Team Debate: God Exists

Rebuttal 1: Transcendental argument against GodFirst, Con argues that if an omniscient God exists, then it follows that God must have created logic. This is non-sequitur (doesn’t follow). We didn’t assert that God did or did not create logic because that would be a bare assertion, and we wouldn’t make such a claim. After all, logic could be eternal, or could have been created. Unlike Con, we won’t argue unfalsifiable claims.Second, even if logic was created by God (we like to accommodate our opponents), Con’s argument still fails. Con argues that if “God caused logic [...] then using [logic] to justify God [...] begs the question.” This is fallacious and outright ridiculous! If “God exists” is the premise, then why are we even arguing! The premise must be the null hypothesis (i.e. God may or may not exist). Let’s illustrate this:P1: God may or may not exist. (Null hypothesis)P2: Logic exists.P3: If God exists, then God created logic.With these premises alone, you can’t prove that God exists. This is not a circular argument (doesn’t beg the question). Even if you provide a fourth premise:P4: If Logic exists, then God exists.This argument would conclude that God exists, but it’s still not a circular argument. It doesn’t even need P1 or P3. You will end up with a biconditional argument [1] (not circular) “if and only if God exists then logic exists”.Third, Con argues that God can change logic and “could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time” But this argument is even worse! Let’s illustrate Con’s logic:P1: If God exists then God created Logic AP2: According to Logic A, proposition and negation cannot coexistP3: God can change Logic A to Logic B where a proposition and a negation can exist!P4: But since a proposition and a negation cannot co exist, then P3 is falseC1: God can’t change Logic A to Logic B (P3, P4)C2: God doesn’t exist (P1, C1)But if you look carefully, P4 is ridiculous! Con judged the properties of Logic B according to the properties of Logic A! But you can’t do that, because Logic B has its own logic, which you cannot validate according to the presupposition of Logic A.Third, Con argues that supernatural actions violate the laws of nature, “there is no reason to believe science can argue for God” Again, the logic is non-sequitur (doesn’t follow). God being the creator of the universe and the laws of nature, why can’t these laws of nature lead back to Him? And if God created them, why can’t God change them? It’s only reasonable that if God created natural laws that God has the capacity to change them. Not the other way around.Con’s contention is dead. Rest in peace.Rebuttal 2: A caused universe is incoherent2.a Requirements for CausationFirst, Con states that causation can only occur in the physical realm, and couldn't possibly occur in the metaphysical realm. There's absolutely no reason to assume this bare assertion as true.Second, Con argues that causation requires time. But why does God need time to process? Why couldn’t He do things timelessly? There is no reason to believe that it’s not possible.Finally, Con argues that there was no time before the universe. But that’s another bare assertion. There’s no reason to assume that there was absolutely no time prior to the universe. Even Sean Carroll (who Con uses to support his contention), as well as many other physicists and cosmologists have begun to consider the possibility of time before the Big Bang [2].This argument fails to disprove that God doesn’t exist.2.b EternalismEternalism is a philosophical theory that argues that there is no past, present or future; they are all equally true. It's very similar to a movie, and we are watching different frames. Someone could be watching the last scene, and you could still be reading the FBI warnings. Con is arguing that Eternalism proves that causation is incoherent.There are several problems with Con’s argument. First, Con is suggesting that Eternalism is true because special relativity appears to be incompatible with Presentism. However, this claim has been disputed [3][4]. It has even been argued that Einstein's theory of relativity actually refutes Eternalism! [5] Why should we choose one over the other?Second, if Eternalism is true, then all causation (not just the beginning of the universe) is incoherent. How can the effect be caused if they both exist simultaneously (or simply are “just there”)? This means that there is no cause and effect. It also suggests that the very well known, proven and tested theory that "every action has a reaction" [6] is not true either. We find this unreasonable! Why? To deny scientific facts for the purpose of proving a philosophical claim is unreasonable and ad hoc.Third, John Lucas, philosopher, argued that, "The Block universe gives a deeply inadequate view of time. It fails to account for the passage of time, the pre-eminence of the present, the directedness of time