pro also assumes that p has this properties.But how can we know something is designed then? From experience. Yes, we compare what we already know is designed to the things we don't know they are designed, and then we compare them with nature, with things that are not designed. This is important because we would not be able to know if something is designed or not if everything was designed. And this is where e argument fails because the argument requires everything to be designed, and that's fallacious. We would not have point of comparison. We would not have reasons to argue about design if everything was designed.P1: The universe displays design within the created order.This is false for the reasons already stated.P2: Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.This is also false. Or at least you could say that it's not completely true.There are examples of nature that are not by pure chance but are not designed either. For example, natural selection. Natural selection doesn't act by chance, but "selects" individuals based on their survival. This is P3: Not chance.This doesn't have any proof, but I will agree because the first 2 premises are fundamental to the argument and they are both false.The rest are conclusions based on the premises. All premises need to be true so the conclusions are true.At least 2 of the premises are false, therefore the conclusions can't be considered true.3. Swinburne and Personal/Scientific Explanations:This is not actually an argument for the existence of god, but it's inside the "Argument for the existence of God" section of Pro.And now that I notice, this section doesn't have a (3.2). I don't think there is something to rebut here.Off-topic:This is something that should not be considered in the votes or in the analysis of the debate.Pro, I read your blog. It is really interesting. But I have a petition. Can you please use a darker color for the quotes (lol). I admit that I don't have a good sight, but it my help more than one person (me). Thanks for the debate.Sources:1. http://doestheuniverseexist.com...2. A critical exposition of the philosophy of Leibniz. https://archive.org...3. Immanuel Kant. Lectures on Philosophical Theology.