Tejretics v. Lannan13, Resolved: God Exists

Okay guys I'm back so let's get this show on the road.Contention 1: Ontological Argument I'll be confronting this issue on a two pronged attack. First will be a "proof" while the second is refuting my opponent's points. On the matter of proving God, we can actually do it by mathematics one can see that this is indeed possible as Scientist Godel has actually given the following proofs for God and they just so happen to fall under this contention.Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positiveDefinition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails BDefinition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplifiedAxiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positiveAxiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positiveAxiom 3: The property of being God-like is positiveAxiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positiveAxiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property [1]Axiom 4 has been stated that it must be necessary and is possible to point out the good in all things. Godel himself had stated that, "Postitive means that in a positive moral aestetics sense. It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation." [2] The other Axioms can be summed up to be an ultrafilter which I'll get into a little later on. The Axioms can be translated into the following theorums and math equation. Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. [3]Now we can see that this mathematical equation was actually done and proven. With it being solved we can see that it brings up great and highly valid evidence that God exists. People used the above theorums and axioms through the use of LEO-II and Statallax. Also note how God is capitalized here. This is because this actually proves the Christian God. Not just a deity. [4]My opponent argues the opposoite by simply adding the word NOT, but that is false. For this let's observe the triangle. When we apply it to this theory we can see that this is an apriori argument that shows that God exists, by simply adding the phrase not in the statement is like stating that the triangle has 4 sides. Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological ArgumentMy opponent takes the majoirty of this arguments and argues for quantum flucuations, but he fails to realize that I too did the same and argued for thier existance in my last round and henceforth are null and void. He doesn't realize that 99% of what he says I actually agree with, but there is a few things I disagree with. Firstly my opponent doesn't actually refute the KCA, but just dances around it. He never shows how the universe hasn't a cause. He instead spends most of his time on explaining the universe HAD a beginning which only proves my second point. He attempts to refute the KCA, but goes about it the wrong way. It still stands that this theory can exists as once again we can simply apply the S5 argument that my opponent has dropped and we can find that this theory is indeed true. We can also see that it is true that if a being did create the universe then he would have to be some supreme being and that would most likely be that of God. I further extend my arguments here seeing that they weren't truely refuted by my oppoenent. We can also see from the bellow graph that once again looking at space time we are indeed exspanding and by using this model the universe does indeed have a beginning and hence a Creation. It's highly common knowledge that the universe is exspanding and we can see by using the Borde Guth Vilekien Model of comparing Blue and Red shifts we can see that through high accuracy that the universe is exspanding and hence revealing that the universe had to have orinated and have had a finate beginning at some point of time. Contention 3: TA ArgumentMy opponent brings up the dysteleological argument, but he FAILS to explain premise two and does not show how objects do not have optimal design. Furthering I would like to report that my opponent DROPPED my Hugh Ross add on to this argument so I'll extend that across the board.Contention 4: Occam's RazorHere St. Thomas Aquianas posted a writtings while using the Occam's Razor in his novel, "Summa Theologica," he is quoted saying, "Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article." [5]Here once again we can see that the teleological argument ties in here and is key for showing that God does exist and is permissible under the Occam's Razor. Sources1. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)2. (Kurt Gödel (1995). "Ontological Proof". Collected Works: Unpublished Essays & Lectures, Volume III. pp. 403–404. Oxford University Press.)3. (http://www.spiegel.de...)4. (http://arxiv.org...) 5. (http://www.newadvent.org...)