There is no God

They certainly make a debate much more interesting. I want to close by summarizing my arguments and issuing final responses to Pro. Let me note too that Pro has dropped many of his initial arguments. God and Actual InfinitiesOnce again, I agree with Pro that the existence of an actually infinite set of things are impossible -- indeed, I even argued against them in my opening arguments! Pro, however, attempts to apply this to God, arguing.1. Infinities cannot exist2. God is infinite3. Therefore, God cannot existHowever, Pro has neglected to respond to my counterarguments which I raised two rounds ago. What's problematic with this argument is that premise (2) equivocates between qualitative and quantiative infinities. Let me repeat my counterargument:First, it is not true that God has existed for an infinite amount of time. Time itself is finite, since it began to exist at the moment of the big bang. Causally prior to that moment, God existed, but not in time. Secondly, Pro confuses a qualitative infinity with a quantitative infinity. When it is said that God is infinite, we do not mean that God literally has an actually infinite number of parts. Rather, the term is an umbrella term for the intrinsic maxima of God's unsurpassable attributes. An actual infinity is to be understood quantatitively as a set containing a denumerable subset, whereas God's infinity is to be understood qualitatively as an umbrella term for his superlative attributes. Pro also attempts two other rebuttals. He first argued that since the universe is by definition everything that exists, God cannot exist outside of the universe. Ergo, God does not exist. Now it's obvious here that this is merely a semantical argument. Pro confuses the universe with reality. The universe simply refers to the totality of all physical existence, whereas reality refers to all of existence. Indeed, by defining our physical universe as everything which exists, Pro actually begs the question by presupposing the non-existence of God. Elsewhere, Pro argues that "If God is not infinite, then what makes him God? Someone had to create him. " This does not at all follow. Recall my earlier statement that "infinity" when applied to God refers to his superlative attributes. It is not used in the mathematical sense, as God has no concrete parts. As William Lane Craig writes,"Rather the key to your question is to understand that the mathematical notion of an actual infinite is a quantitative concept. It concerns a collection of definite and discrete elements that are members of the collection. But when theologians speak of the infinity of God, they are not using the word in a mathematical sense to refer to an aggregate of an infinite number of elements. God's infinity is, as it were, qualitative, not quantitative. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and so on. " [1]The Moral ArgumentPro takes issue with premise one, arguing but why does God have to be the author of morality. " Unfortunately, he still has not adequately responded to the arguments I presented for premise (1). Let me therefore repeat them again: According to the first premise, if there are objective moral facts, then these moral facts have their foundation in the nature of God. This is because morality is prescriptive and is expressed to us in the form of statements such as “Do not lie” and “Do not murder. " These statements carry with them a degree of incumbency – that is to say, they communicate commands to us. Both commands and communication, however, can only originate from an intelligent mind. This mind must additionally be a competent authority in order for its commands to be binding on us. Therefore, moral facts require the existence of a supreme legislator who issues these commands to us. Pro, however, does attempt to deal in part with this argument. He writes, "but does it have to be a "God"? Why can't it be a philosopher or someone else that was a king or a leader over a vast majority of the world? "Simple. The argument is based on objective moral facts, this by definition precludes morality having a human origin. As I have said before, to be objective is for something to obtain independent of human knowing. Thus, if there are objective moral facts, then they must originate from a mind that is higher than humans. God is thus the perfect candidate for the locus of morality. Pro then provides several other objections to the moral argument. He claims that "we all know that torturing babies for any reason is wrong. This is more of a straw-man argument. " I agree that it is wrong to torture babies for fun, but what grounds this fact? What makes the act of torturing babies for fun wrong? On atheism, there is no adequate ground to account for the objectivity of this fact. Human opinion is inadequate for this, since it has no imperitival force. My argument therefore is definitely not a strawman -- it points out a glaring inconsistency in Pro's position. The Cosmological ArgumentHaving already dealt with Pro's arguments concerning actual infinities, let me point out that Pro has completely dropped most, if not all of his counterarguments against the KCA. He grants all three premises, and he has not responded to my argument that the cause must be God. As a final criticism, he asks "So what caused God? " Additionally, he treats the causal premise as stating "everything has a cause. " This, however, is a strawman. The KCA does not claim that everything has a cause, only that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Since God by definition did not begin to exist, God therefore did not have a cause. To repeat what I said before:By definition, God is uncaused. Since he is a maximally great being, he does not owe his existence to any higher being, for there is nothing higher to which his existence could be dependent on. Therefore, it is impossible for God to have been brought into being. The Problem of Evil Recall earlier that I turned Pro's own argument from evil against him to show how it actually implied the existence of God. This strengthened my case by adding a third theistic argument to my presentation. Pro has not responded to this argument at all. Pro's Final AppealIn closing, Pro makes four points. He states that I have not not demonstrated why God must be the creator of the universe, the author of objective morality, now have I provided evidence that God exists or have I adequately responded to his argument that actual infinities cannot exist. These are all false. I have demonstrated why God must be the creator of the universe -- Pro simply just has not responded to my argument. I have shown why God must be the author of objective morality -- Pro simply just has not responded adequately. And certainly I have provided evidence that God exists. Even if Pro believes my arguments to be false, they still count as evidence. Finally, I agree with Pro that actual infinities cannot exist. However, this has absolutely no implications for God's existence, as Pro's argument equivocates between qualitative and quantatitive concepts of infinity. Conclusion Let me once again thank Pro for being such a timely and courteous opponent throughout the debate. Since he has not, however, responded adequately to the arguments presented, I hereby urge a vote for Con. __________Souces1. . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...;