God Exists

CosmologyI find it comical that I was going to accuse Con of committing the fallacy of composition and then I saw that he accused me of the same. Anyway, allow me to explain why he commits one. He claims that a car can't just begin to exist. And what reason does he give? Because the particles that made the car already existed. This assumes that the whole (the car) has the same properties as it's parts (the metals) in that it is already existing. It seems ridiculous to suggest that every car has always existed.Even of he doesn't commit the fallacy, Con's reformulation is still wrong. The proper reformulation would be, "If the universe began to exist, then it has a cause." So, P2 is still necessary and the argument is not circular as Con would make it seem.Con can post links all he likes in the comments, but if he wanted to refute this point, he should have done so within the parameters of the debate. Because he didn't mention which part of quantum physics refutes my notion that, "We do not observe things just popping into existence without any cause," I'll assume that Con is alluding to quantum fluctuations. Atheists argue that quantum fluctuations are in fact nothing. So the virtual particles that pop in and out of existence could possibly come into existence without any cause. However quantum fluctuations do have massive amounts of energy [1]. So it isn't really nothing and therefore not uncaused. Second, the universe's slow expansion rate suggests that the total energy in the universe is relatively low [2]. So because of the relatively low energy in the universe, it couldn't be a product of a quantum fluctuation. So not only is the *only* possible exception to the notion that "nothing comes from nothing," not even an exception, as it has lots of energy. But it also couldn't have caused the universe.Con argues that the KCA commits the fallacy of composition. But that’s a blatant misunderstanding of the fallacy of composition. I would commit this fallacy if I argued that *because* every part of the universe has a cause, then the universe as a whole has a cause. When reading the argument, you will see no suggestion of the kind. What I argued was “What begins to exist must have a cause." And I supported it with metaphysical Principles of Causation and Sufficient Reason. The fallacy doesn’t apply here and therefore Con’s argument fails.IdealismI realise that if you can refute one of my premises, then the argument fails. That's how logic works. I fail to see how that is a huge issue.Con's argument is focused on how we taste or feel pain. But that is not the problem. The problem is that the concept of taste or pain are inexplicable on materialism. And I would argue that these robots are not actually feeling pain. They are programmed to avoid certain things, and when those things happen, the robots withdraw. "To test it, they fitted a robotic arm with a fingertip sensor that could detect pressure and temperature [3]."So they gave it a sensor and told it what counts as pain. Doesn't really count.As atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel said, "The intrinsic properties of water, its density, electrical conductivity, index of refraction, liquidity between 0 and 100 degrees centigrade, etc, are all fully explained by H2O and its properties. The physical property of H2O are by themselves sufficient for water [4]." However, the physical properties of sugar do not carry with them the taste thereof. And is thus not sufficient for its taste. In essence, even if someone knows every physical fact pertinent to sugar, they still can't know what it tastes like unless they consume it. However on materialism, one should be able to know what sugar taste like without ever tasting it, just by knowing the physical facts. Thus taste cannot be purely physical.Con asserts that, "the mind is an emergent property of the brain, it is deeply rooted in the material world." However if all that exists is the material world, then everything that makes us who we are would have come together via natural selection, to aid us solely in survival. This would include the chemistry of the brain and its functions. If this is true, then every belief and thought that it has is likewise is meant solely to aid in survival. This would include in the belief in materialism. If you believe that materialism is true, then you have to believe that you believe it is true because your brain decided that belief in materialism is beneficial for survival, not because it is actually true. Thus materialism is circular. On materialism, we lack free will (although it's pretty evident that we have free will and every attempt to disprove it has been controversial at best), and we cannot trust our beliefs as there is no necessary equivocation between what is useful and what is true. For example, Ptolemaic astronomy. It was devised around 150 A.D. and persisted until the 16th and 17th centuries [5]. For centuries it was used for navigation, even though it was not accurate [6].MoralityI would like to point out that Con drops all of my points regarding why Moral Realism is true.Con says, "It makes sense for an animal to be moral to aid with the survival of the species." But later he flatly contradicts himself when he says, "Morality isn't objective." How can animals or anything for that matter, act in a moral manner of there is no such thing as Moral Realism? How can one act correctly if there is no correct way to act?Also, if morality came about via evolution, then we have no reason to think that it is objective. It would be arbitrary. And as I said earlier, all 5 reasons that I gave to believe that Moral Realism is true have not been addressed So we can safely assume that morality is in fact objective. Which would mean that evolution can't account for it.If we are basing what is good off of what helps a species survive, that in itself raises questions. Rape may help a species survive. Does that make it good? Killing the weak and handicapped might help improve a species chance for survival. Does that mean that the Holocaust a good thing? Things that we all claim to be wrong are justifiable if what is good is what helps a species survive. And the questions don't stop there. The biggest question is this: Why is the survival of our species a good thing? If we are basing what is good of off what helps us survive, then what moral justification do we have for continuing the human race?And then Con asserted, without any evidence mind you that it is, "incredibly unlikely, however, is that a being created man to be moral." If you go back and read, I never made such a claim. In fact, I claimed quite the opposite. Premise 3 of the Moral Argument that I presented stated, "Human imperfection and disagreement cannot allow morality to be grounded in human rationality." I even took it a step further when I further explained that premise, "It is pretty self explanatory. Humans, not having complete knowledge, can't know all the facts. Everyone fails to fully know the facts and perform moral duties." There is a difference between knowing what is moral and acting moral.Next, Con asserts that since people believe in different moral codes, that objective morality does not exist. This is false. I would argue that there are two main reasons why this is so. The first is that of mental illness. Obviously, people with mental illnesses are not in the right state of mind, and thus can have wrong ideas regarding what is true. The second reason is that of factual differences. For instance, there are certain tribes in Africa that believe that people with physical abnormalities are impure and influence others to do evil [7]. It is because of this, that they practice infanticide, and dispose of them without a proper burial [8]. As you can see, their belief in killing certain babies, is based on the factual error that deformed infants are basically cursed. It's beliefs about facts, not morality that cause differences. So when these 2 are accounted for, I would argue that people widely agree on basic moral facts.Lastly, Con says that because we now view slavery as wrong, then morality isn't objective. However I used this as one of my 5 reasons why Moral Realism must be true. I'll leave this one to the voters to decide. Even if they find that slavery refutes Moral Realism rather than provides a good reason to accept it, I still have 4 reasons left to accept my argument.All sources in comments.