Does God Exist?

The 'heat-death' of the universe is when the universe has reached a state of maximum entropy. This happens when all available energy (such as from a hot source) has moved to places of less energy (such as a colder source). Once this has happened, no more work can be extracted from the universe. Since heat ceases to flow, no more work can be acquired from heat transfer. This same kind of equilibrium state will also happen with all other forms of energy (mechanical, electrical, etc.). Since no more work can be extracted from the universe at that point, it is effectively dead, especially for the purposes of humankind.

To say that some entity exists in a possible world is just to say that such an entity possibly exists. It isn’t meant that the entity actually exists somewhere. Look again at my explanation: “To say that God exists in some possible world is just to say that there is a possible description of reality which includes the statement ‘God exists’ as part of that description.” Only if that description is true will the entity, in this case God, actually exist. So (2) is definitionally true.
 
Again, (3) is virtually definitionally true. A maximally great being is one that has, among other properties, necessary existence. So if it exists in one world, it exists in all of them! In that sense, such a being is different than contingent beings, which exist in only some possible worlds. A unicorn, for example, exists in some possible world, but not in all of them, for its existence is possible but not necessary. So your prof is right that there is something special, not about a maximally excellent 
being (which, you’ll recall, is defined to be a being which is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good), but about a maximally great being, which is defined as a being which has maximal excellence in every possible world. If such a being exists in any world, that is to say, if it is possible that such a being exists, then it exists in every possible world, including the actual world.

P1: If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. 

Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos

“We don't know what dark matter, or dark energy, is: Big problem, honking big problem. Normal matter, the stuff of you, the stuff of me, planets, stars, and cheese sandwiches, amounts to only about 4.9% of the total matter and energy content of the universe. 26.8% of matter is 'dark', we know it's there because on large, cosmic, scales stuff moves around faster than it should and because the way that galaxies strew themselves across space is consistent with the existence of vast amounts of slow-moving gravitating 'stuff' that never turns into stars or planets or anything, just stays as diffuse, invisible, incredibly antisocial particles. Except we really have no idea what these particles truly are”

Furthermore, if the universe was eternal, we would have reached a point when all usable energy has been used up. This is known as the death heat of the universe. Richard Hobbs explains[3]:

There are several reasons to believe that God is the cause. First, an infinite regress of physical causes (such as the bang-crunch-bang cycle hypothesis) is logically impossible (as it essentially bang-crunch all the way back); second, the cause must exist independently of space and time; third, the cause must pre-exist; fourth, the cause must be powerful enough to create the universe; and finally the cause must be nonphysical. This is an entity we call God. 

P1: Universal immutable truths like logic and morality exist 

P2: These truths are not part of the physical world and need a transcendent source

C1: God is the source of these truths, logic is a reflection of His mind, and our morality is rooted in his nature. Any attempts to disprove one and two I believe don't succeed

To deny premise 1 is to deny any logical thinking. We know that logical truths exist such as the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle, among other things. 

Premise 2 logically follows. Matt Slick notes: “If they are not properties of the universe and they are of the mind, then it seems proper to say that they are conceptual by nature and that they depend on mind for their existence…. If they are not properties of the universe and they are of the mind, then it seems proper to say that they are conceptual by nature and that they depend on mind for their existence.”[4]

“Two challenges lie ahead. One is to use the increasingly refined tools at our disposal to observe and probe the vast coalitions of highly heterogeneous neurons making up the brain to further delineate the neuronal footprints of consciousness. This effort will take decades, given the byzantine complexity of the central nervous system. The other is to verify or falsify the two, currently dominant, theories. Or, perhaps, to construct a better theory out of fragments of these two that will satisfactorily explain the central puzzle of our existence: how a three-pound organ with the consistency of tofu exudes the feeling of life.”

Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that logic and morals reflect the mind of God. 

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

I find this contention to be one of the most fascinating in the Theistic. This argument is essentially an a priori argument and argues that we can know the existence of God through pure reason alone. There are a three key entities in this argument:

 

1. Impossible entities that cannot exist in any possible world because they are logically contradictory. For example, an invisible pink unicorn is an impossible entity because it contradicts the nature of pink and invisible. 

