God Exists

RebuttalsCausation and creationCon asserts that causation and creation are not the same. But let's recall the candle and flame example. The flame could be eternal and so could the flame, yet the candle is eternally causing and creating the flame. Without the candle, the flame would go out of existence. In the same way, God is eternally causing an eternal universe. Without God, the universe would go out of being (same with candle and flame) therefore God is the reason why the universe comes into being and does not go out of being thus by Con's cherry-picked definition, God is the creator of the universe (the reason it comes into being rather than goes out of being).Virtual particlesCon asserts that virtual particles have no sufficient reason. But that is patently false. Virtual particles have a transcedent sufficient reason in Quantum vacuum fluctuations which occur in the quantum vacuum energy. Seemingly, Con does not understand what a Qunatum fluctuation is. A Quantum fluctuation is not really an object that comes into and goes out of being but rather it is an event that describes certain unstability in the Quantum vacuum energy. [http://www.calphysics.org...] Virtual particles are the result of Quantum Fluctuations. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] These qunatum fluctuations occur in the Quantum vacuum energy. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] This Quantum vacuum energy has an energy density of 10^-9 joules per cubic meter. [http://math.ucr.edu...] So Con is very clearly confused on this subject because virtual particles do not just pop into existence but they are the result of fluctuations of unstable energy.MGB possibilityAn MGB is possible because no logical contradictions entail. If Con noticed any, please point it out. An MGB would be maximally great in the great-making properties but since these properties are in different domains like knowledge and power, they can not even be said to be self-contradictory because there is no area of overlap.If we're going to use, "it's possible therefore it exists," then it's possible that I'm the Maximally Great Being and I don't exist in all possible worlds.Multiple fallacies in this sentence alone but let's name two. First of all, Con commits the strawman fallacy. No where in my argument do I ever say that "it is possible therefore it exists". Second fallacy is also a strawman. Con can not exist in all possible worlds because he is not a necessary being. He is contingent on his parents, molecular bonds, food, water, oxygen, etc. So although Con exists in some possible world, in no way does that mean that he exists in all possible worlds because he lacks the property of necessity.If MGB destroyer exists in some world, then it exists in all worlds.It is so sad that Con resorted to immaturity due to incapability of sketching a cogent rebuttal. I already went over why this premise fails, because you have not fulfilled the burden of proof of showing this entity to be necessary. That destroyer could range from contingent things like unicrons, steak, air ballons which would fail at this premise. It could be self-contradictory entities like a married bachelor, a smart atheist, an unmarried wife. SO you have to be more specific and fulfill the BOP of showing this entity to be necessary.William Lane Craig should be punched in the face for being so stupid.This argument belongs to Alvin Plantinga.Well so does the MGB destroyer...there we're even., It's also necessary; remember I just have to assert it per your requirements.The MGB destroyer, if he posseses all the great-making properties to the fullest extent would be what I mean by MGB so we are talking about the same thing.Your contingency assertion only would have shown a CAUSE not a CREATOR of the universeWhich as demonstrated means the same thing.Not only did you agree that creation is temporal per the definitions of this debateI accepted that creation COULD be temporal.one that used a series of time-based actions to bring about the universe making it the CREATOR of the universe.Yes, as I said above, he is creating the universe every second goes by just like a candle is continounsly creating the flame.Timeless AND prior?My response is that God himself is timeless but becomes temporal at creation.how would you know that the footprints in the sand didn't cause the human?I have no time for this. This is becoming a huge waste of time. I will not even bother continuing this debate.