Handicap Debate - God Exists

Contention 1: Ontological ArgumentMy opponent brings up God having to be metaphysically impossible, but when we look to premise 1 we see that my opponent must prove that God is 100% impossible, however, when we observe the rest of my argument for my last round we can see that if we apply my S5 argument, which was dropped, we can see that the Premise is actually true. Here's the S5 argument again. S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [1]This is important as when it's applied to the chain of events we can see that the probability is indeed a fact due to it's necessarilally. Remind you that this was a dropped argument on this as it help aids Premise 1 where my opponenet did most of his attacks on. This is huge, because we can see that the fact is that it changes from God probably existing to God exists necessarially. Necessary is defined as happening or existing by necessity, being essential, indispensable, or requisite [2]. Here we can see that God is happening and existing by definition and since this was dropped this helps highlight the point made here in premises 1. On the matter of proving God by doing mathematics we can see that this is indeed possible as Scientist Godel has actually given the following proofs for God and they just so happen to fall under this contention.Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positiveDefinition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails BDefinition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplifiedAxiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positiveAxiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positiveAxiom 3: The property of being God-like is positiveAxiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positiveAxiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property [3]Axiom 4 has been stated that it must be necessary and is possible to point out the good in all things. Godel himself had stated that, "Postitive means that in a positive moral aestetics sense. It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation." [4] The other Axioms can be summed up to be an ultrafilter which I'll get into a little later on. The Axioms can be translated into the following theorums and math equation. Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. [4]Now we can see that this mathematical equation was actually done and proven. With it being solved we can see that it brings up great and highly valid evidence that God exists. People used the above theorums and axioms through the use of LEO-II and Statallax. [6] Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological ArgumentMy opponent goes on to argue here agains the law of conservation of mass due to the Zero Energy Genesis theory, however, it can be observed that the though the mass is net zero we can still have yet to see mass created or destroyed in the universe to this day. With that being said this actually ties in with part of the second half of my third contention in which I showed that these Quantum Flucatations did exist, BUT it proved the existance of God in itself! This is due to the gravitational strips that formed in the universe just moments after the Big Bang and this is found to have imperical implications for this religious debate concidering that once we show that God can exist. This is key to this debate as though the argument is predominately in my 3rd contention we can see that the fact stands and that it was DROPPED which is highly important as it help reveals that God created the universe and this is something that my opponent ignored. I extend these arguments across the board.He attempts to refute the BGV theorem, but goes about it the wrong way. It still stands that this theory can exists as once again we can simply apply the S5 argument that my opponent has dropped and we can find that this theory is indeed true. We can also see that it is true that if a being did create the universe then he would have to be some supreme being and that would most likely be that of God. I further extend my arguments here seeing that they weren't truely refuted by my oppoenent. We can also see from the bellow graph that once again looking at space time we are indeed exspanding and by using this model the universe does indeed have a beginning and hence a Creation. It's highly common knowledge that the universe is exspanding and we can see by using the Borde Guth Vilekien Model of comparing Blue and Red shifts we can see that through high accuracy that the universe is exspanding and hence revealing that the universe had to have orinated and have had a finate beginning at some point of time. Contention 3: Thomistic TAMy opponent states that this argument is irrelivant, but that is highly incorrect as it does indeed apply to God and hence is topical under this resolution. If we view the premise again.1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.2. Teleology exists.3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists.We can see here that point three reveals that we need to have an intelligent being in the universe that all things are based to via teleology and we can see that this ordering intellect is God. In which I showed in a previous round that teleology shows that all things morally permissable and all ethics are grounded and based to one object speficically. I have proved both so my opponent's point here is null and void. We can continually see that Teleology doesn't just apply to things in persoinality with humans alone, but we can see that this actually occurs in nature too! He also drops my Biblical creation evidence that I have provided and the explications that came with it. We can see that even though it was something simple like God created the heavens and the Earth we can see that the knowledge back then was highly limitted and in no way did people know much about the universe back then. Even the mind of Plato did not truely know nor comprehend the creation of the universe nor the complexities of the universe itself.We can also see that my opponent has dropped the second half of the argument here in that of the premise of Ross. Though these arguments are in the same contention by no means are they connected in the sense that the first half relies on the second half so you cannot just try to disprove the first half and disreguard the second half of the set. This is another important thing for this debate as we show that the universe exists and in the end God has to also exist and this is due to God being present and having to had been able to create the univserse and this was needed as there was nothing in the beginning. We can see that it was not until the universe began that time began, so we can see that God can exist in that manner. Once again this can be shown by God being able to exist in some alternative timeless dimension. For this second string Ross sites the Bible to further his beliefs in God behind the Big Bang further explaining how the universe was created and that God is in another dimension."Again, by definition, time is that realm or dimension in which cause-and effect phenomena take place. According to the space-time theorem of general relativity, such effects as matter, energy, length, width, height, and time were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. According to the New Testament (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2), such effects as grace and hope were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. So both the Bible and general relativity speak of at least one additional time dimension for god." [7]Sources1. (Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.)2. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)3. (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof) 4. (Kurt Gödel (1995). "Ontological Proof". Collected Works: Unpublished Essays & Lectures, Volume III. pp. 403–404. Oxford University Press.)5. (http://www.spiegel.de...)6. (http://arxiv.org...)7. ( Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 80.)