The Existence of The Christian God

Point 1In your original point, you were talking about a perfect God. You set out to show why a perfect God couldn't exist. I refuted that. We were talking about a perfect God either way, and thus I do not need to prove that God must be perfect. Besides, It's impossible to prove anyway. As for your point regarding that free-will is impossible with an omniscient God: This is completely illogical. You are forgetting that God is omnipotent as well. You are literally saying an omnipotent being cannot do something by saying God cannot give us free-will and still be omnipotent."God is all-knowing, means he knows everything. Assuming you do not know everything then you are not as intelligent as God"I didn't say we were as intelligent as God is, but that we are also smart, as (Not that we are smart exactly like God) is smart. I.e., we are the most intelligent species on Earth, as God is the most intelligent being in the Universe. "This is completely wrong. What about cancer in children that takes thousands of innocent children’s lives, that was God’s perfect design. What about the millions of innocent families that are swept apart because of tsunamis, that was God’s perfect design too. What about ALS, a horrible disease that slowly paralyzes the innocent victim leaving him/her, trapped within their mind without escape except death? Thank God for his perfect design. If God exists, then he will have to beg for my forgiveness."Don't you remember your original point? You said, "From this evidence we can conclude without a doubt that God is deemed perfect. Something is deemed ‘perfect’ when it fits completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better.".This means, whatever thing God does is perfect. God gave man free will (See my first point), thus giving man free-will was the best thing that could have been done. But, since God knew this best choice would result in the things mentioned above, God gave his Son to save us from sin, so that after death, none of those things will exist any longer.Point 2"Yes it is like a married bachelor. If God was omnipotent, then he can do anything, anything includes being a married bachelor. Being a married bachelor is impossible as you know, therefore omnipotence is impossible, and God cannot exist."God is omnipotent, so he can do anything. Anything includes being a married bachelor. Therefore being a married bachelor is not impossible for God. Therefore an omnipotent God can exist.You are treating omnipotence as if it can only include things that humans can wrap their heads around: This doesn't take into account the very definition of omnipotence, but downscales it to pseudo-omnipotence, therefore it cannot be used as an argument against a genuinely omnipotent God."Saying that you can know what sin is like without sinning is idiotic. It’s like saying that you can know what it’s like to see, without ever seeing. It’s impossible, I’m not sure how you don’t understand that being a married bachelor is impossible. I just don’t understand why you keep denying the stupidest things."Again, God is omnipotent. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. Anything includes seeing without eyes and being a married bachelor. It is impossible for a human to do these things, since they are bound by the rules of logic, but an omnipotent being is not bound by the rules of logic (If an omnipotent being was boundby logic, it wouldn't even be omnipotent). Therefore an omnipotent being can do those things.Point 3 "Where’s your evidence that God created the universe?"This is like saying, "What is your evidence that a bachelor isn't married?". God is defined as the creator of the Universe, so you are literally asking, "What is the proof that the creator of the Universe created the Universe?". The answer is simple: There's a reason he is called the creator of the Universe."Where’s the evidence that God is not bound by time?"We are debating about the Christian God. The Christian God is defined as eternal. "Where’s your evidence that he lives outside it?"Since he is not bound by it, he can live outside of it."Where’s your evidence that God is not bound by the rules of logic?"Again, we are discussing the Christian God. Nothing is impossible with this God (Mark 10:27), meaning he can do anything. Anything includes things outside of logic. Therefore, he is bound by the rules of logic. This argument also goes the exact same with time & matter."I think any intelligent person would realize how idiotic this is and that it just makes my opponent look like a fool."I know any intelligent person would realize you are not going by the actual definition of omnipotence - The ability to do anything. And besides that point, you didn't even address it, you only called it idiotic and said I'm making myself look like a fool.Side Point: "My opponent then ends his argument properly with a threat. Says the one that cheated and posted his rebuttals in a quite improperly manner."It wasn't a threat, it was simple logic. If someone can't refute the other side's arguments, that person will lose the debate. Argument"Therefore there was no time outside of the universe."I've been saying this since Round 2. Thank you for finally agreeing."God did not create the universe for there is no time outside of the universe, therefore he did not have any time to create it."God doesn't need time to create it. He is omnipotent. It instantly happened because there was no time. This goes into the personal argument.ConclusionMy opponent has actually given some of the best arguments against the existence of God I have seen so far. There's just slight logical holes in all of them, such as bounding a being that can do anything to merely only being able to do things we can comprehend.In terms of cheating, again, I have no reason to lie about it, as I will never say that I purposely cheated ( (Unless I lie about and say I did cheat... But see what I say below) and will never repent of saying that it was only a mistake. I would be damning myself to a Lake of Fire for unrepentant sin. In terms of linking websites, the arguments are the exact same ones that I would have brought up anyway, thus they are the same. The links say what I would have said. It's like someone talking for me... I could understand my opponent's point if all I did was post links, but not only a few of them. Their example of 100's of links inaccurate, because I wasn't only debating with links.I don't know if I will win, since this website is full of Atheists, and many Atheists commonly don't have the sense to look into arguments, but when refutating them, the argument they are refuting refutes their rebuttal (I.e., my opponent's point that everything a perfect God must do is perfect, his point on married bachelors, and the one on Big Bang.CommentsHere is why I personally think people wilfully become Atheists:They have done abominable works, and, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.So they condemn themselves.And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.