God exists..

Rebuttals Logic "If God defies logic, then God defies rationality. The clear definition of "exist" is "to have objective reality or being." [1] Objectivity is defined by the barriers of logic and physics. Pro says, "There are just some things outside of logical thinking." If God is outside of logical thinking, this debate is irrelevant since Pro is merely stating Pro does not have to prove anything. Validity is based on logic. If something is beyond logic, it is invalid by definition, and, hence, unreal. By the Russell's teapot analogy, Pro has full BoP." Not exactly, only parts of God are outside of logical thinking. Time travelling is illogical but time is real....Similar analogies. Describing a color to a blind person to the point where he can see the real color is illogical today...In the future perhaps we can find a way to change that. If we find a new language with that capability....will logic change? CAN LOGIC CHANGE? hmmmmmmmmm.... The Big Bang The Big Bang was not merely an "enormous explosion of energy and light." [2] The Big Bang is based on the concept that the universe was in a very high-density state and then expanded. [3] The high-density state of the universe is described as a dense baryon-plasma sea with a singularity, i.e. a point in spacetime with infinite density and zero volume. [4][5] The Big Bang is described as the inflation of gravitational spacetime itself. 13.798"0.037 billion years ago, gravitational spacetime existed virtually within the quantum vacuum, a body in a vacuum state [i.e. having incredibly minimum levels of energy, theorized to be energy intrinsic to gravity]. [6] The Big Bang could have occurred without an initial cause via. uncaused quantum mechanical fluctuations, originating in the quantum vacuum. The uncertainty principle and mass-energy equivalence together show that the density of energy in the universe can increase or decrease based on the energy density of the Higgs field and the level of mechanical fluctuations. [7][8] Pro claims that the explanation as given in Genesis 1:3, "And God said: let there be light, and there was light," [9] is logical but has not offered any verifiable evidence for the same. NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF quantum mechanical fluctuations, originating in the quantum vacuum. The inflation of the universe after the Big Bang. Causality "Here is my simple question: why does this uncaused cause have to be God? Quantum mechanical fluctuations and gravity can be uncaused. [10] "Supposing that the Big Bang emerged from a singularity of infinite density, it is hard to see what would constitute a reason for denying that that singularity itself emerge from some prior cosmological goings-on. And as we have reasons for supposing that macroscopic events have causal origins, we have reason to suppose that some prior state of the universe led to the production of this particular singularity." [11] Quantum mechanical fluctuations is not supported by scientific proof and is merely theorized... gravity is caused by mass (Note: God made mass) Infinite density could have been caused by something supernatural...*cough* *cough* GOD *cough* Teleology "1. The perceived teleology of the universe is because of randomness. The universe was created due to the emergence of minuscule disorder; the disorder of the universe results in the random emergence of teleology and dysteleology. Disorder is measured as entropy and governs the creation and destruction of the universe. Via. second law of thermodynamics, time is the rate of entropic graduation in the universe. [13] 2. My opponent has not proven the base of their contention: "teleology exists." Hence, I here present the dysteleological argument, the precise opposite, as a rebuttal: P1: An omnipotent, omnibenevolent being would create objects with optimal design. P2: Perfect teleology, i.e. definitive optimal design, does not exist. C: Therefore, either (a) God does not exist, or (b) God is not omnipotent/omnibenevolent. [14]" He did make us perfect, but keeping us perfect from an embodiment of evil was impossible because he gave us free will. You did not give any examples of God's design flaw... Ontology "Pro concludes that all ideas have an equal basis in reality. Pro has not proven that human psychology draws conclusions only from reality and is, by Pro's analogy, definitively equal to that reality. But we can also disregard the existence of God via. ontology as follows: P1: The non-existence of God in all worlds can be imagined. P2: This imagination has a basis in reality. C: God does not exist in any world." Yes, God does not exist ONLY in the world of his/her eyes and mind. Morality "1. This argument does not argue for God as described in the definition, thus is irrelevant to the resolution. 2. Pro's argument rests on the assumption that morality is definitive and existed prior to humanity. Morality was most likely devised by humans as a concept of philosophical ethics to ensure the maintenance of social order in civilization. Pro has not demonstrated that morality is definitive and subject to a higher power. 3. Pro asserts that moral obligation cannot originate in human minds without illustrating any proof or explanation of the same." Who taught you right from wrong, no one has ever just understood morality without any guidance or influence from other people? Why is it not logical that a perfect God introduced the idea of morality to humanity? Arguments "No God is likely to be true via. Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is a priori most likely. [16] In further explanation, if x need not exist [i.e. all events attributed to x are explained by another verifiable source], there are other explanations for x, and x is unverifiable, then x most likely does not exist." 1.Occams Razor is tautological and vague (so perhaps question begging in one sense). It still requires a definition of what is sufficient to justify not narrowing. Vagueness means that ego, agenda, lack of knowledge and misapplication can all interfere with its optimum functioning. 2.As its often applied--the values of simplicity and pragmatism don't always achieve truth. They may provide a truth--but an impartial truth and not necessarily the best or most comprehensive truth. (ie its only part of the puzzle). 3.Occams Razor is seems to erode, hide, or obscure systems theory and complexity. It undermines multi-dimensional answers if its abused. Some problems simply aren't simple.