God does not exist.

1. Rebuttal"Moving on, thoughts do not exist."Existence: "the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds>." [1]There is a difference between claiming that something does not exist and claiming that the same something cannot be physically measured. Pro seems to think otherwise, asserting throughout the course of the debate that anything that exists must be able to be physically measured. As a result of presuppositions and following this course of thinking, Pro has found that he/she must deny that abstract objects, thoughts, morality, truth, and logic exist. This is a wild and unwarranted claim. For Pro claims not only that these things cannot be measured (to which I would have no dispute) but that this lack of quantativity means they cannot exist. From this, we can gather that Pro believes he/she cannot think, recognize truth and logic, or hold any sort of moral beliefs. Pro asserts that each of these are as nonexistent as a planet between Earth and its moon. "Humans are the only self aware, intelligent, creatures on earth and are therefore the only animals capable of inventing deities and religion. Animals (besides human), do not have the capability to believe in a higher power. Yet, they still work together to survive and they have the principals not to kill each other. Based on the definition religion, it is the belief of god, or a group of gods. We have never seen animals worshiping god, so it is safe to conclude animals disbelief in a higher power."I have no disagreement here. I'm not sure why bringing up the idea that only humans are religious has any relevance in this debate, as this idea is agreed upon by the heavy majority of both theists and atheists. "It is possible that a maximally great being exists." This is what the debate is about. Based on the title, it is "God does NOT exist"." Not, "The probability of god existing."The title of the debate is "God does not exist." This is an assertion made by Pro, from which Pro is responsible for shouldering the burden of proof to show that God does not exist. In the argument I presented (first premise quoted by Pro above) I attempt to show that if it is even possible that a maximally great being (God) exists, then this implies His actuality. I'm not really sure where Pro's confusion lies here, but in any case he does not give any objection to the argument (or to any of the arguments I have presented, for that matter.) "Hinduism was one of the earliest religions. It came before the age of enlightenment (a time of which many scientific discoveries were made). The same applies to Christianity and Islam. So, because many early religions came before major scientific discoveries, it is very likely that many statements presented in the religions are incorrect."Again, this argument from Pro commits the genetic fallacy [2]. Pro says that because of how the belief originates, it is incorrect. I gave an example of why this is fallacious in the last round. 2. Arguments in favor of GodAt the beginning of the debate, I presented four arguments in favor of God's existence:i. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.ii. The universe began to exist.iii. Therefore, the universe has a cause.To this, Pro stated that the Big Bang caused the universe. I asked Pro what caused the Big Bang and was given no response.i. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.ii. Objective moral values and duties do exist.iii. Therefore, God exists.To this, Pro went on a tangent about Hinduism and animals. It seems Pro misunderstood the idea of objective morality, taking it instead to mean that only people with religious beliefs can be moral. This is not at all what objective morality means.Objective morality: "the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true." [3]i. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.ii. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in in some possible world.iii. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.iv. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.v. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.vi. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. Pro gave no response to this argument, other than informing me that he/she was trying to argue that God does not exist. That is all fair and well, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument that was presented. i. The probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable given both naturalism and evolution is low.ii. Anyone who affirms both naturalism and evolution and sees that the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable given both naturalism and evolution has a defeater for the reliability of their cognitive faculties.iii. Anyone who has a defeater for their cognitive faculties has a defeater for any belief he thinks he has (this would include the beliefs regarding naturalism and evolution.)iv. Anyone who affirms naturalism and evolution has a defeater for naturalism and evolution.v. Therefore, the belief in both naturalism and evolution is self-defeating and cannot sensibly be accepted.I presented this argument in assumption that Pro affirmed naturalism. However, in the third round Pro stated "I am not very naturalistic" in response to this argument. What is strange is that Pro has asserted on several occasions throughout the debate that nothing exists beyond the material; only quantifiable materials exist:"God cannot be quantified... therefore, he does not exist." (Round 2)"God cannot be quantified... we can conclude god does not exist." (Round 2)"Again, god cannot be quantified..." (Round 2)"Since there is no evidence of god and he cannot be quantified, he does not exist..." (Round 2)"Thoughts do not exist. Anything thought by humans, that cannot be physically measured, does not exist." (Round 4)But surely these beliefs are consistent with naturalism, the same naturalism which Pro denies in order to absolve him/herself from the fourth argument presented. Pro's statement that he/she is not naturalistic and Pro's assertion that only physically quantifiable objects can exist are contradictory. 3. Burden of proofRecall that in this debate, Pro has had the responsibility of shouldering the burden of proof. This is a result of the assertion made by Pro that "God does not exist." As far as I have seen, Pro has not provided any sound arguments in order to attempt to shoulder the burden of proof.4. ConclusionI'd like to thank Pro for creating and participating in the debate.Pro has failed to shoulder the burden of proof. Pro has not succeeded in bringing forward any sound arguments against God's existence. The arguments that I have presented throughout the debate have not been addressed and thus remain sound (for now.) We have been given no reason to think that God does not exist. On the other side, we have been presented with good reasons to think that God exists. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the assertion in this debate, "God does not exist", is a failed one.Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...http://rationalwiki.org...