Resolved: God Exists

The main point of this debate is to prove the existance of God, NOT to provide any reasonings in anyway shape or form. I do not have to provide a REASON why God is the source of all moral authoirty, and your fact of stating that 'a creative forces does not need to be the source of all moral authority: has NO relevance on the debate at hand. This debate is not going to work if you do not fulfil your end of the bargain, as it were. I put forward points and you either rebuttal them or agree with them, and vise versa. Just stating "YOU HAVE NO PROOF" or "YOU HAVE NO PROVIDED A REASON" is completely irrelevant to the debate, and just further confuses those who will vote on the debate. YOU must put forward a sound and precise argument against the point I put forward, a thing that you have failed to do. Furthermore, you state that "God has to involve himself / herself in the universe, by your definiton"; you defintion of a god is as follows: "A sentient, intelligent being that acts as the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority; the supreme being; the properties of GOD in this debate are: OMNISCIENCE and OMNIPOTENCE." In this definition it does not state that God has to play an active role in the universe, just be the 'ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority'. A ruler does not have to play an active role, in the sense that you are arguing, God's role in the unverse is one of an observatory stance. Meaning, he obseres the universe and enforces constraints upon us. I may be repeating myself, but these statements are to be considered by PROOF of God. To effectively rebuttal these statements or proofs you MUST be able to disprpve these constraints by offering a much more likely reason why these constraints are constant and unbreakable.On the subject of the Big Bang, you state that a benevolent God needen't have created the Big Band but a singularity could. What I am stating is that God created the singularity, which in-turn caused the Big Band. The duty of Proof does NOT lie with me explaining my God did such a thing, OR discussing the possibility between God having no part in the manner. Only the evidence for my statement, which is as follows. No where in the scientific world have we observed something with near to omnipotent power, the only thign we know of such power is a deity. So the only explanation we have of an omnipontent power, must be the one we accept until we come up with another explanation.1) Moral AuthorityAs I refer to before, discussing why or why not the moral of authority needs to have a source, we MUST argue that God is the source of this authority, which by the fact of the universe existing and the fact of our societies morals being based upon religious and cultural reasonings, cultural reasonings being influnced by religious ones, we can only assume that the source of m moral authoirty lies with religion, to which states that it lies with God. 2) AgnosticismThis point I brought up was only to narrow the debate and steer it away from arguments that have no real relevance (such as the accuracy of the Bible, etc). Furthermore, if one god exists, we have nbo way of knowing, or prooving, anyt of his reasonings, only his characteristics. This is my point of Agnosticism, to which I have accepted the definitions and defined characteris of this god stated by you; this vieew of agnosticism is a morphed one to suit this question, so your point is ireevelent. 3) Omnipotence ParadoxGod has the power to do anything, that is true. But anything is a broad subject,. You stated that God must be confined to logic, and that is the case in this arguement. His omnipotence is that he can do anything possible; making an impossible object is not possible, so in retrospect, your point is flawed; just another one of your confusions to further befuddle voters. 4) Omniscience ParadoxYou have misunderstood me, you are to concerned on the matter of God 'knowing' and in-turn we have no free will and that all actions are predetermined. This is not the case. God simply knows of all possibilities taken, to which are there innumerable and as of such we have free will. You entire point of an determinist view of the unvierse, with all this predetermined, is false. You are unable to successfully analysis my arguement in this point, except. you continue to bring your argument on one determined point that you are unwilling to change. As of such, with the omnipotence paradox, I have answered both with not only a reliable answer, but an realisitic one. Your final point is a tricky one, yes randomness and disorder exists; but is this really disorder. No, it is not. We are just unable to comphrend it, this disorder exists to keep the running, and as we know, God enforces STABILITY into the universe. Your arguement states that DISORDER creates STABILITY, in the sense of the runnings of the universe, unknowingly, you have just furthered my point and strenghened it. God enforces constraints and stability in the universe, and this disorder is in-fact stability.