God exists.

1. The Definition of God I would say that you are operating under a very narrow definition of the word 'power'. Take Nietzsche, Foucault, Weber (etc.), nearly every philosopher sees power as a concept above force, which is what you seem to define power as. I do not think power can be reduced down to force. I wrote:'Assuming that a deity is physical or non-physical was not my point because I was describing god's essence as ineffable and inconceivable to the human understanding-- always confined by the laws of this universe.' The latter phrase was given to describe the human understanding and not god's essence. How foolish do you think I am to argue that, 'god cannot be understand by the definitions of this universe' and then 'god is defined by this universe and can be understood by terms within it'? As such, I ignore this statements as a misreading. I used Spinoza as a demonstration that god's definition doesn't have to be a anthropomorphised entity but of subsets of existence (namely this universal existence). I am arguing about existence outside of this universe and beyond comprehension. Because Spinoza is a pantheist, I was not using him to make a deist argument; that would be absurd. I was using him for his definition of god. 2. The Case for God's Existence 2a. Causality Again, you've avoided my argument entirely. If you end with the universe, you have to explain how the Big Bang instant came into being. If you do so under the Big Crunch theory, you are advocating an unlikely proposition given modern science and thereby have to concede your position as a denomination of faith. You have to explain the prior state of the universe to this instance in order to prove that the universe existed at a prior state. Failing to do so, the likelihood is that the universe was created. Do you deny the Big Bang science and that the universe was initially condensed into one singularity? How did it get into this state if the universe is eternal? 2b. The Big Bang I have largely already dealt with this point. The Big Crunch theory has not been proved false, only unlikely given scientific probability and maths, and you are required to maintain some sort of theory stating what was prior to the Big Bang theory. Stating 'another state of the universe' is a vague as a theist saying 'God did it', with no evidential prove or reasoning. 2c. The Supernatural Reading through your argument, I now accuse you of tautology (repetition). You have to prove your position, held by many eastern philosophies, that the universe is eternal. You can do this by describing the universe prior to the Big Bang and how the Big Bang came into being.I am arguing for a reality outside out universe causing our universe. The outside is supernatural since it is outside our natural laws. I am not arguing that an uncaused universe is supernatural, since I don't hold the position that the universe is uncaused and think that it is subject as a whole to the law of causation. The universe as a whole succeeds itself. Evidence points to a place where this succession began (our universal concept of time). We are debating what came prior to this event: external universes, a multiverse, a god or somehow, more of this universe. 3. Conclusion I have enlarged the font as you asked, and in return ask you to stop repeating those phatic words 'we must negate the resolution' at the end of each of your arguments. Although they sound good, they don't mean anything. I have already communicated that I will be presenting an argument for the existence of god in due time and that we were debating the premises of this argument.