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

I am afraid that my opponent has failed to understand my arguments completely. This is surprising considering the systematic approach, which he followed in the first round. It is possible the flaw was there in my ability to explain. I want to defend a Metaphysical concept of God. I have explained three characteristics of God which follow from my logic, and which I am prepared to debate. As an aside, I pointed out that these three concepts are present in most religions. I proved it in case of Islam, by providing the reference at end of my post. My opponent is free to use the term Allah. That does not mean I will defend all the names of God in this limited debate. The only intention I had in posting the link was to establish that the concepts I am defending are not something that I just made up. My definition of `existence' was accepted as just a `syntax' issue. In reality - it was extremely important for my chain of logic. It will become more obvious below. I expect at least a part of the debate to centre on the definition. Argument 1: If nothing exists - then nothing exists The objection to this centers around a scientific phenomenon. I had tried to anticipate this objection - but it was conveniently ignored. I am forced to go into little detail. Spontaneous pair production, which makes perfect vacuum impossible, is an implication of uncertainty principle. Around Plank's scale (10^-34), there is always some uncertainty in measurement. It is not possible to say that a region is having 0 particles with 100% certainty. This means there is some probability that particles will be created spontaneously - rendering perfect vacuum impossible. The particles in this case are coming into existence because of space and time, which are full of these uncertainties. Had there been no space and time, governed by the uncertainty principle, there would have been no particle production. Please note how I have pushed the argument one-step deeper into science. Next time when I do it - it might not be that easy to follow. There is currently a speculation (speculation, not established fact) that big bang was some kind of major form of particle production. The problem this might present is - before big bang, there was neither time nor space. So was it a creation out of nothing? I am sure some kind of framework (unscientific term) has to exist (independent of space and time) to allow this kind of phenomenon. Again note how I am trying to push the argument deeper into science - even though we don't yet understand the argument itself! My assertion is - we can always do that. Why? If we fail to do that - our original statement will become false. The statement is self proving, i.e. If nothing exists - then nothing exists. What is this 'exist' we are talking about. It follows from our assumption - 'We exist'. Argument 2: For anything to exist, there has to be a self-existing entity (God) - who can create things out of nothing My opponent objected: "Wait, my opponent contradicts himself. In his previous argument, he stated that something can't come out of nothing. But now he said that some mysterious entity called God can?" No. God has to exist by himself. God has to be self-existing. "I ask of him, and the burden is his: how exactly is an entity "self-existing"? Exactly what is this mysteriously vague philosophical, if you can call it that, term?" This 'mysteriously vague philosophial' follows from our assumption, 'we exist'. There has to be a self-existing entity, existing in the same sense that we exist. Argument 3: We are not God Both of us have accepted this point. This point is self-evident. Yet it is important in my chain of reasoning. Argument 4: God is All Powerful My opponent objected: "This is an a mere assertion on my opponent's part. WHY must God be all-powerful? If we accept that God is the entity which defines everything's existence, God is going to have full control over everything. He has to be All Powerful. Counterargument 1 - None-unique proof: This logic is based on wrong assumption that I am defending just the Islamic concept of God. While I believe, I can modify my arguments to prove existence of one God - I see no reason to do the hard work in middle of a debate. Maybe some other time. --- I admit there is a possibility that my rival was unable to understand my logic due to flaw in my communication skills. This is for the voters to decide. The more likely explanation is that he thought that my logic is identical to first cause argument. He just proceeded to post the boilerplate arguments used by atheist against the first cause logic. I am waiting for REAL rebuttals.