A god exists, as defined by PRO; Take 2

1. Burden of ProofAs I am defending the statement "God exists" and my opponent is defending the negation of that statement "God does not exist" it is only fair that the burden of proof is shared. "God does not exist" is just as much a knowledge claim as "God exists" is, and as such the two claims require equal justification. If my opponent is not up to the challenge of carrying a portion of the burden of proof, then he should hold to a more modest view (i.e. "I don't know whether God exists or not") rather than his stated view "I can state, within reasonable doubt, that a god does not exist" (see Con's opening argument for the source of this quote).My opponent asserts that I must prove that God exists in order to win the debate. I think it is common knowledge that God debates are judged based on convincing arguments rather than proof. Moreover, if my opponent wants to ask such proof of me, then it is only fair that I set the same standard for him. My opponent must then prove that God does not exist in order to win this debate.This, I think, is completely unreasonable. It is obvious that neither of us will succeed in proving that God exists or does not exist. I will present arguments to think that God exists, and I expect my opponent to provide comparable arguments in favor of his position. It should be recognized that whatever standard my opponent wishes to put in front of me will also be placed in front of him. 2. DefinitionWith respect, I'll have to decline my opponent's request to provide a different definition for God. The resolution of the debate (as well as my opponent's opening argument) states no limitations on how I am able to define God. As such, I will stick with the definition I provided in the opening round.God: A maximally great being.3. RebuttalMy rebuttal will be very brief as my opponent failed to present a single argument in favor of his position. His entire opening statement consisted of unwarranted assertions. To name a few:"This hypothesis (God exists) has nothing to stand on"Unwarranted assertion. I'll present some arguments below in favor of this hypothesis that my opponent will have the chance to dissect in the next round. "It may be the case that such a God can actually be disproved"Again, unwarranted assertion. Is this really the case? Why should we think so? Do you have any evidence that goes to disprove God?"God can be counter-acted with the problem of evil, and so forth"Care to explain this "problem of evil"? I'm not sure why evil is any sort of problem with regard to God's existence. Unwarranted assertion.4. ArgumentsI will begin by providing three arguments in support of the position that there is a God. I will gladly provide more arguments if necessary, but due to space constrictions I will have to start with these three. Each deductive argument consists of a set of premises followed by a necessary conclusion. In order to take issue with the conclusion, my opponent must pick at least one premise to take issue with and refute. If my opponent fails to refute at least one premise in each of the three arguments that I present, then it seems to me that we are left with good reason to think that there is a God.i. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.Defense of P1: I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.Defense of P2: There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.ii. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.C1: Therefore, God exists.Defense of P1: Here again, premise one is relatively uncontroversial. If there is no God, then we have no standard from which to deem particular moral acts "good" or "evil". In order for objective moral values and duties to exist, there must exist a perfect standard: God.Defense of P2: Each of us have a sense of morality which tells us that certain actions are objectively "good" or objectively "evil". For example, I can clearly recognize that altruism (self-sacrifice in order to further the well-being of others) is objectively good. I can also clearly recognize that raping and torturing a child is objectively evil. I have no more reason to doubt the reliability of these moral senses than I do to doubt the reliability of my physical senses. In other words, for any argument given in an attempt to show that our moral senses are not valid (and objective morality is therefore not valid), I can construct a parallel argument to show that our physical senses are not valid (and the physical world we experience through these senses is therefore not valid). In order for one to disagree with premise two, one must believe that an action like rape is just as "good" as an action like generosity, and that no objective distinction can be made between the nature of "goodness" of the two acts.iii. The very possibility of God implies His actuality. P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.C1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.Defense of P1: In order to refute this premise, one would have to show that the idea of God is incoherent, such that the concept of God is as absurd as the concept of a square circle.Defense of P2-P6: I have combined the defense of premises two-six because these premises are necessarily true so long as premise one holds true. If a maximally great being is even possible, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world (this does not imply a parallel universe idea, but by possible world I mean to say a way that the world could have been). But if this maximally great being exists in some possible world, then by its very nature it must exist in every possible world (otherwise it would not be "maximally great"). And if this maximally great being exists in every possible world, it follows that it exists in the actual world.5. SummaryI have provided three arguments in support of the position that there is a God. My opponent has failed to provide a single argument in favor of his position that there is no God. Until my opponent is able to knock down each of my arguments, and in their place present sound arguments of his own, it seems to me we can reasonably conclude that God exists.6. Sources http://now.tufts.edu...