Evidence for God

I look forward to a great debate! :D Looking back, I forgot a few things in the introduction (definitions, Burden of Proof, etc. ) For the sake of my first argument, I'll be arguing against a God in general, though noting you are Catholic, you may decide to limit the scope of the debate to the Christian/Catholic God in your next round if you so choose. You can also provide a definition for God, as long as it is reasonable. I would assume that the Burden of Proof is shared, as the debate will mainly focus around whether the amount of evidence for God is sufficient or not. Once more, I thank you for accepting the debate, and wish you the best of luck! For my first argument, noting that I'm not sure whether you want the debate to be focused on a general God or the specific Christian/Catholic one, I'll be showing the error in two common arguments that pro-God debaters like to use. The two I chose in this round are the two favorites of William Lane Craig, a quite well-known modern Christian apologist. 1. Modal Ontological Argument - This argument, one of the most commonly seen in today's world, falls somewhere along these lines: a. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. b. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. c. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. d. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. e. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. f. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. This argument, while seemingly convincing, is contradictory. It uses modal logic axiom S5, a branch of logic that defines possibility as relating to something that exists in at least one possible world (or hypothetical scenario). For example, using axiom S5, we can argue that a leprechaun (as a rationally possible being) exists in at least one possible world. Going back to the argument, we can see it uses the idea that a maximally great being (God), if possible, exists in every possible world because existing is greater than not existing. Unfortunately, using modal logic axiom S5, this is not true. The principle of axiom S5 states that a maximally great being would exist in some possible worlds due to the axiom's definition of possibility, but because a maximally great being is as of this point in the argument only possible and not yet proven as actual, a maximally great being would not exist in all worlds (this is proven through the modal logic scenario in which due to the mere possibility of God existing, God doesn't exist in at least one possible hypothetical world - if you use Modal to prove that God does exist in every possible world, you are using circular reasoning). Already, the axiom shows that a maximally great being, while existing in some possible worlds, does not exist in others. Therefore, stating that a maximally great being exists in every possible world (point C of the Modal Ontological Argument) is contradictory and hence untrue. Furthermore, another problem in the Modal Ontological Argument arises with the question of whether existence in every possible world is a necessary property of a maximally great being. If existence in every possible world was not a property of a maximally great being, a maximally great being would not necessarily need to exist in every possible world. While my opponent may argue that it is better to exist in every possible world than to not exist in every possible world, there is no evidence for this, especially on a supernatural scale (existence is a blank template from which both greatness and evilness can be derived). For these reasons, the Modal Ontological Argument fails as evidence for God's existence, and should not be used by those who argue in favor of God as proof. 2. Kalam Cosmological Argument - This is another argument commonly used by those who support the existence of God. It essentially says: a. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. b. The universe had a beginning. c. Therefore, the universe had a cause. This argument, like the previous, is flawed. First, Point A, also known as the law of cause and effect, doesn't apply to the creation of matter and energy. There has been no observation that the law of cause and effect applies to the creation of matter and energy, making this assumption unknown and unproved. The principle of cause and effect has only been observed within changes in something - technically, when ever you 'create' something (e. g. building a car or drawing a picture), you're only turning something into something else, not creating anything from an atomic standpoint. As shown, the principle of cause and effect (Point A) has only been shown within the universe and does not describe the creation of the universe (all of spacetime and matter/energy) itself. Another problem with the Kalam Cosmological Argument is that can be applicable to infinite regression (if God caused the universe, who caused God? ). If my opponent assumes that God does not apply to natural law and is therefore inapplicable to infinite regression, we can then make the assumption of equal value that the universe as a whole does not either (natural law has only been observed within the universe, not the creation of the universe). Furthermore, the principle of Occam's Razor suggests the Kalam Cosmological Argument as incredible when paired against the argument that the universe doesn't require a creator. Occam's Razor states that a hypothesis is more credible than its opponent if it has less unproven assumptions - the hypothesis that the universe needs no creator requires only two assumptions (the universe began & it has no creator), while Kalam requires four assumptions (the universe began, God created it, God has no creator, and God exists). As shown, using Occam's Razor, the Kalam argument is beneath the argument that the universe requires no creator because Kalam requires two extra assumptions. This argument is relatively short - I didn't really consider that my opponent should probably argue first due to the topic of the debate (you would be trying to provide sufficient evidence and I would be trying to deem it insufficient - I assume that you win if you are able to provide sufficient evidence and I win if I am to show your evidence as insufficient). My next argument, most likely as a rebuttal to your first evidences, will most likely be much longer. Anyway, I thank you for reading, and good luck! Sources: . http://www.peterkreeft.com... . http://www.existence-of-god.com...