Evidence for God

1. Kalam Cosmological Argument"Commonly, atheists will adopt the cyclic model in hopes that a past boundary (a beginning) will not be necessary."I am in no way endorsing the cyclic model, nor do I claim to be doing so. Simply, I am asserting, correctly, that there is no certainty regarding whether the universe had a cause. Once more, this debate is about whether there is sufficient evidence for God's existence. I need not provide additional evidence supporting another claim about how the universe works, etc. - merely, I must simply show how your evidences are invalid (I have done so). I'm not arguing that the cyclic model is true - I don't know why you're assuming that I am and recommend that you don't waste a paragraph next round to refute a theory that I don't claim to be true. Once more, Alexander Vilenkin himself acknowledges that there is no way to know for sure whether the universe had a cause:"[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes". If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is "No, but"" So, there are ways to get around having a beginning..."Again, an author of the theorem himself admits that Borde-Guth-Vilenkin doesn't prove a beginning for sure. Pro claims - with no reliable evidence whatsoever - that the source I used was apparently faulty because it is "extremely difficult to believe that Alexander Vilenkin would contradict everything he says in his academic work in a supposed interview with an atheist blogger." First and foremost, I find it slightly disappointing that Pro would stoop to the low level of criticizing a reliable source just to advance his argument and bash mine. Simply being both an 'atheist' and a 'blogger' does not make one unreliable - to say so would be preposterous (to conform to you're needs, I'll provide additional sources [1] [2] and [3] with the exact same interview included). The interview Vilenkin gave did not "contradict everything he says in his academic work" whatsoever - once more, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem itself says only that "almost all" inflationary models for the universe have a beginning. Clearly, both the theorem and Vilenkin himself acknowledge that the universe didn't have a beginning for sure - the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (the universe began to exist) is simply not known to be true.Furthermore, my opponent completely ignores my refutation of the claim that the cause of the universe must have been God. Once more, I acknowledge that there is evidence for the universe's beginning, but to say that such a beginning must be due to God is preposterous. Vilenkin himself states clearly that:"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God. So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist."I find Pro's use of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem slightly ironic, as an author of the theorem himself is blatantly acknowledging that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound. Pro completely ignored the above quote in his argument, probably because it refutes Kalam in the entirety. Again, I have provided three additional sources for Vilenkin's interview [1] [2] [3] due to Pro's distaste for bloggers who are atheist.2. Argument From MoralityOnce more, it isn't even my responsibility in the debate to defend any moral system - I must simply show that my opponent's evidences are insufficient. However, I will still defend the moral system I have presented, as the system is quite logical and Pro's claims are quite contradictory:Pro begins his argument by blatantly ignoring mine. He states that under my moral system, "if an action (rape) maximizes the well being of five individuals and minimizes the well-being of one individual, then the net result of the action is 'good.'" I don't know where Pro deduced this from. Perhaps, if he had listened to the following quote of mine, he would have seen things differently:"The morality of an action is determined on whether it causes a positive or negative net change in well-being. This is not related to the amount of people with changing well-being (my opponent would like you to believe that the net well-being is based off of the quantity of people being positively or negatively affected, though in reality, the net well-being is based off of the extent of positive or negative change - this is what makes gang rape immoral even though many are pleasured while one is pained)."It's quite ironic how my opponent asserts that my moral system would allow rape that increases the well being of five and decreases that of one - once more, the morality of an action is related to the net change in well-being, NOT the quantity of the people experiencing a change in well-being. I asserted this multiple times, though Pro apparently doesn't seem to notice. He says the following:"On my opponent's view, then, actions like rape and torture are morally "good" so long as there are more psychopaths involved in the action than their are sane individuals. "I currently cannot remember debating an opponent who has - to the same extent - so carelessly attributed such falsehoods to me. Once more, I clearly stated in my last quote that the morality of an action is "not related to the amount of people with changing well-being" - I encourage Pro to base his next rebuttal off of what I actually think instead of what I don't actually think."To do so, he proposes a radical theory for objective morality, namely that an action is objectively "good" if it maximizes well-being and objectively "evil" if it minimizes well-being."Pro quotes the word "evil" in his argument, saying that I supposedly think "a mother who runs into a burning house to save her baby, dying in the process, has committed an 'evil' act." First of all, I don't even mention the word evil in my argument - to quote the word and its moral connotations to me is simply, well, wrong. Once more, I strictly believe that "the morality of an individual's action can be determined by seeing if they applied their knowledge to the situation in order to provide a positive net well-being (it would therefore not be immoral to commit an action with good intentions but later figure out that it had bad effects)." In the situation regarding the burning house, I suppose the mother would apply her knowledge to the situation and conclude that the most well-being could be achieved if she tried to save the baby. Of course, even if she willingly sacrificed her own life for that of the baby, her action would still be permissible - note that I distinctly state in my argument that "however, if the parents choose to do so, I suppose they could sacrifice themselves out of pure altruism and kindness for their child (this would still be morally permissible, as the parents are consenting to the sacrifice and therefore willingly determining their own well-being)." Pro's assertion that the actions of the mother would be considered "evil" under my system is blatantly untrue - once more, (a) I never said, nor do I believe, that the actions of the mother would be evil, (b) the actions of the mother would be morally good if she tried to increase well-being by saving her child, and (c) even if she willingly sacrificed herself, "this would still be morally permissible, as the [mother is] consenting to the sacrifice and therefore willingly determining [her] own well-being." Pro's attacks against my moral system are all blatantly untrue, as each of the attacks obviously attribute a bad quality to my moral system that simply isn't there (see above).3. Modal Ontological Argument"In order to reject the statement "existence is greater than non-existence" one would have to affirm that either 'existence and non-existence are equally great' or 'non-existence is greater than existence.'"This assertion is untrue. As my opponent has the responsibility to provide evidence for God, and this evidence relates to existence as good, Pro must provide evidence that existence is good. In this specific situation, my opponent has the burden of proof, as he is affirming the contention on hand, while I must simply explain that there is no evidence for it. As philosopher Chris Hitchens once said, "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Only Pro must provide evidence regarding this specific contention, as he is affirming it and I am simply saying there is no evidence for it (not necessarily that non-existence is equal/better)."If my argument (which my opponent has thus far failed to refute) is sound, then it follows that there is no possible world in which God does not exist."For what seems like the billionth time, using axiom S5, any possibility is real in at least one possible world. Therefore, as both the existence and non-existence of God are possible, there are possible worlds in which God does and doesn't exist. My opponent is absolutely using circular reasoning if he argues that it's impossible that God doesn't exist due to the ontological argument itself. SummaryThroughout my arguments, I have successfully rebutted each of my opponent's arguments. While he may attempt to counter my successful rebuttals, I remind the voters that I have provided many evidences against his three arguments, whilst his attacks against me have each proven to be faulty and untrue. With that, I end the debate. Thanks! :DSources1. tinyurl.com/pymcw9y2. tinyurl.com/pafddqw