God Exists

B: The “Necessary Equine” and Friends Here Pro drops my argument that we have well established mechanisms arrived at through rigorous study that explain the current state of the Universe (Big Bang model) and all of life on earth (abiogenesis/evolution) making a creator completely unnecessary in spite of Pro’s adamant assertions that he is necessary. He appears to concede this point but has asserted that something extra and supernatural was needed to guide life and the universe relying on intuition to support his point. What is a non corporeal being and where are the peer reviewed research journals that have discovered non corporeal entities? We have no such evidence that such being are even possible. C: “Proving” Necessity and Possibility I’ll add that when someone imagines a supernatural state that cannot be studied it is only correct to admit that you know nothing about that imaginary being/state of supernatural existence. ‘Magic man done it’ adds nothing to explain the current state of the universe and life. All evidence to date does not support the idea that a god is necessary or possible (Pro concedes this later) but we don’t really know and neither does Pro as he has offered no evidence to support this. E: The Omnipotence Paradox Based on standard dictionary definitions of omnipotence god cannot possibly exist without violating basic, fundamental laws of logic and Pro has attempted to use a non standard definition of the word realizing the error. D: The Reverse Ontological Argument I’ll grant that a teapot orbiting Jupiter is not necessary but at least we can prove that this is possible. We have never observed a non contingent or non corporeal being so we have no idea if that is possible or not (Con concedes this later). Section Two Pro again drops my arguments that there are any number of Gods that could have created the universe that do not fit our definition. The only quality a god would need to create the universe is the ability to create universes and life. His only rebuttal was that the reader knows my statements to be false. Pro presented no evidence and uses a comparison of a table to explain why the universe need be created by something greater. The amount of power concentrated just before the big bang was equivalent and indeed it is a basic law of thermodynamics that matter is not created or destroyed but rather conserved. The current model of our universe has no net mass-energy or to state it another way if you combine all the matter/energy and antimatter, negative energy you would end up with nothing. The universe likely sums to zero but the initial opposite quantities would be the same as they are today. [6] This is only one explanation among many but scientists do not know for certain how the universe arrived at it’s current state but a 3 omni creator is certainly not necessary. Section Three 1. Even in Pro’s bizarrely simple example of a table you need not know anything about the atomic structure and properties of wood to create a table. You only need to know how to cut the wood into pieces and hammer them together which is fairly limited knowledge considering the near infinite knowledge of the location of every single atom in the table, for instance. 2. Equivalent power is necessary not all power is needed whatever that would even mean since we have observed nothing similar. You most certainly do not need a greater power since matter and energy are never destroyed but are conserved. This is the second law of thermodynamics. A pantheistic world view therefore certainly does not support our definition of god. How could a universe be all knowing and all powerful. A: Omnipotence Pro has simply asserted that a maximally great being would be self caused. He hasn’t demonstrated that a creator god exists or that it would need to be all powerful. B: Omniscience Even with a simple table you could say that all knowledge of any given table originates with whoever made the table but that does not mean the creator has even an inkling of the near multiple terabytes of information would could learn about the position, properties and energy states of each and every molecule and sub atomic particle in the table. C: Omnibenevolence “Remember, my opponent must show why God is not POSSIBLE, not merely unlikely or unsavoury. I have offered the mechanism by which this possibility is to be preserved.” You rarely see such an obvious shifting of the burden of proof. Pro made a positive claim that there is an Omnibenevolent god. I need only refute this claim to win the debate and this argument is a very simple knock out for a 3 omni god. Is it possible that there is a divine purpose every time a child is raped, a race is tortured and enslaved, corruption rules nations and the powerful use abuse and exploit others simply because they can? Yes, but it is certainly not likely. What we observe is that evil exists in abundance in the world and we can conclude that an all powerful god inflicted and intended evil to occur indicating an evil god. Proof One: 1. We observe triangles and create a definition to describe what we observe. The god Pro describes is not at all analogous to a god that Pro cannot help but imagine but has never observed. He defines god as something that must necessarily exist. I cannot think of a better example of defining something into existence. Remember those that actually study the universe, astrophysicists, have come to the consensus that a god is not necessary for its existence. 2. “A MGB may very well be impossible. There is no way to know this.” Pro concedes that it may very well be impossible for a god that fits our definition to exist. This is a concession of the entire debate. He had the responsibility to prove that a god exists but has admitted that he has no idea if it is even possible that a god does exist. 3. Pro is simply utilizing special pleading. I have demonstrated that it is not necessary for a maximally great being to exist. There is no better reason to state that a god is necessary than there is a unicorn. 4. Pro’s interpretation of the law of excluded middle is 100% erroneous and he has completely misrepresented the meaning of the law. “In logic, the law of excluded middle...states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true [7].” In context there are two propositions on the table. Is it necessary for a god to exist and is it not necessary that a god exist? These are two separate positive claims that each would need to be proven. Pro has failed to prove that God is necessary. The time to believe is after the evidence is available and not a second before. We would have to explain every single natural process in the universe to confirm that a the noncorporeal causation does not exist but we can say that all modern discoveries indicate natural and not supernatural causation. Pro has the burden of proof. All I have to do is demonstrate that there is not sufficient evidence to confirm that a god is necessary which I have done. 5. Again, the triangle is defined based on the observation of triangles and is not analogous to an imagined god that has not been observed and cannot be proven to be either necessary or even possible. Loose Ends: Pro has been unnecessarily insulting multiple times which speaks to conduct and has conceded that there is no way to know if god is possible conceding the debate BoP to prove that “God Exists.” Again, I do not intend to prove that God is impossible and it is virtually impossible to prove that invisible pink unicorns, fairies and evil vindictive universe creating gods do not exist. That asinine point has nothing to do with the debate. My responsibility is to show that Pro did not fulfill his burden of proof. I have no burden to prove the impossible, that God is impossible and this is yet another shifting of the BoP. [6] https://tinyurl.com... [7] https://tinyurl.com...