God does not exist.

AveCon objects to my first argument by saying that god is omnipotent, so he can create a first state of time, even if relativity says its impossible. This is predicated on a false understanding of what omnipotence is. Omnipotence is not the ability to do everything, as Con defines it. Omnipotence is the ability to do everything that is logically possible. If omnipotence was the ability to do everything, then paradoxes like the paradox of the stone would refute the existence of god. This familiar paradox asks ‘’Can god create a stone so heavy, he can’t lift it?‘’. To answer this paradox, academic theists such as Craig and Swinburne say that god can do everything that’s logically possible, so there’s no problem if god can’t create a stone he can’t lift, as such a task is logically impossible. The only way for omnipotence to make any sense is if we define it as ‘’being able to do everything that is logically possible". If we define omnipotence as Con defined it, then there’s no way to solve the paradox of the stone. Con’s definition is a layman’s definition of the word, not the definition an academic theist would use. Besides, it’s apparent that the only way for an omnipotent being to exist is if it’s defined the way I did it.I’ll summarize where we are with regards to the first argument. The only coherent definition of omnipotence is being able to do everything that is logically possible. If we define omnipotence as being able to do everything, even bring about absurdities, then an omnipotent being cannot exist (read my reasoning in the first paragraph). The theory of relativity tells us that a first state of time cannot exist, because it is not half-open. This means that a first state of time does not exist. Con doesn’t dispute any of the evidence from physics that I gave for this argument, so all of that is true. If a first state of time cannot exist, then god could not have created it. God cannot make a logically impossible state into an actuality, because he can only do things that are logically possible, not logical impossibilities. Therefore, a being who created a first state of time cannot exist. I’ve demonstrated Con’s response to this argument to be based on a flawed premise, so this argument is in my favor.Con straw mans the second argument extensively. Con says “Essentially, what my opponent is trying to say is that If an omnipotent God exists, then there's a 100% chance he created Earth”’. This was not my argument at all. I argued that there is a 100% chance he created the universe. The universe and the Earth aren’t the same thing. Con further mischaracterizes my position by saying “Then he states that, since we can't prove God's existence, we have to assume that the 95% chance of success took place”. I didn’t say anything even resembling this in my opening statement. Where does Con get it from? I said that the universe had a 95% chance of coming into being based on its mathematical properties, not because we can’t prove god. Nothing substantial was said in response to the second argument.In regards to my third argument, which relates to simultaneous causation, Con says that things are factually false. There’s absolutely no support for them at all, and they’re disproved by the evidence. He says that simultaneous causation has no scientific observation to support it. This is not true, because I provided many example from science to show that simultaneous causation does happen, which went ignored. I showed that EPR correlations imply simultaneous causation at the Big Bang. I quoted physicist Paul Davies as saying that simultaneous causation has support in physics. I also cited a study called ‘'Experiments on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-type Correlations with Pairs of Visible Photons”, which found that if a photon x is measured to be in a 'spin up' state, this simultaneously causes a spatially distant photon y to be in a 'spin down' state. That’s two examples of simultaneous causation, and Con ignored both of them in the last round. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also notes a simpler example: “Indeed, it might seem that simultaneous causation occurs in the actual world, for instance when an iron ball depresses a cushion”. There are also examples from quantum mechanics where simultaneous causation takes place. Quentin Smith, professor of the philosophy of physics at West Michigan University, was interviewed for a radio show (http://ia600409.us.archive.org...) At the 24:52 mark, he begins to give examples from quantum mechanics where simultaneous causation takes place. This gives me four examples of simultaneous causation from science and everyday experience, two of which were ignored by Con, who falsely asserts that there is no observational evidence of simultaneous causation. Con also straw mans the argument I’m making. I’m not arguing that something can cause itself. I’m arguing that an explanation of something can come from itself. If I was arguing that something could cause itself, then it would be a case of A causing A to exist. I’m talking about A causing B, which causes C, which causes A. It’s very different from what Con’s straw man is trying to make it look like.There is a great irony in Con claiming that there is no evidence for simultaneous causation, while also arguing for the Kalam. Academic theists say that god created the universe through simultaneous causation! William Lane Craig, who popularized the Kalam, says this very thing (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...). Con is inadvertently undermining his own argument he says that simultaneous causation is impossible, has no evidence, or is just a hypothesis (which is wrong, because I have given four examples, and Dr. Craig gives many more on that article). As ApologeticsPress.Org says:“Philosopher William Lane Craig explains that this argument rests on a pseudo-dilemma, since the argument does not “consider the obvious alternative that the cause of the [alleged—JM] Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the Big Bang” (Craig, 1994). Simply put: the Law of Causality allows for simultaneous causes.” (http://www.apologeticspress.org...)I think this is clearly a knockdown argument against Con. Either simultaneous causation happens, or the Kalam is false. Pick your choice, Con, and choose wisely. (That’s meant to be facetious, not snaky.)The entirety of C3 is built on a logical fallacy called ‘’god of the gaps’’. Theopedia defines this argument as “discredited and outmoded approach to apologetics, in which a gap in scientific knowledge is used as evidence for the existence of God” (http://www.theopedia.com...). Even if there is no explanation (yet) for any of the things that Con listed, it would not mean that god exists, or that the probability of god existing increases. That’s a fallacy. Besides, I think points two, four, and six are easily explainable by high school science, but I won’t elucidate because it wouldn’t matter to the debate.To conclude, there are many examples of simultaneous causation from science, and if simultaneous causation didn't happen, the Kalam would be false. The Kalam is also undermined by the fact that there is no first state of time, and the WFU demonstrating that an omnipotent being could not have been behind the universe. Con's entire response to my first argument depends on a definition of omnipotence that would entail the non-existence of god (stone paradox). Instead, omnipotence should be defined the way academic theists and I want to define it, which is the trait of being able to do everything that is logically possible. Con's response to my second argument is filled with straw man arguments, and his entire C3 argument is based on a fallacy. Ergo, the evidence supports the conclusion that god does not exist.Vale.