and the difference between the future and the past." [7]. He raised three key issues with Eternalism.1. We apparently fear death because we believe that we will no longer exist after we die. However, if Eternalism is correct, death is just one of our temporal borders, and the forms of the world you live in would continue to exist even as one consciously moves forward through time toward dissolution2. You are about to go to the dentist, or you have already been. Common sense says you should prefer to have been. But if Eternalism is correct, then a resemblance of you in the future is already feeling better3. When some unpleasant experience is behind us, we feel glad that it is over. But if Eternalism is correct, there is no such property as being over or no longer happening nowBut even if Eternalism were true, how does this imply that God doesn’t exist? God could have created an eternalistic universe. Eternalism is a problem to that naturalist who can't explain how this eternal universe exists. Proponents of Eternalism argue that the universe is just "there", was always "there" and will always be "there". Just like a movie, you can reverse and forward all you want, but the movie itself never changes. But this begs the questions: What made this movie? Who were the directors, producers and crew? Why is it just simply there? And why is it this special way? Naturalists just assert that it's there! Even the atheist Sean Carrol (Sorry for using your own guy again against you) takes a humble position on what happened before the Big Band and states “We just don’t know [what happened before the Big Bang]” [2]. It's unreasonable for Con to claim a truth claim that there is absolutely nothing beyond this eternal universe. However, this is not an issue to the theist because there is no reason to claim that God couldn't have created a universe of this type.Rebuttal 3: Omniscience is an incoherent propertyCon claims that if God knows the future, then the future exists (implying Eternalism). But this is non sequitur (doesn’t follow)! God could have the knowledge of what will happen before it happens. This is compatible with omniscience. If a ball was struck, and if someone is all knowing, this person could tell you exactly where the ball will end up at. Con’s claim should be dismissed.And we’ve already shown that even if Eternalism is true, it doesn’t disprove that God exists.Rebuttal 4: Non-cognitivism of ‘greatness’Con argues that for something to have a meaning, a standard must exist. We agree with Con. However, Con argues that “greatness” is inherently subjective. But why is that the case? Con fails to provide a valid explanation for this. Why can’t “greatness” be objective? It’s interesting that Con argues with unfalsifiable claims as truths, which is a great disservice to the reader.Con makes additional absurd claims. Con argues that a “standard is required for the term ‘greatness’ to become meaningful” and therefore “renders God’s very nature a matter of subjective decision”. But this conclusion is non-sequitur (doesn’t follow). If anyone can use any incoherent logic, we could argue that “I want God to exist therefore He exists!” Any sane person would think we are silly. Con’s argument is of this nature and should be dismissed.Con also states that “existence” depends on objective reality. We agree. However, how does this mean that God doesn’t exist objectively?Con then claims that objective reality cannot be set by God? Why not? If objective values do exist, then God definitely exists, regardless if these objective values are internal to God or external to Him. Even the atheist Mackie of Oxford University stated: “If, then, there are such intrinsically prescriptive objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have, after all, a defensible inductive argument from morality to the existence of a god” [8]. So again, why can’t God set the objective reality if He is the creator?And let’s assume (just for the sake of the argument), that greatness is subjective. What does this have to do with God’s existence? If Gandhi is subjectively great, does that mean he didn’t exist? We ask Con again: Did Con forget that their burden of proof is to show that God is less likely to exist?Finally, if God created the universe, He must be greater, more powerful, more knowledgeable, than anything He created. One cannot demand the defining of a great God before that of an existing God as His existence as Creator is necessary for the understanding of His greatness.ConclusionCon failed to present any arguments to show that God is less likely to exist. Con presented several arguments, but even if they were true, it doesn’t reduce the possibility of God’s existence. Our team on the other hand has shown empirical and philosophical arguments that are logical, reasonable and well thought of that show that God is more likely to exist. We ask the reader to dismiss Con’s claims.Source in comments