Does god exist

a.) Refutation of Ontological The opposition's premiss are basically the following: that since, due to the ignorance of the definitions of God that I have provided, my argument is wholly invalid. I do not see any validity, or any trace of soundness in the opposition's arguments: he asserts that Big Foot exist, for it would be absurd to deny the existence of Big Foot. That is not my argument in a nutshell. For it would only be absurd to deny the existence of Big Foot if existence implies quality "x" that fits into the definition of "Big Foot". Nevertheless, the arguments presented are not even considered by the opposition clearly. Firstly, "infinity' is not defined by the Arabic word akbar or the "greatest" in this sense. Infinity is here defined as something that cannot "be limited by things that share its kind". Hence, the negation of God's existence would necessarily prove that God is finite for the following reason: that since God does not exist in the physical world and only the intellect, then God would necessarily be finite, for there are things that have greater "essence" than that of God, and via the definition of God, that is wholly absurd. Henceforth, this refutation is based wholly upon a misunderstanding of what is meant by "God" and "infinitude" by taking the worthless Christian assumptions that we are talking about the monotheistic Christian God, which is wholly absurd.b.) Refutation of Argument from ExistenceThis is, again, led by a grave misunderstanding of what is meant by "God". Again, God's definition is a "omnipresent being that has infinite essence". But let us take this misunderstanding into account: if the opposition thinks that I start from the assumption that God exist to prove God's existence, then the opposition is willing to affirm the following: that the opposition IS God, for I clearly start with the assumption of the existence of ONESELF, not of GOD. Firstly, the opposition does not seem to get the definition of this term omnipresent: "omnipresence" means the act of being present everywhere. "Everywhere" includes now, here, there: omnipresence is the essence of reality. So either the opposition is willing to argue that the opposition does not exist in reality: for he is denying that there are some being who do not exist in the essence of reality, which is wholly absurd. With the assumption that something omnipresent must exist, as has already been proven, then as omnipresence is an attribute of God, God must exist. So far, I see only refutations of the existence of a CHRISTIAN God, not the GOD of this debate.INTERMISSION:a.) Arugments from a Material UniverseP1. There exists a thing that has infinite essenceP2. God has infinite essenceP3. God existsP1.In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered something interesting about the universe which revolutionized the world forever. He found out that since several extra-galactical nebulaes were moving away from the earth, the universe must be moving. He observed for days, and eventually found out that the further an object is from earth, that is the proportional distance that the object moves away from earth. This phenomena was already predicted in Einstein's General Relativity, and now, with observational a posteriori moving, Mr. Hubble discovered that the universe was indeed expanding. What does this say about the essence of the universe? It says that the essence of the universe is not defined: it says that the essence of the universe is indeed infinite. Universal expansion continues to this day, and shall continue until the end of time. [1]P2.It is indeed very hard to philosophize empirical theories, but that is exactly what I intend to do. Soon after the discovery of the Big Bang by Georges Lemaître, the Pope held this as evidence for Genesis I. For the sake of our debate, I shall dismiss these claims and talk about the God in this debate: if something that is defined as one of the qualities of God existed, that would henceforth prove the existence of a God. We defined in R1 that God had "infinite" essence, and we have already proven that the universe has infinite essence. [1]P3. In denying this, the opposition will be turned into a more idealistic position: i.e. he denies that the universe exists, and he only exists as the maker of a posteriori experience, in which would henceforth be delusional. For since God has infinite attributes, and the Universe has infinite attributes, we could automatically conclude that the Universe and God are one in all: there is nothing extra-universal about God, for God is the universe.However, let us take the assumption that the universe is not infinite, but indeed finite. This is a model of the "three shapes" of the universe. There are three possibilities: either (a) the universe has a value Ω > 1, which makes it positively curved (first-model), in which the case the universe will keep expanding, but it will not get larger. Or (b) the universe has a value of Ω < 1, which makes it finite, as it will expand so much that it will internally collapse. This makes the universe finite. Or (c), in which the universe has a value of Ω = 1, in which case the universe is flat, and shall expand forever. The alpha values measures the density of the universe at the first moment of the Big Bang. With this, we can say that the universe is indeed flat, for universal expansion is not constant: under the Flat Universe theory, after the period of universal inflation, the rate of universal expansion will slow down due to the effects of gravity, then eventually speed up. We now know that this theory is indeed true, for the universe seems to be expanding faster than it was. [2,3] Hence this diagram is apparently satisfied. But how does this relate to the debate? For several reasons: (a) that God is defined as something that has infinite essence, and that since the universe has infinite essence (and it exists), we can conclusively say that the universe and God are one and the same, and (b) that since the opposition has called for empirical a posteriori evidence, here, I have proven to you so, that a God exists.REFUTATIONS:c.) First-Cause Argument Here, the opposition thinks that the opposition has indeed done a good job of denying the existence of a God, but indeed, what the opposition has done is affirmed it. This is done for two reasons indeed: (a) that since God is defined as a the causer of everything, then if the universe (which I assume he deems caused everything) caused everything, then he has indeed proven that God indeed exists. And even if you don't buy that, then (b) we have proven that a flate-universe makes has infinite essence, which correlates with the definition of God, henceforth God exists (as God and the Universe is all in the same thing). An uncaused first cause has to exist, and no matter what name you call it (the universe, quantum flunctuations), the accepted the definitions of this says that "God" is the uncaused first cause. [5]CONCLUSIONS:From this, we can indeed conclude that all refutations provided by the opposition has ignored the definitions, and are henceforth invalidated. Apart from this, we can indeed conclude that the definitions of God, and the physical evidence that exists, shows that the God must exist, even if we take the physicalist or the idealist explanations of the universe to be sound/valid. Henceforth, the resolution is affirmed.CITATIONS:[1] The Universe From Nothing, Lawrence Krauss http://www.pdf-archive.com...[2] http://www.space.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://classics.mit.edu...