Every one who believes in god delusional

Basically my opponent argues that I am a stupid vegetable that is simply regurgitating the Google results of "the worst arguments for god", (I actually goggled "worst argument against god" & pros rock paradox came up. Irony. ) bla bla. YAWN. I have a 3 word response, argumentum ad hominem, & that you certainly won't get away with on this site. Answer all the points made, without resorting to ad homs. I will try to ignore my opponents smart a$$ ad homs, & address the actual arguments made - respectfully. With regard those arguments Con actually dropped the final one, "The Thomistic Cosmological Argument #1 (TCA1)" Being that there are no new arguments allowed in R4, this argument will remained dropped. Can god be described:" If something is undefined, it wouldn’t exist. " False. Many things exist, that philosophy has no definition for, for example; truth, reality, consciousness etc. "You cannot define what does not exist". Obviously. However, the fact that, that which does not exist cannot be defined, does not mean, that which cannot be defined can't exist. Thus the point is mute. " Inability to perceive the physical characteristics of a god does not coherently transcribe into something without definitions. " Strawman. I never said that it stemmed from inability to perceive physical characteristics. "Con assumes observations that undergo confirmation biases are equivalent to actual proof/evidence. Common logical fallacy… If faith was based on actual proof, there wouldn’t be controversial issues between religions/beliefs. Debate and conflict reside with hypothesis and observations, not facts. Only madmen deny facts. " Pro seems to be saying that anything about which there is controversy, is a result of there being no evidence. There is a controversy about many things, are we to believe that every one who takes a stand in a controversy is delusional. There are several competing theories of evolution, is everyone who holds a certain way delusional? Stone paradox: " I’ve always assumed yes/no questions have only 2 answers: yes and no. " 1st of all what I wrote does not contradict that assumption. My response was that "a stone god cannot lift" is not a coherent term, thus cannot be used to form coherent sentences. not a coherent sentence, & thus not a coherent question. So if it's not a question, it doesn't need a yes/no answer. 2nd of all the assumption is incorrect. For example, the answer to a yes/no question, could be, "sometimes". Pros assumption is actually the basis for the "do you still beat your wife? " catch 22. So no one need not answer with a yes/no. If you insist on having a yes/no answer, the answer could be said to be no. & the fact that god cannot lift such a rock is because its - like a square circle - a self contradictory term, thus such a rock cannot exist, & thus god cannot create it. Omnipotent means, god can do anything, that which is not a "thing" (i. e. cannot exist) such as a rock god can't lift, or a square circle, is not included. But again the correct way of putting the answer is the 1st way. This is the way professor Gottlieb puts it, as well as C. S. Lewis. As well as Isaac Asimov - an atheist - for the physics version of this paradox. ( This is not the only answer, there are at least 5 others. ) "Yes, I agree with con’s obvious statement that this is a contradiction… hence the word “paradox”" Con (me) stated that the term/phrase/object, "a stone god cannot lift", is itself an internal contradiction & thus logically impossible to exist, & thus the term has no meaning. A paradox is a complete argument that produces an inconsistency. The argument/paradox that pro provided, contained within it an object which cannot exist, much as a square circle cannot exist. Since it cannot exist, one cannot ask if god can create it, there is no it to speak of. “A rock so heavy that god cannot lift” does not exist because omnipotence cannot exist, thus god is NOT all-powerful. " If you think about this sentence, it really doesn't make any sense. If you write it out formally it looks like this: 1) Omnipotence cannot exist 2) “A rock so heavy that god cannot lift” does not exist (from 1) 3) Thus god is not all powerful (from ? ) Pros Free will paradox: "An omniscient god would have seen and known every action of every living thing in the universe. This would be most aptly translated as such: God has either experienced every point in time, or is present at all points in time, and if an agent can choose from alternatives, it would mean God hasn’t experienced or be present at all points of time. " (emphasis mine) Pro states that "an omniscient god would have seen & known every action. .". This is simply not true. Seeing is not a necessary part of omniscience, pro sticks that word in so that he can continue - "This would be most aptly translated as such: God has either experienced every point in time, or is present at all points in time" Knowledge alone, does not require "experiencing" or having been "present". Seeing does, but knowledge does not. Knowledge without "experience" or "presence", is not a logical impossibility. Generally we associate knowledge to experiencing, because that is the way that we have knowledge. It could be argued that even we can have knowledge without experience, for example, theoretical mathematics, calculating using Infinity. The bottom line is, that neither "experience" nor "presence", is required for knowledge. Arguments for god:Cosmological argument: " Fallacies of Presumption. This argument assumes existence requires explanation. Explanations were created by mankind. The universe existed before mankind. " Pro is saying that, anything that happened before mankind doesn't require explanations, because explanations were created by man. So according to pro evolution need not be explained because it happened before mankind existed. Absurd. The Kalam Cosmological Argument: "This is a restatement of The Cosmological Argument from Contingency. This just proves Con is either a vegetable or he doesn’t know what he’s throwing up in the air. " I love wrong smart a$$ statements. With the Kalam cosmological argument, one cannot counter by saying that god must also have a cause because Kalam uses the premises, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. ". God always existed thus need not (& cannot be created). The universe on the other hand, science has discovered, had a beginning - the big bang. The Moral Argument Based Upon Moral Values and Duties: "This argument assumes moral values and duties exist in reality/ a universal axiom. " Yes, it does, most people are intuitively aware that there is a right & a wrong. Most people know that it is wrong to tortcher a little old defenseless lady for no reason. The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning: "1. Fallacies of Presumption: This argument assumes the universe is based of “fine-tunings”. Fine-tunings are defined as acts of god. This argument requires the assumption that there is a god in order to prove… that there is a god? " Strawman. p1 was The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. 2. Appeal to Probability(? ): I’m not sure what to call this, but this is a common misconception about events that seem highly unlikely to happen. Something that seems improbable can still happen. There are unlimited possibilities of how life can exist in a limitless universe. We assume the only way there is life is what already exists. Our conceivability is limited. I'm not sure what to call this either - it doesn't have a name. Obviously anything is possible, & there is no such thing as absolute proof of anything (except that one's self exists, "I think therefore I am" & even this is now questioned by philosophers. ) The point of any evidence is to show that it is more likely true than not, which is what the teleological argument does. Pro dropped my final argument which was, The Thomistic Cosmological Argument #1 (TCA1).