God Does NOT Exist, God is NOT Great, and Makes Life Worthless

Thank you, GeoLaureate8, for this debate. I look forward to an enlightening interchange. ====> G O D S - E X I S T E N C E <==== :::Argument from the Universe::: Geo engages in the fallacy of redefinition. In P1, he defines universe as everything that exists. In P3, he defines the universe as that which God created. When I substitute more accurate terms in his syllogism, the fallacy becomes evident: P1: The Complete Universe is everything that exists. [1] P2: If God exists, he is part of the Complete Universe. P3: If God is part of the Created Universe, he could not have created it. P3 makes sense on its own, but the universe he refers to is not the same as the one in P1 and P2. Therefore, his conclusion is invalid. :::Kalam's Cosmological Argument FAILS::: P1: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause. Geo is twisting semantics to convert the REAL Kalam's Cosmological Argument (KCA) into a straw man he can more easily defeat. Indeed, matter is neither created nor destroyed, but this premise does not speak about matter, it speaks about time and space. Everything we've ever observed has begun at a point in time. While the matter in Geo's laptop has always existed, his laptop began to exist at a point in time and space. P2: The universe began to exist. It is certain the universe is continually expanding from a singularity. [2] Alexander Vilenkin developed a unifying theory [3] in 2003 with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth. This theory, which is independent of our universe, shows that all expanding universes must have a singularity and therefore a beginning. P3: Therefore, the universe has a cause. I have upheld the premises and exposed Geo's fallacies in his refutation. Therefore, this conclusion follows. :::Ambiguity of the Uncaused Cause::: Geo is correct that we cannot make the leap from uncaused cause to God without more evidence. On the other hand, it also fails to prove God's non-existence and therefore fails to satisfy Geo's resolution. He must elaborate on how this actually proves his case. ====> G O D - I S - N O T - G R E A T <==== :::God Can't Be Great::: Ipse dixit. Geo has not explained WHY God must be finite. I can only assume he is appealing to his Argument from the Universe, in which he substitutes one meaning of universe with another. So long as that argument is refuted, this argument has no logical foundation whatsoever. :::God is a Tyrannical Dictator::: God being the self-appointed ruler of the universe has no bearing on his greatness. God is, by the mere fact that he is God, great. I think, perhaps, Geo needs to be reminded of the definition of Great: Great - 1. Very large in size. 2. Larger in size than others of the same kind. 3. Large in quantity or number: A great throng awaited us. See Synonyms at large. 4. Extensive in time or distance: a great delay. 5. Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent: a great crisis. 6. Of outstanding significance or importance: a great work of art. 7. Chief or principal: the great house on the estate. 8. Superior in quality or character; noble: "For he was great, ere fortune made him so" (John Dryden). 9. Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West. 10. Eminent; distinguished: a great leader. 11. Grand; aristocratic. 12. Informal Enthusiastic: a great lover of music. 13. Informal Very skillful: great at algebra. 14. Informal Very good; first-rate: We had a great time at the dance. 15. Being one generation removed from the relative specified. Often used in combination: a great-granddaughter. 16. Archaic Pregnant. [1] None of these definitions speak of benevolence, which seems to be what Geo is truly attempting to refute. If that is his intention, he should revise his resolution in the next round, though I advise the voters to consider how that might affect the conduct vote. ====> G O D - D E G R A D E S - L I F E S - S I G N I F I C A N C E <==== One's life significance cannot be objectively measured. Life-significance is a human state of mind. Even Geo claims that we create our own meaning. Geo cannot objectively prove this portion of the resolution by virtue that he has himself has already shown that the matter is subjective in nature. ====> T A G <==== This is my argument to support my position: the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG). Truth, being that which affirms reality as it is, is the desired goal of academic pursuit. Debate falls within this pursuit. Strong agnosticism and other forms of skepticism are refuted at the outset on the basis that they are self-refuting. The claim that truth is not objective is itself an objective truth claim and can only be true if it is false. Geo has relied on logical reasoning, scientific induction, and even moral principles in support of his resolution. Clearly, he presupposes these things are capable of attaining objective truth. To do so, these principles must be abstract and absolute, as anything else reduces to absurdity. If logical reasoning is conventional, then it cannot affirm anything more than conventional knowledge. If nature is not uniform, then science cannot affirm anything more than present observations. If morality is subjective, then it cannot affirm anything more than ethical suggestions. Unless these principles are universally binding and abstractly independent from human thought, Geo's appeals to logical reasoning, scientific inference, and moral consquence are meaningless. For Geo's debate to be intelligible, logic must be necessarily true, the universe must be uniform, and morality must be universally binding. TAG asserts that God is the necessary precondition for these principles, and is proved via the impossibility of the contrary. God is the only precondition that can justify immutable logic, uniformity in nature, and moral objectivity, for He is perfectly true, immutable, transcendent, righteous, holy, infinite, and so forth. Without Him, these principles cannot exist in the state in which Geo requires them. The result is that Geo's attempts to disprove God's existence, among other things, ultimately relies on principles that can only be justified if his position is wrong. ====> C O N C L U S I O N <==== Geo's resolution is in three parts, and he must show all three to be true. He has not proven God does not exist as his arguments have been shown to rely on ambiguity of terms. He has not proven that God is not great; he has only shared his opinion on the matter. He has not proven that God makes life worthless; he has only espoused his personal perceptions on the matter. In fact, there is very little proof of his resolution at all in his opening round. On the other hand, I have offered proof of the contrary, which he will be tasked to refute. It is up to him to defend ALL his arguments and refute mine. If he fails to support even one element of his three-part resolution, then the voters are justified in voting Con. ====> S O U R C E S <==== 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://skyserver.sdss.org... 3. http://books.google.com...