I have a lot of arguments. I do believe I did prove it with this argument, but we can move on to other arguments.

Fair enough. I'm not the judge and jury. I'll leave the readers to form their own opinion. I'm afraid you haven't convinced me.

Feel free to bring another one

If it has the same problems I highlighted in this one, I will be highlighting them again. So that's your call.

PS: If anyone can even define what a god is, I'll be impressed. What is the distinction between a god and an extremely powerful non-God? Say we end up making the technology to create self contained realities. Would that make us gods?

I'm bumping this thread up in case there are any new challengers.

(July 22, 2015 at 5:47 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: God doesn't consist of points that all came to be, so the problem doesn't apply to him, and in reality, an eternal being that was always there without flowing from one point to another, is the only solution to this paradox.

You've met the man, checked out his nuts and bolts have you....... 

God is very good at having rules not apply to him. It's one of his special moves: D, D/F, F+punch. No wait, that's his fireball attack.

I nearly forgot about this thread.

Here's another argument:

God cannot decide what objective morality is, or else it would be arbitrary. 
Objective morality thus cannot be created by God.
If God cannot create objective morality and decide what is, then neither can evolution, as God can create evolution.
Objective morality exists.
Thus objective morality is eternal.
Objective morality takes a perception to see.
Thus an eternal being who perceives objective morality always existed.

(July 20, 2015 at 2:15 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 2) Something that existed without time, had to bring it to being.

Why? Why couldn't it be the natural byproduct of another process? An accident of nature?

Bare assertion without evidence.

You're argument doesn't go far.

(September 9, 2015 at 12:25 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(July 20, 2015 at 2:15 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 2) Something that existed without time, had to bring it to being.

Why? Why couldn't it be the natural byproduct of another process? An accident of nature?

Bare assertion without evidence.

You're argument doesn't go far.

If time didn't exist, then something without time had to bring into being. It's a logical conclusion.

Well, it seems my challenge is back!

Anyone else want a try?

(September 9, 2015 at 12:01 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I nearly forgot about this thread.

Here's another argument:

God cannot decide what objective morality is, or else it would be arbitrary. 
Objective morality thus cannot be created by God.
If God cannot create objective morality and decide what is, then neither can evolution, as God can create evolution.
Objective morality exists.
Thus objective morality is eternal.
Objective morality takes a perception to see.
Thus an eternal being who perceives objective morality always existed.

I found your problem.

I'm afraid there is no evidence whatsoever that "objective morality" exists. There are things we pretty much all agree on, as social animals (aka humans), but by no means are they defined in the same way, and even something obvious like "don't kill" and "don't rape" are defined in extraordinarily different ways, across cultures. There is no one thing you can point to which is "objectively" moral, and the arguments made for "objective" morals in the Old Testament, from which all three "Abrahamic" ideologies draw their concept of morality, are demonstrably horrifying by modern standards, and clearly the product of patriarchal, Bronze Age tribal sheepherder thinking: slavery and indentured servitude for debts (for other races and for one's own people, respectively), rape of women treated as a property crime against the men who "own" them, murder of disobedient children, murder of those who practice freedom of religious conscience, genocide, and dozens of other absolutely and utterly immoral ideas by modern standards. This clearly and unequivocally shows that the claims of "moral objectivists" cannot hold up under scrutiny.

Since your entire argument hinges on that single proposition, "Objective morality exists, Thus...", it unravels upon scrutiny.