RESOLVED: Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist

Objections: None Arguments from Substance-Mode RelationThis argument is mainly based upon substance-mode relationships. A substance here is not a scientific substance, but a philosophical one; one which requires one and only one substance to conceive. Modes are matter that requires another mode or substance to be conceived; the conception of each depend on "attributes" Henceforth, a mode is a dualist matter, whilst the substance is a monist matter. [5]With this said, let us affirm the following propositions:Proposition One: There cannot exist two substances with the same natureFor if a substance is of the same nature of another, then that substance would have the same attributes, leading to the conception of that substance requiring another substance. This would make the so-called substance a "mode" because it has the ability to be conceived by another substance.Proposition Two: Substances are necessarily infiniteIf substances are not infinite, then they would have to exist as finite substances. However, if a substance is finite, then it is necessarily true that the substance, via definition of infinite (something greater can be conceived), would have to be limited by a substance of the same nature, and that, as proven in the first proposition, cannot be true. Henceforth, substances are necessarily infinite. Proposition 2.1: Modes is finiteThis should be self evident from proposition Two, for if a mode were infinite, then it would be a substance, for something greater than it would unable to be conceived, which would make it a necessarily dualist entity.Proposition Three: Infinity is Greater than FinityThis should be a self-evident fact. Proposition Four: God is necessarily a substanceSince God is the Greatest, then it would follow that God is infinite, not finite, for finity is less great than infinity. A substance is the only type of matter, as we have proven, to be infinite, and it would follow that no modes are infinite; which would the lead inevitably to the conclusion that God must be a substance, for he is infinite.Proposition Five: The Physical World can conceive GodThis is a self-evident fact, for if humans cannot conceive God, then this debate would be non-existent.Proposition Six: The Physical World is either a mode of God, or God a mode of the Physical World, (P∨G)As humans can conceive God, then it would follow that all substance are different in conception. Henceforth, it would since follow that since attributes are matter used in the conception of a substance, and since no substance has the same attributes, when an attribute is conceived by another seemingly attribute, the attribute is either a (1) non-attribute/mode, or (2) a mode of the substance. Henceforth, it would seem clear that since God can be conceived by the physical world, then the physical world is either his attribute, or God is an attribute, a mode, of the physical world. Proposition Seven: If God is a mode, then he is not the greatest and non-existent, (Mè(~Gn~E)) For as was already proven, God has to be a substance, and non-existent. For if God were a mode, then he would be a finite entity, which would allow him to be conceived by something greater than him; however, God is via definition, the greatest. So henceforth, if something greater than God could be conceived, He would not exist. Proposition Eight: The Physical World is Not a ModeFirst Proof: Then let us make the assertion, that the physical world is not a mode, but a substance. Henceforth, the understanding of the physical world can be understood through one substance only. Let us firstly assert that the universe is infinite; since the universe is always expanding, then the universe is necessarily infinite. The expanding universe theory has proven that the universe is most likely infinite, as the force of gravity would either pull the universe down, and planets would be unable to float. We know the universe is expanding because, as Edwin Hubble demonstrated, the distance between a cosmological object was always further, which seemed to prove that the universe was always expanding, for it has been further proven that the visible cosmological objects are, as of current, non-existent, due to the speed of light to earth, which seemed to prove that they were not moving; but the universe is expanding. Something infinite is only a substance, not a mode. [1]Second Proof: Then let us affirm that the physical world was indeed finite; if the physical world was indeed finite, then it would necessarily be a mode of another substance. However, if the physical world were indeed a mode of another substance, then that substance would also have an attribute of similar finite attribute, a provable one, outside of the physical world. Or henceforth, another world outside of the physical world would necessarily exist; however, let one prove this false by denying the only way that this quality of non-physical worlds can come into existence. Let us call this "other attribute" a multiverse, or a parallel universe. The theory is called the Many-World Interpretation, or philosophically, Modal Realism. Modal Realism is one of those theories whose empirical validity cannot be induced. When a theory has no conclusions that could be induced, then it would be necessarily true that the system with less assumptions would be correct. Modal Realism lays its postulates on several false axiomatic conclusions; the main postulate is that an infinite amount of possible universes exist. (Note here that I have used Modal Realism instead of MWI because Modal Realism is more philosophical) [2]Third Proof: There is also another proof that needs to be considered. The body-mind dualism, or more specifically, Cartesian Dualism, should be taken into account here. Cartesian dualism states that the body and the mind are separate, so that if the physical world were the "body" then it would require the mind to be conceived, and the mind could be conceived only via God. So henceforth, body-mind dualism apparently disproves the monist character of the physical world. But there arises many objections to this theory. That the material cannot create the immaterial, vice versa, is a true fact indeed. For take this as an example; can the physical body create a ghost-like figure called the soul? Consciousness is wholly created by the brain and neuron activity, with the interaction of both causing this "substance" called the soul. Then how is it so, that once the brain dies, the "soul" goes away? For both entities are dependant of each other. [3][4] Proposition Nine: The Physical is a Substance, then God is a ModeThis is also self prevalent from proposition seven.CONCLUSION: If God is a mode, then he is non-existentArguments from MoralityThis argument will derive two conclusions; that God's existence is made unlikely due to the fact that absolute morality doesn't exist, and evil does. Proposition One: Tabula Rasa for Complex Moral Representations are Necessarily TrueLet us look at this case more clearly; by complex moral representations, I mean to describe the ones that are not self prevalent from the laws of natural selection. Dealing with this first, it comes to mind that through the virtue of Kin Altruism, the laws of natural selection has indeed made some innate impressions of what is "moral" or not. For example, "killing is immoral" is a universal maxim, made via natural selection; for killing implies that the number of population in one species' is decreasing, making it more likely to be overthrown via an increasing number of population in another species. This proves that God did not indeed create innate moral judgments, but humans did, via virtue of natural selection.With this said, the human mind makes a much more difficult notion when dealing with complex moral representations; for example, "abortion is immoral" is a widely debated issue. The mind comes as a blank canvas for these complex moral representations, and matters and decisions are made on them only due to assent, and not anything else. If they were innate, then the human mind would have agreed on the abortion issue, and there would be no disagreement via assent.Proposition Two: God is all GoodThis should be a self prevalent fact from the definition of God.Proposition Three: If God exists, then absolute morality is innateFor if God exist, his idea would also be an innate idea. And his existence would make absolute morality innate; for if God created man upon his reflection, then God would, via virtue of omnivolence, create absolute morality to all man.Proposition Four: Absolute Morality is not innate But God has not done this, since absolute morality is not innate, and often assented to. An example has been given about abortion. Conclusion: God does not exist, due to the fact that absolute morality is not innateExtension to the PoE Arguments: Evil ExistsWhy do you lock your doors at night? Proposition Five: If God is all-Good, then Evil cannot ExistThis classic formulation is an analytical proposition from the virtue of the definition of God; let us adopt Epicurus' argumentation in order to prove this point, and of God not existing. If x entails z, and z consists of a,b,c and if a fundamentally contradicts with y, then y would not exist if entity x does. But y exists. Then entity x is not a, or if he cannot prevent y, he is not b, or if he does not want to prevent y, then he is not c. If a,b and c are disproven via the existence of property y, then henceforth z is disproven. But x entails z, but z is non-existent. It would of course only follow that entity x is not-existent. I sincerely hope the opposition will post a little more than one of his sophist tricks in the next round, which is supposed to be refuting the opposition. The resolution, for now, is negated.Citations: [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...I am not a Spinozist, albeit I have used his terms. God is not nature.