Dose God Exist

I am honestly surprised that my opponent did not forfeit this debate, like he’s been doing so far. Good for him. In my final round I will eradicate his post for round two, and hence refute the conclusion. My opponent did not address my criticism of the problem of evil/stupid design argument. This counts as two concessions. Now all he has left to rely on is his claim that there is no evidence for God’s existence. I have rephrased his arguments in bold (taking out the incoherence and grammatical issues) and have placed my refutations beneath them. The underlined text denotes the fallacy that my opponent has committed in his post. ARGUMENTS The cosmological argument relies on the idea that we do not yet understand how the universe came to be, therefore it must be God. unsupported assertion: No, it doesn’t. It relies on pure logic. Logic tells us that things like the universe, because existence does not flow from their definitions, require something outside of themselves to explain their existence. Refer to my argument earlier. I won’t repeat myself. But the point here is that logical principles like the one I relied on for the modal cosmological argument are not the result of our ignorance; they are the result of our knowledge. If my opponent thinks that the principle I put forth is mistaken, he should have said why. When you have empty space, it can give rise to matter and anti-matter. blinding with science: My opponent did not explain the incoherent statements he made about physics. He seems to think that throwing out fancy words that a physicist said constitutes an argument. It does not. irrelevance: Even if all the science my opponent threw at me were correct, it does not address my argument. I did not argue that God is needed to explain the coming into existence of the universe (which is what the science addresses). My point was about the bare existence. I was relying on modal logic to make my point. My opponent did not address this. Science cannot operate outside the boundaries of logic. Sorry. Christians rely on a 3000 year old book that never changes. Creationists rely on the same arguments over and over again. irrelevance: The bible is not 3000 years old (obviously accuracy is not a strong point of my opponent) and anyway, I did not make any references to biblical or creationist arguments. My opponent is trying to distract from his awful arguments by bringing up things I never said. Does a rainbow have to be any less wonderful once you know how it works? straw man: I did not argue that things become less wonderful when you know how they work. I argued that humanity’s ability to perceive beauty is indicative of the existence of the divine. My opponent did not address this. My argument still stands. Evolution is not about survival of the fittest. irrelevance/blinding with science: How does this mean that God does not exist? My opponent’s words are so obscure here that it is hard to see what he means, but he seems to be saying that survival is not what drives evolution, random variation is. He is confused. They are both involved in evolution, though survival (of the fittest) is the driving force behind the continuation of evolution. And anyway, even ifrandom variation is the driving force behind evolution, he did not explain how that could give rise to beauty. My argument still stands. Morality is something that changes over time. unsupported assertion: You have to argue this, not merely assert it. We only have evidence that people’s view of morality changes over time, not that morality itself changes over time. Sometimes people’s moral views are just wrong and illogical. Have we gotten so politically correct that we have to say that each moral view is no better or worse than another simply because multiple moral views exist? Our own experience and common sense tell us that objective morality exists. If we wish to believe otherwise, we need a reason to do so. My opponent has provided no reason. My argument still stands. We do not need religion in order to be good. straw man: I did not argue that religion is needed to explain morality. I argued that God is neededto explain morality. My opponent did not address this point. My argument still stands. Even in your Bible it says that slavery is okay. irrelevance: This proves that some of the people who composed the Bible were barbaric. It does not mean that God does not exist. My argument still stands. * * * I must add in a few words about my opponent’s grammar. It is a sign to me that his education level is no higher than that of a 2nd grader. I wish there were a way that someone could be kicked off the site just for having appalling spelling, but that does not seem to be the case. Debate.org is stuck with this guy. My apologies to anyone else who debates him. I do hope he learns how to spell in the future. He might do well to not post walls-of-text too. His lack of organizational style is a sign of amateurism and laziness. I hope he works on that too if he intends to stay on the site. CONCLUSION My opponent’s posts display some of the most unintelligent and lazy thinking that is present on this website in general, or in atheist thought in particular. I’d be surprised to debate anyone who displays a lower sign of intelligence. I refuted all of his arguments, and he did not even touch mine. He has no organization to his posts, and seems to think that the videos that he posts can do the work for him. Unless he wants to continue losing, I suggest he buckle down and get serious. No debater on this site will have any respect for him if he continues to debate the way he does now. Well, it was fun for me refute an opponent’s arguments once again, and to put forth myown. That was the benefit I got from the debate. I would like voters to realize that I did not require sources, and so did not use any, whereas my opponent used them because he required them. Sources should therefore be called a tie.