Resolved: God Exists

I'm quite alarmed by my opponent's closing statement: "I shift the burden of proof to Pro. Maximum BoP lies with Pro as Pro is making a positive claim..." Absolutely not. Normally, yes, the BoP lies with whoever makes the positive claim. But Con clearly established a shared BoP in the rules, and shared it shall remain. The rules did not say anywhere that BoP would shift after Round 1. == Rebuttals == Con's "fourth" possibility for the universe's existence is not, actually, a separate possibility. It falls under option 1 - the universe exists by physical necessity. To quote my opponent: "the energy intrinsic to gravity forced the creation of a singularity that caused the Big Bang." That's physical necessity. A few problems with this. First, Con notes that M-theory postulates how intrinsic energy to the universe caused the Big Bang. This is circular logic. Given that the Big Bang created the universe, then it follows that the universe did not exist before the Big Bang. So how can the universe contain intrinsic energy if the universe didn't exist yet? This begs yet another question - if there was some kind of intrinsic energy or gravitational force floating around before the universe was created, where did it come from? I've already shown that the past cannot be infinite (a claim that Con did not dispute), so there must have been a finite point at which this intrinsic energy or gravity force entered the picture. Thus, if gravity is the initial force that started everything, Con still runs into the same problem - where did gravity come from, and what caused it to come into being? Most damaging of all is the incomplete nature of M-theory. The "M" in M-theory tellingly stands for "magic" or "mystery" because the theory is far from complete and there is no consensus whatsoever in the scientific community as to which parts are accurate and which are not [1]. It is still very much a work in progress, and it can hardly be used as proof against God's existence. The Big Bang: I do not dispute the Big Bang, because I don't think it excludes God's existence whatsoever. Theism essentially says the same thing - out of nothing exploded everything in an instant. The Omnipotence Paradox: This is one of my favorites. It's commonly expressed by the question, "can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?" The problem with this supposed paradox is that it's a meaningless question. I like to explain this using a different example - can God kill himself? The answer is no, because God must be eternal. Death is the ultimate loss of power, so if God is omnipotent then obviously he cannot die. Does this mean his power is therefore limited because he cannot perform the action of killing himself? No, it simply confirms the definition of omnipotence - "an agency or force of unlimited power." [2] I realize Con defines omnipotence as "the ability to perform any action whatsoever" but that cannot include an action that destroys the ability to perform any action, because if it does then Con's definition violates the law of non-contradiction and is therefore useless. This is a linguistic trick that sounds clever, but it's actually a non sequitur. So, let's get back to our big rock. If God has infinite power, then he would have to create a rock that exceeds infinite size in order to not lift it. But this is illogical, because nothing can exceed infinity. The act of lifting something requires moving an object from one point to another through space. So, in order to lift this rock of exceedingly infinite size, God would have to move it beyond the dimension of space. But this makes no sense, because you cannot move an object from one location to another in space if there is no dimension of space. So, we see once again that the question is actually meaningless, and has no bearing on God's power. Furthermore, a stone so large that it defeats unlimited power cannot exist if we accept that God must be omnipotent by definition. If a God exists than he is the greatest thing that can possibly exist, and there can thus be nothing greater (like a really big rock). This entire concept is self-contradictory. Since Con is presenting self contradictory scenarios as valid proof of God's non-existence, then I must also be allowed to respond with self contradictory answers. Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it? Yes. Can he then go back and lift that very rock with his unlimited power? Yes. Let's get serious - Con is trying to manipulate semantics and presenting self-contradicting proofs. This is a pretty weak form of argument. Omniscience Paradox: Con proposes that the existence of entropy (disorder) in the universe proves an omniscient being cannot exist. Not so. Again, its important to keep in mind that we're discussing a supreme being who, if he exists, is outside of space and time. The entropy Con identifies is within space and time. So, it is quite possible that an omniscient being willed the existence of disorder in our finite dimension. What is perceived as disorder and entropy to us humans of limited observational ability and understanding may not actualy be contingent at all. Since we have no ability to travel back in time, there is no way to prove that events which occured in a seemingly contingent universe would have hapened differently. As such, Con really cannot say that such events are in fact contingent. What created the god: I never understand why this question is seen as valid. God is by nature eternal. He needs no creator, because he is the only thing in nature that does have a finite begining. If god was created thn he is not god - the thing that created him is god. And then the cycle starts all over.... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...