There is No Rational Reason to Believe in God

Thank you Mhykiel. Godel's Ontological Argument "My opponent opposes accepting the axioms the argument is based on. They attempt to illustrate that accepting the axiom as "true" is irrational because it might not be so." The problem I see concerns axiom 4, which states "If a property is positive, then it is positive in all possible worlds." This is an incredibly heavy assertion and there is no possible way to demonstrate its validity, forcing us to blindly accept it as true. If we were able to visit other worlds and note that this property remains positive in all of them, then we would have reason to accept axiom 4. The problem with this axiom goes far beyond simply doubt; the scale of this axiom is so large that we must rely on faith rather than reason to accept it as valid. My opponent did not explain what exactly is meant by the term "positive" and "world." These term seems subjective, a trait that should not apply to an argument that relies on logic. "Are we obligated to refrain from accepting #4 as true? Since this is the burden of my opponent I look forward to him substantiating that we are obligated to refrain from doing so." We are not obligated to do anything. As I wrote above, we simply lack any reason to accept that there is validity behind axiom 4. MacBook tool for Godel's Ontological Argument God is believed to be a being which operates separately from time and space. We currently have no way of creating equations that incorporate anything that exceeds the dimensions of reality which we are able to comprehend. Thus using computers to prove the existence of such a being is implausible. "If there are positive properties, then one positive property would be to have all positive properties." Why? I am assuming my opponent is saying that infinity exists, in which case there could hypothetically exist infinite positive properties. But my opponent must first meet his burden of proof that infinity exists. If we are to believe infinity does not exist, I ask my opponent to prove that the property of having all positive properties must exist within the limited number of positive properties. Kalam Cosmological Argument "Here [Pro] conflates complex with needing a cause. A premise that is not asserted in the Kalam argument." I understand that complexity is not mentioned in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I brought up complexity to demonstrate that it is illogical to think that God did not need a cause when he is supposedly more complex than the universe he created, which many claim must have needed a cause. If God caused the universe, what caused God? Moral Argument "While I think the majority of people will accept "Pain is bad for you" this is an appeal to emotion, over any rational thinking." This is not an appeal to emotion. It is perfectly rational. Pain (either physical or psychological) is how we know that something harmful is happening to our wellbeing. When we touch a hot stove, we feel pain because it is causing physical damage to our bodies. When we say something disrespectful to someone and later feel guilt, we feel pain because we have damaged our relationship with that person. I believe that the Moral Argument as sole proof of God"s existence is irrational because there are other methods through which morality can arise, such as through evolution. Doubt Of course nothing is certain. The problem with these arguments for God (both the ones I brought up as well as Godel's Ontological Argument) is not simply that they contain uncertainty. The reason they are irrational is because they make assertions with no possible way to test them, to at least give us some reason behind them. For example, we cannot be certain that the Big Bang really happened. But we have evidence that suggests it did. We have done tests and discovered Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, what we believe is the leftover heat from the Big Bang [1]. We observe distant galaxies moving away from us, suggesting that if the universe is now expanding, it must have been compressed at one point [2]. We have reason and evidence to help us determine validity, something we lack with Godel's Ontological Argument. My opponent requests that I demonstrate where there is an obligation to refrain from accepting an Axiom as true. Where is the obligation to accept the axioms as true? It goes both ways. Next, he asks me to show that the premises are contrary to fact. In reality, there are no facts to even give us a hint whether the premises are truthful or not, especially regarding axiom 4. Then he asks me to show how the inferences are invalid. What suggests that they are valid? My opponent seems to be taking the "well can you disprove God?" route, a logical fallacy. My opponent must demonstrate that there is reason to deem the axioms of Godel's Ontological Argument as valid. Lastly, Con writes "There is no reason to refrain from accepting the Axioms as "True."" There is also no reason to accept it as true other than faith. "The premises derive from an understanding of object-property and are epistemologically factual." Yet God is believed to be beyond space and time, which are essential properties of an object. Thus the premises of Godel's Ontological Argument could not possibly prove God. I'll be waiting for your response! Sources 1. http://www.space.com... 2. http://www.livescience.com...