Resolved: God Exists

Thanks for the prompt response, Con.Defence of argumentsCosmological argumentCon here makes a straw-man of my argument, as he states that I said that everything is contingent. Yet I didn't do this, I actually said that everything within the universe is contingent. This would exclude any entities that are definitively outside the universe (i.e God).'the BoP is on Pro to prove that God is not contingent.'My opponent gets this the wrong way round. What I do with the argument is argue that a necessary, transcendent creator of the universe exists, and then ascribe this being the title of 'God'.My point asserting the logical incoherency of an actual infinity is questioned. I will elaborate as to why it is incoherent.Multiple contingent entities create a causal chain, for example A > B > C > D ... where A is contingent on B, which is contingent on C, which is contingent on D and so on. I maintain that an infinite causal chain is incoherent.This is because, if we have a given contingent entity (X) which is at the forefront of an infinite causal chain, then it follows that there are infinite contingent entities in that chain. Yet if X was to cause a new entity to exist (Y), then this would be an addition to that chain. But this would mean that the chain now contains ∞+1 entities. This is an absurdity because no numerical expression can logically have a value greater than infinity.This reductio ad absurdum argument refutes the notion of actual infinites, as their existence would necessitate the possibility numbers greater than infinity.Ontological argumentCon says a lot of stuff here, although it is not made clear which premises and/or conclusions of the argument he is attacking. But I will interpret the rebuttal as best I can.Firstly, the distinction is made between epistemic and metaphysical possibility. For the sake of the voters who may be unaware of this distinction, I will explain it:Epistemic possibility is basically saying 'it is possible, for all we know'. So something is epistemically possible inasmuch as we do not know whether it is true or false, and hence it is possible that we will come to know either way. In other words, epistemic possibility is what the world may be.Metaphysical possibility is roughly equivalent to logical possibility (1), which asserts that things are possible according to the laws of logic. Anything is metaphysically possible so long as it is not logically impossible. An example of a logical impossibility is a square circle.Con states that 'ontology merely illustrates the epistemic possibility of the existence of God'. Yet this is not clearly supported.Moreover, ontology isn't used to illustrate that God is possible at all - His possibility is asserted as given in premise 2.In other words, the ontological argument already presumes that God is metaphysically possible - its actual conclusion only asserts that God objectively exists, it doesn't concern itself with arguing for possibility.As something is metaphysically possible insofar as it is not logically impossible (like a square circle), Con has to prove that God is logically impossible, in order to refute premise 2.Next, Con claims that my assertion that existence is a positive property is unproven.Yet I did give inductive reasoning as to why existence is a positive property. This is shown by how God is considered to be great by theists (because he exists) and is considered to be not-great by atheists (because he doesn't exist). This implies that existence is a property that makes a being greater than another. Hence a being that exists is greater than an identical being that doesn't exist.For example, a cure to cancer that exists is greater than a cure to cancer that does not exist.My opponent's following syllogism that attempts to parody the argument doesn't work. Namely because P1 is unjustified. The concept of a necessarily non-existent God contradicts the definition of God as the greatest conceivable being, as we would be able to conceive of a greater being than a necessarily non-existent God. This is because I have argued cogently that existence is a positive property.Con goes on to attempt to refute C1, as he denies that anything can exist in the mind.Yet this is absurd - we know that things can exist in the mind, such as ideas, sentences and other mental constructs.Finally, Con takes issue with my first premise, that God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. He states that this definition is not provided in round 1.Yet I would point out that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being is the greatest conceivable being, as we cannot conceive of a being greater than an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being. Either way, both definitions are interchangeable when defining the theistic God.Religious ExperienceMy opponent fails to actually attack my argument here, instead he just states that the argument rests on a 'mathematical assertion'.If Con means that this argument is a probabilistic argument, then yes, it is. But this does not mean that it is an invalid or illogical argument.He then goes on to say:'A mere mathematical assertion is not proof; proof must be objective, not subjective.'But this seems to imply that mathematics is subjective! This is absurd, considering that mathematics is essentially one of the most objective subjects there is.Rebuttals of ArgumentsThe Big BangI never denied the veracity of the Big Bang theory, but nor does it refute the notion that God exists. The Big Bang is simply the first event in the universe, it cannot be used to explain why the universe itself exists, as the Big Bang is an event within the universe.Quantum FluctuationsCon postulates that the universe was caused by a quantum fluctuation, and hence it has no need of a creator God.Yet this raises two problems:1. Quantum fluctuations can only violate the conservation of energy for short periods of time (2), the universe has existed for more than 14 billion years and shows no signs of going away any time soon.2. Quantum fluctuations can only occur in a point in space (a vacuum)(3), yet there was no space or vacuums prior to the Big Bang.Law of ParsimonyThis law simply states that, in the absence of evidence either way, the proposition that makes the least assumptions should be accepted.Yet this law only takes precedent in the absence of evidence either way, yet I have already given evidence why it is likely that God exists, so the law of parsimony cannot be used to negate the existence of God.The resolution is upheld.____________________________________________________________________________(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) Ibid.