God does not exist.

Ave.IntroductionWell, King and I both share a burden of proof in this debate. That means that I must present a positive case (arguing for the existence of god) as well as a negative case (refuting arguments against the existence of god). In this round, I will put forward my arguments in favor of the existence of god. Then, King will have an oppurtunity to respond to these arguments. After that, I'll rebutt the argument he gave in R2.Contingency ArgumentP1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.P2) The universe exists.P3) The universe has an explanation of its existence.P4) The explanation of the universe is not due to necessity.P5) The explanation of the universe must be due to an external cause.P6) The external cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, and personal.P7) If god existed, he would at least have the traits of being spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, and personal.C: The external cause of the universe is god.JustificationP1: This premise is based on the Principle of Sufficent Reason (PSR). This states that everything has an explanation of a reason for its existence. If I was hiking in the woods and I came across a ball, I would assume that either someone put it there, or it always existed. If you inflate that ball to the size of the cosmos, this doesn't change. So, it seems most probable that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence out of nessecity or contingency.P2: If the universe doesn't exist, how are we debating each other?P3: This follows logically from P1 and P2.P4: We have astrophysical evidence that the universe began to exist. If the universe began to exist, then it cannot exist nessecarily.P5: From P4, the only choice is that the universe exists because of an external cause.P6: Spaceless because it existed before space. Timeless because it existed before time. Immaterial because it existed before matter. Omnipotent because of the great power required to cause the universe to exist. Personal because god must have intended for the universe to be created.P7: If god did not have any of those traits, he would not be maximally great.Moral ArgumentP1) If god does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not ext.P2) Objective moral values and duties exist.C) God exists.JustificationP1: The least arbitary and most plausible source of objective moral value duties would be a maximally great being that exemplifies the standards of moral good. If this maximally great being does not exist, then it follows that there is no standard of objective moral values and duties.P2: 1) For any action A affecting some person P, if A has moral content, then A cannot be amoral2) If such morals exist, then they would exist necessarily3) Some objective moral knowledge existsTherefore,4) Moral truths exist.Ontological ArgumentP1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.JustificationP1: The only way to prove this wrong is to show that it's impossible for a maximally great being exists.P2: Logically follows from P1.P3: A maximally great being must be an objective part of all reality in every possible world. If not, then the being you are talking about is not maximally great.P4: We are living in a possible world.P5: Logically follows from P4.Of course, King has presented a counter-argument to this in his opening remark. I'll get to that in my next round.Vale.