God Exists.

Lets begin. Rebuttals:"- Perfection: the condition, state, or quality of being free from all flaws or defects. Because this is what perfection is, therefore it is more perfect for something to exist than to not exist. Not everything we imagine exists in reality yes, but if God is without all flaws, namely he is perfect, he must by definition exist. "So perfection is that which is flawless? But again, the very concept of a flaw is subjective. Its based on what appeals to us. The only reason some say non-existence is a flaw is because they view it as not appealing. Why is non-existence a flaw? You are assuming this in the same way you assumed existence was a perfection. "Infinite regression of something made of substance, matter, energy, etc. cannot be an infinite regression. Anything that has physical or material substance cannot have infinite regression because it itself is not infinite"Not infinite? Do you mean not of an infinite quantity? Your assuming that things of a finite number could not have existed for an eternity. Just because there isnt an infinite number of atoms does not mean that matter has not always existed. That doesn't follow. "The universe's cause cannot have an infinite regression because then there would be no universe. For example, if time was infinite then there would be an infinite past and therefore there could be no present or future because there was no start to time, no beginning. But because there is a present, a now, there must have been a beginning. "No, if time was infinite there would be an infinite past and infinite present. Think about it like this - you have a line that goes on infinitely in both directions. Now point to a place on the line - this is the moment in time you now occupy. The present. Behind you is an infinite stretch of time, and ahead of you is an infinite stretch of time (past and future). So, think about time that way. Just because there is a present does not indicate any kind of beginning. "The universe cannot have caused itself because it is contingent, it changes. God is the only explanation for contingent things because he is not contingent, he is eternal, he never changes. "Matter is not contingent. There is no good reason it cannot exist in and of itself. Matter cannot be created or destroyed[1] - it makes the most sense if we then say it has always existed, and that most other cause and effect (like the big bang, evolution, etc. ) are somehow are the result of matter and energy. "God does not exist in an infinite regress. God cannot exist "in" anything. He is existence itself. "If God cannot exist in anything, how can he exist at all? If by time we mean "The measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues,"[2] then if God exists outside of time he doesnt exist at all. He cant move or think or create or do anything if he is outside of time (time measures action), so if god were to do anything he would be in time. Also, what does it mean for God to be existence itself? Existence is a state of being or becoming, not a person. "The universe cannot come from an infinite number of universes for the reasons above. There cannot be an infinite regress of universes because then there would not be this current universe. "Yes there can, for the reasons I said above. Argument from Catholic Answers: 1)Ok. I'm more than happy to grant it.2) No it wasn't a problem, I was just pointing that out.3) Yes, the "actuality of something changing and becoming actualized again" is potentiality. Existence is not "pure actuality", because in pure actuality there is only being. The better way to see existence is by looking at it as being and becoming - a more dualistic view.4) See above.8) What is esse? Now Im getting confused. If esse is existence, then it is both potential and actual. Existence is constantly changing and constantly being. Now when you say there is only one existence we participate in, I assume you are saying that there is only one reality. This is true, I agree. But this reality is not only actual. It is not only in a state of being - it too is always changing, always becoming something else. 9) Ok.10) Existence is not a thing - it is a state of being. But I understand what you are saying - yes something will always exist.11) Ok, Im sorry I misunderstood this. 12) Existence is a state of being, not a person. A state of being cannot know anything, cannot do anything, it simply is. By saying existence is omniscient, you are speaking of it as if it were a person. It is not, it is a state of being.13) For the reason above, existence also cannot be omnipotent. Omnipotent implies personhood. Existence is a state of being, and cannot do anything. Now to my counter arguments. "My opponent confuses the idea of time and God. If God is immutable, he exists outside of time. Therefore God created the universe because he always had the intention to create the universe and he continues to have that intention. My opponent believes that for God to create the universe he must have had the intention prior to creating it and then not have the intention after creating it. This is misunderstanding how God creates and thinks. God is eternal and unchanging. He is timeless. He cannot have intentions that he has not had before. Therefore, God has always had the intention to create the universe and always will, this is not a problem for God because God is outside of time. "Ill rephrase what I said before about God and time. If by time we mean "The measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues,"[2] then if God exists outside of time he doesnt exist at all. He cant move or think or create or do anything if he is outside of time (time measures action), so if god were to do anything he would be in time. God has to be inside of time, because as an omnipotent being he has do be able to do things. If he was outside of time, he could do nothing, because there is nothing by which to measure his actions. or non action, past actions or future actions. So the argument still stands. "My opponent's argument against God's existence is flawed because my opponent does not understand what omnipotent means. Omnipotent means - able to do all things that are logically possible"Omnipotence: "having virtually unlimited authority or influence"[3]Your turning omnipotence into a weasel word, and redefining it simply for the sake of the argument. Its an ad-hoc, really. Redefining a term so that its not affected by an argument. Almost like Carl Sagan's dragon in the garage. You redefine his attributes as we examine his character critically, so as to put him out of the reach of our logical argument. Plus, even if I granted that god can only do "logically possible things", its still logically possible to learn. I do it all the time. So, since learning is logically possible, then god should be able to do it. But do to his omniscience, he cannot. Now we have a being who simultaneously can and cant learn. A contradiction. Regardless of how you put it, the argument still stands. Thanks so much for a fun debate, I wish you the best in school and whatever else is keeping you busy,Im sorry if not all of my arguments made sense - this was hastily typed after I came back from school and realized that I had 49 mins left to complete the debate! Ill re-expalin anything that was rushed next round. Cheers! Max[1]. https://www.britannica.com...[2]https://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]https://www.merriam-webster.com...