God Exists

Thank you for allowing. I have to say I hear that William Craig is a very good debater. I am honored to get the chance at challenging a man of his stature.William Craig's Moral ArgumentTo begin at this create and very well common use to define God as a being that "With out a doubt must exist" statement used by a rather large portion of theistic defenders.The first to third are summarized us. Let me first begin with the clear and obvious choice, number 1: "If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist." This is absolutely right. There is no such thing as objective moral value. Now I have covered in a past debate that I actually made today that covers this such thing. But since this is more in tie with God, I get the chance to tear apart the iron skin of the bible to show that under that iron skin, there is much soft tissue no one knew about. In short, I will expose the entire objective morality and things about it.Objective moral is said by people like Craig, Frank Turek, Ray Comfort, and a few other defenders. Ray actually stated in his documentary on Evolution vs. God that we have knowledge, objective morals built into our heads. We know murder is wrong because it was built into us.[1] Now, how was this? Well many will explain it was the fruit. Yes the very fruit we as humans, God's beloved creation ate, were and still are, punished for.But if God exist, then he has to be evil, so evil I think and so does people like Richard Dawkins [2], that he is or has to be the most evil, wicked, bigoted, emotional (in the bad way) and out right hypocritical power hungry monster/being ever conceived by the human mind or created. He is said to be all knowing, all powerful, yet all loving. He knew what would happen, he knew putting the tree in that area with the serpent there; all what would happen and did nothing. The only argument anyone has ever used to defend this is the concept of Free Will. I will get to this later. All objective Moral is would be what everyone follows. This is clearly not true with our human history nor society. If God was intelligent, he would have made sure us communicating with him would have been possible to avoid hundreds to thousands of religions claiming truth. This would have avoided killing for religion and human rights we see today ever being violated. In fact the word Genocide was never a dirty word until Hitler came and made it that way. No one looked into the bible at what God did and said:"You know, that has to be one evil made. THAT is true genocide." No it took Hitler to punch us into the face and display what genocide is and how bad it is. He is the one to give us the knowledge of it as a true dirty word. You think genocide you think Hitler most times. I mean Stalin had more killed under him and yet we all conceive Hitler as the worst war criminal or criminal to human rights and beings in all history. Or he is up there high on that latter.The concept of Objective morals not existing is not a bad thing in the slightest, in fact it will not matter. All that changes is nothing and that things are considered right based on opinion of self and social, human and global moral based on combined and agreed subjective morals. Number 2: "Objective moral values and duties do exist." You stated by using what Craig said to be a reason for God existing was because of this? I will be blunt and say that is not a good example. This is a leading statement to the God of the Gaps. In fact this really will not prove anything. An example of what you are saying is this:"If God is not real, the universe is not real. The universe is real therefore God is real." The Universe is in its current state by the cause of the theory of the Big Bang which we recently acquired evidence for to back up even recently. Just because something is real or thought to be real, that does not mean God is real. Objective morality is not real and to say if God is false, so is Morality and since Morality is real God is real. This is a Form of God of the Gaps. There is nothing to prove Objective morals are real nor God. This does not prove he is real.The reason things like a common moral such as murder is wrong amongst many is due to society. We adopt and conform. We have laws and murdering would only end us as a species. Over the years, murder became more and more common to the point a religion that says it is bad (or religion being made to cause fear to allow that law to be enforced even stronger then political laws) that it became a common law among our social groups and species. However it is not a objective moral but what you as a human think. Many of us say murder is bad, yet we go to war and kill. That is war, but still taking a life for something that is rather primitive and stupid. War is not needed to protect the entire human race to the point killing has to be used, killing is killing and a soldier murders by killing the other enemy. It is irony. Murder or killing is fine when we deem it fine.The bible does not condom slavery, rape, incest or pedophilia. However we as modern humans deem these bad. Slavery is bad amongst most nations and could be seen as objective as much as murder. Slavery was not long ago OK and a norm in America and in the Dark Ages - Back when Chocolate was discovered and gold. They used slaves to get it to Europe. - and now it would be seen bad in almost all everywhere like rape, pedophilia and incest. But because we come together and use logic, critical thinking and what is good for us, we have come to the logic that they are all bad. So using the bible that says stealing, murder and all that jazz is in the bible and says it is bad and we all (most not all) agree, objective morality must be real. This is a God of the Gaps, only it is used for objective morals and values rather then God. "We all agree on it in this time and for a while, so it must be real." Tell that to the bible that talks about promotion of slavery, incest and the killing of little kids. [3]I will not cover the third point out of the fact it is not relevant for this. It is just saying it must exist. In conclusion of this issue, it is not in anyway proof.Now I went a little too long on the morality issue with Craig, but I enjoyed it. I wish I had more time, so I will try to be as brief as possible with the rest. However, you have to remember the topic is "God Exist" and using anything to argue he is real or exist with out anything to prove it other then "This happened so he must be." or non factual evidence, it will become a fallacy. But I will continue. So no, objective morals and value do not exist, they just become common as subjective to the point that we all agree. And if we all agree and that is objective (it isn't) that is in no way a proof of God and a fallacy argument.The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentNow if I have this right, you wrote this: The Kalam Cosmological Argument: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 2.1. An actual infinite cannot exist. 2.2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite. 2.3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events. 3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.(Iron Chariots)1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.If everything that exist has a cause, then what was Gods? The concept of you saying that everything must have a Cause is not a real argument in any word of the sense. If you wish to make a actual argument for a debate, you can not say things that align to your side with nothing to show for it. I could easily say the following: "Everything that exist has to be effected by time and space, it must be in some form limited. Thus God does not exist."You then went on saying the Universe exist, yet you failed to show or back up how everything has to have a cause. If you mean cause as in something had to make it, that also does not prove God as it would only be natural or would prove God was not always there and has a creator himself.You then state that there can not be an actual infinite? Then what is God? If he is outside of time and has no God or creator (He is an atheist then) then were is the logic in your comment. I see this all the time. God is immortal and timeless but nothing else can. That is a bad argument. This also does not support the claim in any word of the since of a cause. Net argument.The Ontological ArgumentWith this one you state how we can basically not imagine anything greater then God unless he is only a mental idea. But because he is a mental and reality idea, we can not. I can tell that I can think of a being greater then God. A minor one is Superman, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Arceus (yes Pokémon) and much more. I can imagine a being that is so great, he would in times appear for us all to never had doubt and also never commit genocide because eh failed to make us right. My God would not cause issues. Your God, the Bible God kills and gives horrible moral backing. It is not hard to conceive something greater. There is no proof he is real, thus the argument falls on itself as only a God of idea, not of both worlds. This fell apart on its own.The Telelogical Argument1. Human artefact's are products of intelligent design. Yes, that is true.2. The universe resembles human artifacts. Show me how the earth resembles that and not that of Gravity and matter. This is not true at all.3. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design. No, this does not prove it at all. God must be I.D., thus has a God also.4. But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts. Proves nothing.5. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.Just like he has a designer. The universe being (as you think) complex does not mean it has Intelligent Design.References:[1] [2] The God Delusion - R. Dawkins[3] The Holy Bible