The existence of God.

Godsands ignored the request to expand on his accusation that my R1 was sophistry. Ignoring my R1 compounds the same errors in reasoning made there in this round as we will see. "Punk [sic] must, to have any chance of winning in this debate ... " Theism is a positive claim and I was explicit that refutation requires definition i.e. the concept 'god' must have meaning through definition. Since Godsands ignored R1 and no definition of god was presented, all that is left is to refute what is attributed *to* the concept - creation. All that is necessary to constitute as 'reasonable atheism' in this sense is simply to refute the arguments as being valid *and* necessarily contingent for the Universe to exist. He ignored the fallacies inherent in his argument construction instead claiming: "I have given sufficient reasons to believe in God" equating it to 'this is a valid argument'. The two claims are vastly different. What Godsands considers adequate in regards to his own belief system does not make that belief logical, valid or supportive of what that belief actually is (see R1). "clearly Punk [sic] is getting muddled up with sufficient knowledge." Your position is to create or at least display valid argumentation. What is necessary for you to believe =/= valid argumentation. Otherwise it is equally valid for me to say - my belief is necessary and sufficient; without any presentation of argumentation. As a debate, valid argumentation is what is necessary, not, 'this is why I believe'. "Punk [sic] is really debating for the existence of nothing." Incorrect. Nothingness and existing are contradictory. Nothingness is defined in negative terms, as an absence and as such it can never have the trait 'exists'. That was not my argument. "Punk [sic] assumes widely that the universe should come from nothingness." Not at all. Based on sound mathematics, physics and *cosmology. "when indeed we all know" Fallacy; ad populum. "that if the universe came from nothingness, making this nothingness something, the universe as we know it wouldn't be the entire universe ... " Incorrect. Nothingness is a vacuum; a particle in the vacuum constitutes as the Universe if and only if it is the sole particle in existence at that time. Not that the vacuum itself is 'something'. "It seems that Punk [sic] chooses to decide when the universe begins when really logic tells another story." Incorrect and you have shown no valid logic or science, simply a large misunderstanding of definitions and physics. "This has to be the largest contradiction I have seen from Punk [sic]." A fundamental lack of knowledge is apparent here. Quantum states will produce fleeting particles *by virtue* of being a quantum state and *do not* require energy from somewhere else. "Open space is a vacuum" Open space is not a vacuum. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Sophistry" Another claim of sophistry, this time masqueraded as 'I don't do physics'. 1. Quantum Flux: http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. CoE: http://en.wikipedia.org... "Contradiction ... " Time is a component of matter the two are constituents of existing. Time by definition has always existed - otherwise we need a contradictory concept of time before time. However always existed and infinite are not necessarily the same. "Motion or movement inherits time, but Punk [sic] loosely stated that the universe was caused by energy ... " Space and time are coexistent (relativity). When I say human I am not required to qualify, which is cells and atoms and ... "So my point is if the universe has been in existence forever then we wouldn't exist ... " There is a difference between finite states occurring in infinity and finite states being descriptive of infinity. If time was infinite we can still flick a switch, we can't however count flicks to reach a concept of infinity *because the two are exclusive*. This is the point you miss and why your 'time must be finite' argument fails (irregardless of whether the conclusion is correct or not). Infinity is a mathematical term that does not use operators, meaning arguments such as 'we can't reach/count/arrive at infinity' are devoid of meaning. "either we would have been produced an infinite amount of times" We don't exist in a all possible realms universe nor does infinity suggest we should - hypotheticals aside. "Solipsism?" None of my arguments derive from solipsism. "Why can't people settle for one version of consequentialism if neither versions involve God but instead the individual?" Not all ideas are equal, not all atheists are consequentialists. "Again how do you know what evil is if at the same time you try and disprove God?" Evil is defined in terms that are *not contingent* on God existing i.e. anti God but are incompatible with attributes of God. Your idea is not how theodicies work at all.