God exists.

I will cover my opponent's definition of God, then his arguments.1. The Definition of GodMy opponent attempts to argue that a power need not be physical because ideas like the American Dream can exert power over the world. I agree that ideas are non-physical, since I am a property dualist. However, ideas, like every other feature of consciousness, depend on a physical substrate, namely the brain. In addition, ideas do not exert "power," although they can influence the brain, because physicists define power as physical.He writes, "I was not using the term 'entity' as reference to a physical thing, a Cartesian res extensa, but as a thing that is in existence." However, this does not address my point. All of the entities we have experience with are physical entities. If my opponent is to claim that God is an entity, he needs to develop some other concept of an entity and connect it back to observation.But this may be beside the point, since he writes: "Assuming that a deity is physical or non-physical was not my point because I was describing god's essence as ineffable and inconceivable to the human understanding-- always confined by the laws of this universe."If adopted, this would avoid the objection I previously made to the genus of his definition, but it contains a contradiction in its own right. We have at least some knowledge of the laws of the universe. Therefore, if God is "confined by the laws of the universe," we have knowledge of God. On this view, God is no longer "ineffable and inconceivable to the human understanding."In addition, my opponent has suggested that God could be the multiverse or, as he thinks Spinoza thought, "the totality of reality itself." Neither of these candidates are "ineffable and inconceivable to the human understanding."2. The Case for God's Existence2a. CausalityMy opponent's defense of this argument is to introduce Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason, which he states as "Nothing which begins doesn't have cause." However, I have already addressed this argument. If the universe has existed for an infinite period of time, it did not begin to exist, nor did it begin to exist if it has existed for a finite period of time, since there would be no time at which the universe did not exist on that alternative.He says, with reference to the first point in time, "it is just plain avoidance not to discuss how this point initiated." But we have to stop somewhere - I stop with the universe, and he stops with God. In addition, the atheist is free to maintain that there was no first point in time, since he can maintain that the universe has existed for an infinite period of time.2b. The Big BangMy opponent claims that the Big Crunch theory is out of favor in cosmology. This may be true, but being out of favor does not show that it is false, although we may be more skeptical of it. In addition, nothing about my position requires me to maintain the Big Crunch theory. I can even accept the Big Bang theory as true - all I have to maintain is that its cause was a prior state of the universe, not God.2c. SupernaturalismMy opponent writes, "for something to exist without being caused is in itself supernatural; it is beyond our natural laws and what we define as natural." First of all, my opponent has not demonstrated that something exists which was not caused, since the universe may have existed for an infinite period of time. In addition, even if the beginning of the universe were uncaused and therefore, on his definition, supernatural, that would not meet his definition of God, which is a supernatural cause of the universe. Indeed, it would conclusively disprove the existence of God as he defines God, since it would prove that the universe had no cause, and, therefore, no supernatural cause. Being uncaused is not a different kind of being caused - by definition, it is the absence of a cause.3. ConclusionI conclude that my opponent has failed to make a convincing case for the existence of God, and therefore that we must negate the resolution.