Does god exist

a.) Defending OntologicalAgain, I see myself saying the same things over and over again. The opposition seems to think that the negation of "God" simply means that "we do not believe in God". Belief in God, or the unbelief in God, is not the same logical proposition as saying the negation of God. Simple logical analysis could bring you to that conclusion: for example, the negation of God is represented by ~G, whilst the negation of "belief in God" is represented by x:~G. Hence clearly we can see that the opposition's arguments are pure ignoratio elenchi of the case presented. Let us then, from this, take an argument further up a step: for clearly, the opposition has either (a) chosen to not understand my case, or (b) chosen to misunderstand it for his own sake. GOD is infinite in essence. WE have essence. WE are finite, yet WE exist. If GOD does not exist (~G) then WE would be more infinite than GOD, which is via definition ABSURD. Henceforth, GOD has to exist. It is not more than that: if hundreds of people have disproved this proof of God, then the opposition has done a horrible job of presenting such arguments.Again, I consider this argument wholly supported, validated, and all refutations of it built upon this absurd misunderstanding of the concepts of God, existence, and infinitude, in which I have clearly articulated, hopefully.b.) Universal ArgumentAgain, we catch the opposition using his a priori methods to disprove a posteriori arguments. He says many people have presented proofs against this argument: however, he presents no adequate one, except for his ingenious ad hominems (your empirical arguments suck) and his false reasoning. So, if the universe is expanding, then, via the logic of the opponent, it has to expand into something: what is, henceforth, this something which the universe should expand into? Really, where is the proof that such things exist? The mysticist methods of the opposition go against any atheism which he oughts to defend. Perhaps I shall prove again that the universe is infinite: again, the meaning of a flat universe is that we occupy a point on xy axis upon this universe. It is quite easy from there to deduce, using the axioms of Euclid's geometry, that the universe is infinite. If the edge of the universe were line AB and line BC, along with line DE and line EF, hence flat universe would state that these lines are parallel to each other, henceforth, they will never ever ever ever meet, not bringing the universe in a collision with itself. The evidence for flat universes are many. I'm not trained in scientific literature, hence I shall present one from what I know about falsification and henceforth. The flat universe predicts that the universe will initially expand at a large rate (cosmic inflation), then shall be slowed down by the force of gravity, and shall hence speed up again. We know that this is true. Hence, space is "two-dimensional" in a sense that it is flat (space-time can be 4-dimensional, we're talking about space here). How does this make sense in the debate today? It is wholly easy. We know that the universe exist: we live in it. The Cosmos is all there ever be: there is nothing more than this cosmos, unless we take the mystical assumptions of the opposition. To negate is to negate materialism, which is not done so, henceforth the materialist assumption is taken: if the universe exists as infinite in essence, and this is what God was defined as, then the existence of the universe is the ultimate proof that God, as defined in the parameters of this debate, exists.INTERMISSION:c.) Fallacy Time!"In your next argument please stop bring up the definition of god because that's irrelevant unless you prove him which you haven't." The opposition is trying to move the goal-post here: the definition of the terms of this debate is accepted by both sides, and this is proven by the fact that the opposition has not tried, even once, to provide a new definition. The definition of a debate term is essentially one of the most important part of any debate. If it is accepted, then it is what it is: do not try to change it, do not try to remove it, do not try to ignore it."Plus your Empirical arguments suck and have been debunked hundreds of times before." AHA! Ad hominem, argumentum ad populum, can also be interpreted as argument from authority. My empirical arguments suck? *teenage girly voice* Aha, excuse me! If my empirical arguments suck, then they are all still empirically and deductively valid: in the parameters of this debate, they are indeed still empirically valid: I have seen no good refutation of it. The fact that it has been debunked a hundred times before makes no difference: present one-hundred debunks of my argumentations, then it will make a difference. No points were created, presented, or anything in this debate that reference 100 different refutations. And even if they have been, you seem to put a lot of faith (paradoxical for a fideistic atheist) in others. Do you conceive their argumentations? If not, then don't say since others did it a lot of times, they must be correct."We now know that this theory is indeed true, for the universe seems to be expanding faster than it was." -> "The universe is expanding faster than ever" Strawman. I say the universe was indeed expanding faster than it was, but not ever. IT WAS was an allusion to the slowing down effects of gravity. "I've explained 3 or 4 times now if we negated god's existence we wouldn't say we are greater then him, we don't believe in god." Ignoratio elenchi. Come on! I don't care if you believe in God or not: I only care about your reasons! Anything that cannot be proven can be dismissed without evidence. The law of Hitchens: you know that perfectly well.END OF INTERMISSIONd.) Argument from First CauseI do not see any valid objections raised to this: the opposition says "existence" comes before "definition". But what is a man? A rational animal, no? So if a man is a rational animal, then everyone on this website is a man: the argumentation here is given, and is proven. Definition of an existing thing comes before existence, for it would be categorized in something different: I do not need to prove synthetically that God exists in this argument, as it is analytical that God does from this first cause argument. Again, no good refutation: apart from this, I have proven that God is the universe, and the opposition says "why could the universe not be eternal if God is?" Is that not a mere validation of my case?Again, I leave here with my arguments fully supported.e.) Arguments from OmnipresenceIf unicorns were defined as something omnipresent, then please, they exist. It is analytical. Again, no good objection against this: it is still wholly supported. VOTING ISSUES:a.) The opposition decides to accept my debate definition, yet decides to then betray it and to stop referring to the definition. Good debaters know that definitions are the law of the debate: it is the constitution and the essence of the debate. b.) Fallacies are all-over the opposition's case. He has ignored my case, and has gone on rambling about his conclusions derived from a priori methods that he has previously dismissed, and claims that "hundreds of people" are behind him (who?). c.) Ad hominem. Due to time constraints, this is all I am able to do. VOTE PRO!kthnxbai