2. Contingent entities are entities that exist in some possible worlds, but not others. Humans, animals, and plants fall into this category because they exist here on Earth, but their existence is not necessarily on other worlds. 

the cause must exist independently of space and time;

3. Necessary entities exist by the virtue of its own nature. The laws of mathematics, the laws of morality, and the laws of logic are such types of laws. These entities/laws exist independently of the universe. If the universe did not exist, 2+2 will always be 4 and the law of non contradiction will always stand. 

I apologize to Con for not being as thorough in this round. Hopefully, I will do so in the next round. This week has been really busy for me and so once again, I’m writing my arguments at the last minute and I’m physically and mentally exhausted. That being said, I would love to do a separate debate on the divine origins of the Torah and Judaism. 

One final thought, when it comes to debates, personal beliefs are often pushed aside. I often argue against my personal beliefs in debates and I’m almost doing so here by arguing for a Deist-type of God. I say “Deist-type” as Deism is not a dogmatic religion and I don’t view it like an organized faith with a core set of beliefs. 

I’d like to thank my opponent for their response. My opponent asked which “God” I am referring to. While I certainly could have brought proof for the Torah and for the divine origins of Judaism, I believe that’s beyond the scope of this debate. As such, I am essentially arguing for a Deist type of God with the classical Theistic attributes. 

Also, while the debate would be more interesting with a shared burden of proof (with Con arguing against the resolution and providing arguments for atheism), I also believe that to be beyond the scope of this debate. As such, I have the BOP to prove the existence of God. With that, let’s dive into my defense.

Con completely misses the point of my argument. Con is correct to say that the conclusion of the argument is that “the universe has a cause of its existence.” I gave multiple lines of reason to conclude that the universe did, in fact, have a cause of this existence. Con failed to adequately respond to the lines of reasons that the universe had a beginning of its existence.

I am uncertain of what Con is talking about with regards to dark matter. This is rather irrelevant to the argument unless Con is able to use dark matter to prove either one of my premises to be false. Finally, I don’t quite understand what Con is talking about with regards to aliens. Again, that’s completely irrelevant. 

Second, the argument is not an argument from what we do not know, rather it is an argument based on what we do know. We know that what begins to exist has an external and transcendent cause of its existence. If I was to paint a picture, I would be that external and transcendent cause of that painting’s existence.

Third, as con correctly points out, the conclusion of the argument is that “the universe has a cause of its existence.” The question then is what is the most probable cause of the existence of the universe? I gave multiple lines of reasoning to believe that God is the ultimate cause.

I don’t understand Con’s argument on Ex nihilo vs Creatio ex Materia. Please clarify more in the next round. 

I am sorry for neglecting to mention the morality part in my opening round. I do believe in objective morality. By objective, I mean that such an action is morally right or wrong for every person. For example, it is always wrong to torture babies for fun. The key question to Con: Is it morally permissible to torture babies for fun? If not, can you prove it? What is the ultimate source of objective morality?

Again, I don’t quite understand my opponent’s arguments. The resolution doesn’t really require me to prove any religion is right or wrong. I am essentially arguing for a Deist-type of God. If my opponent wishes for a separate debate on the Divine origins of Judaism, I’d be happy to have that debate.

First, how is this an argument for God’s nonexistence? As Con notes, it is certainly possible to plug anything in for God. However, before I address this, I want to clarify the logical structure of the argument. Getting from P2 to P3 is a statement of S5 modal logic which states:

 

S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P.

(1)  it is not structurally parallel to the argument; or (2) it is not dialectally parallel to the argument. 

(Not a quote from what you said)

“Parallel structure (also called parallelism) is the repetition of a chosen grammatical form within a sentence. By making each compared item or idea in your sentence follow the same grammatical pattern, you create a parallel construction.”

https://www.evergreen.edu/sites/default/files/writingcenter/handouts/grammar/parallel.pdf

Further any attempt to parody the argument that resolves 1 and 2 is the ontological argument itself and thus leads us back to square one and is a non-argument.