God exists

IntroductionThanks to Con for his reply. While Con's arguments might have some force against a debate regarding literal interpretation of the Christian Bible, they have no effect here, since this debate is regarding the existence of God in a very broad sense. Furthermore, Con completely ignores my presentation of Aquinas' First way. Unless Con presents an objection to the argument I've given, there are no reasons to doubt its soundness, and the argument stands.Deconstructing Con's arguments Con's arguments regarding the absurdity of interpreting the Bible literally are irellevant and fall flat on their face. Regardless of whether we accept their soundness, they do nothing to demonstrate that God does not exist.Con's arguments can be summarized:P1: IF we take the Bible literally, THEN all our prayers will be answered.P2: IF the Bible is not interpreted literally, THEN God probably does not exist.P3: Not all our prayers are answered.C: .'., The Bible cannot be interpreted literally, and God probably does not exist.This is a logically valid pollysyllogism, with a mixture of modus tollens. If the premises are true, then the conclusion follows. But the premises are unjustified, as will be shown.Con argues for Premise 1, saying:"This is very odd. Jesus makes specific promises in the Bible about how prayer is supposed to work. Jesus says in many different places that he and God will answer your prayers. And Christians believe Jesus -- according to this recent article, '54% of American adults believe the Bible is literally true.'"In fact, I am actually inclined to agree with Con in this.Con justifies Premise 2 by claiming:"How might we prove that God is imaginary? One way would be to find a contradiction between the definition of God and the God we experience in the real world."And then he continues on, assuming that if God exists, he must be the God of the literal Christian Bible. However, these assumptions are unwarranted. In fact, they are just plain false. Why should we assume that if God exists, he will necessarily be the God of the Bible? Why should we assume that if there is a God of the Bible, that the Bible ought to be interpreted literally?Con's arguments for the literal interpretation of the Bible commit an ad populum fallacy. [1] Whether or not the majority of people believe the Bible to be interpreted literally is irrelevant.Con's arguments can easily be refuted by simply disagreeing with literal interpretation of the Bible, and/or disagreeing that if God existed, he would be the God of Christianity.These are unwarranted assumptions, which demand justification.The First Way remainsNow that Con's arguments have been properly rebutted, we can return to Aquinas' First Way. Con has not presented any answer to this argument, and if he wishes to show it is unsound, he must present an objection.This being the case, I would like to make a few comments on popular objections to the First Way, just in case Con chooses to present them.1. The First Way has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.Popular objections to the First Way are notoriously bad. In fact, this argument is often viewed as Aquinas "Kalam argument." But these objections are completely wrong.Professor Edward Feser notes:"When he [Aquinas] argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn’t mean “first” in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, whether or not the series of moments extends backwards into the past without a beginning." [2]In fact, Aquinas even wrote an entire treatise on the topic of whether or not it can be demonstrated that the past is finite (he argues it cannot be demonstrated and is a matter of faith) in De Aeternitate Mundi.[3]2. "What caused [moved] God?" is an invalid objection.Richard Dawkins attempts to refute Aquinas' arguments by saying:"All of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoking God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress." [4]But this objection does not succeed. The argument says that everything in motion needs a cause of its motion. But God is not in motion, thus he does not need an external cause.ConclusionIn conclusion, Con's arguments fail to disprove God, or even to cast doubt upon God's existence. His arguments may have force against literal interpretation of the Bible, but that is not what this debate is about, and thus it qualifies as a red herring fallacy. [5] Con also never mounted as much as one objection to The First Way, and thus it still stands. Please vote Pro.[1] http://www.nizkor.org...[2] http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...[3] http://dhspriory.org...[4] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, pg. 101 [5] http://www.nizkor.org...;