The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1H

I admit the possibility that communication gap, and the consequent loss of 1 round, may have been in part due to my sloppy writing skills. I thank my opponent for his effort. This time he has raised at least one objection which is directly related to my arguments (Difference between nature and God). This indicates that he has understood my chain of reasoning. But I wonder. He says: "... My opponent's arguments are nothing more than just pushing the problem back further. He simply moves the focus from a scientific one to a philosophical one..." My arguments have nothing to do with science. It can be classified under logic or philosophy. The only reason I am discussing science is a particular objection that uses a scientific phenomenon. Of course, I am not afraid of discussing science. I had tried to give you a hint that you might want to object to the use of the term 'exist'. I have tried to not to define it by making it a part of my starting assumption. If you do not want to use it, I am definitely not going to highlight the weak points of my logic. Let us have a look at objections one by one. Argument 1: If nothing exists - then nothing exists Before answer the objections, I would like to ask him. Does he really disagree with this statement. If nothing exists - can something exist? Nothing means nothing. No space, time, strings, quarks or 129 other 'frameworks', which are yet to be discovered. Coming back to the science, my opponent should make up his mind. Was there no space and no time before big bang (as required by relativity) or did space and time exist all the time with all the uncertainties (as needed by quantum mechanics and his particle production experiment)? Science has not yet answered it. We are hoping that a yet to be born, but already named, 'Theory of Everything' will provide some clue. The Con has conveniently muddled up the two. My opponent said: "What reason does he have to believe that something came before the Big Bang? If we are to believe the the Big Bang is an expansion of spacetime, then time was part of the Big Bang. Therefore, one could argue that NOTHING was before the Big Bang since it wouldn't make logical sense." It does not make logical sense because BEFORE is not defined when applied to big bang. This does not negate my argument in any way. "It would be akin to saying that something is north of the North Pole." A perfect example of how I might 'push back' an argument. There is nothing north of North Pole if you stick to the surface of earth. If you look at the globe and consider north as the direction from South Pole to North Pole - you get lots of thing north of North Pole. Just stare upwards from North Pole. The next objection: "If God is outside of spacetime, then how can he make decisions? How can he create things? If there isn't time, then events can't logically follow after another." Dubious logic. How can you control a computer while you are not a part of it? The events still logically follow each other as far as we are concerned. As an aside, God's omniscience also requires that he remain outside the space-time. However, I don't want to start a debate on omniscience in the penultimate round. The last objection of this section: "If God is acasual, why can't the universe be as well?" I refute it below (in argument 2 - where you have restated it). Argument 2: For anything to exist, there has to be a self-existing entity (God) - who can create things out of nothing The objection is: "As stated before, if God can be self-existing, why can't the universe?" Interestingly, you have supplied the answer in the same paragraph. "My opponent believes God has no creator, but there must be something about God that allows for this." Indeed yes. The self-existing entity has something very special. It defines existence. Without such an entity, nothing would exist. That is why we call him God. Argument 3: We are not God Mutually agreed. Argument #4: God is All Powerful My opponent is unable to understand: "1. When did we accept that God 'defines' everything's existence?..." In argument 2. This argument is dependent on the previous arguments. The next objection: "Even if we are to grant the idea that God created everything, does this make him omnipotent?" I am not talking about just creating things. I am talking about creating things where nothing existed. I do think that puts the creator in control of everything. I would definitely call that All-powerful. --- My opponent believes that my arguments are full of 'fuzzy philosophical terms' and 'bouts of jumps of logic' and 'jumps of reason', which he is out to expose. In reality, he has presented only one worthwhile objection that has been refuted. I am sure he can do better.