You cannot prove the existence of God.

"I will try not to deviate until it is needed." Uh, lets try not to deviate at all shall we? ========== Contention 1 ========== That it interesting, I was unaware of the traces of water on Jupiter. However, Jupiter was merely for the sake of example. I could just have easily said the sun, or some other water-barren place. In regards to his initial argument, that our existence precedes our essence, it still remains an unsubstantiated point when talking about God. He claims that God must exist in order for Him to be necessary, but never explains why. Please note that the burden of proof still lies on my opponent for this contention. ========== Contention 2 ========== I would appreciate it if my opponent would not associate myself with invalidated sources and arguments. I never mentioned Einstein nor any of the other fallacious elements my opponent speaks or. I also do not believe I ever stated that our world was completely black or white. There is certainly a grey area, and even neutral areas. The US can be neutral in an Asian war and not get involved. "There are many viewpoints from which an observer can view CON's statement. By saying that cold does not exist, we can also say we have never seen, felt, heard of, or spoke to God, and etc. So does God exist? By applying properties, we can verify the existence of something. What is God's "property"? If cold is the absence of heat, then why have I felt it every time I wash my hands? Or is that just subliminal heat? And what if we were to reach absolute zero, hypothetically speaking; is that not ultimate coldness?" His first sentence is completely unsubstantiated, it really does not address the topic at all. In regards to what my opponent feels after picking up the dog turds, the "cold" water is simply of a lower temperature than the room he was in. If we could reach absolute zero, it would be the ultimate lack of heat. Cold is simply a word we use to describe low amounts of heat. "The second law of thermodynamics explains that heat flows from bodies with more energy to bodies with less, so if this occurred in an infinite stage of regression, what is the smallest energy/amount of heat that could be procured? Zero molecular motion, I presume? So would that make "cold" not impossible? Or I am wrong somewhere in my thinking. Evil and good, cold and heat, are dualistic properties. For one to "exist", the other must to." Again, cold is simply the description we give to something having low levels of heat. Any scientist will admit that we cannot reach negative Kelvin, only [possibly] absolute zero. If they are still dualistic properties, as my opponent suggests, then evil is simply a lack of good. "As for the later portion of CON's argument, he states that (basically) everyone is a sinner and is bad. Does this not apply to the Virgin Mary, God, Jesus, or His angels? If everyone has committed something bad in their lifetime (or lack of good, as CON states), then what is the purpose of our existence if we cannot satisfy our prerequisite to enter Heaven? This seems like an awfully terrible thing to say. I cannot and refuse to accept the fact that an innocent newborn child is evil from birth, in a Christian point of view. If people have fallen short of the standard of good, then why is there a Heaven? Because, if this is correct, some people are relatively more good than others? Seems like a pretty canny thing to say, but this is all CON's arguments after all. Please explain to us what a person must do in order to attempt to fulfill the standard of "good," unless this is impossible and we are all destined to be exiled to Hell." My opponent wants to digress into a specifically Christian side of this debate. I would be happy to engage in this later, but I will focus on this resolution at hand for a lack of remaining characters and to preserve the voters' time. In all, my opponent's original argument holds no water because what he defined as "God" is omnipotent, but not necessarily all-loving. Again, I would be happy to have this debate later. ========= Contention 3 ========= There is simply no way I can address this point in this round due to character limits. I will expand on this greatly next round. ========= Contention 4 ========= I'm certainly not offended, I just don't see how this straw man applies to an educated debate. ========= Contention 5 ========= "My opponent has not disproved anything other than the fact that my point still stands. It does not matter if they have similar views in the supernatural deity, the resolution stands that the Bible is intolerant of other religions or Gods. While we're here, I apologize, however, for not clarifying my stance earlier. I was basically implying CON couldn't prove the existence of the Christian deity, God. And I think he still hasn't." I don't believe that is mentioned anywhere in the resolution... ========= Contention 6 ========= Heh, I had a little chuckle at my opponent's rebuttal here :) All I was saying here is that if God were the creator of the universe, then His non-existence would imply a very different (and also non-existent) universe. I will also elaborate on this further in the next round along with the third point of contention. I apologize for my brief rebuttals, as I was running low on time. Thank you all for your time, and good luck opponent.