God does not exist.

I will now refute his points once again. P1: An omnipotent God who created the first state of time cannot exist. My opponent contests my definition of "omnipotent" here. However, he fails to provide a counter-definition. Omnipotence was used as a defining term for God, was it not? Omnipotence was defined as shown in R2 - C1. My opponent's response to this definition's credibility can't simply be that it's a "layman's" definition. My opponent's issues with my arguments, as will be shown to be the case later, seem to be based off a narrow perspective on an omnipotent God. That's understandable. Omnipotence can be a very difficult idea to capture. However, a God who can do anything, can also existence outside of anything. God can exist outside of logic. After all, as was also in my opponent's definition of God in R1 as the cause of everything that exists. This includes logic. Logic doesn't contain a God that created it. But rather, God can exist outside of logic, time, etc. My argument is inside logic. My "God" that I'm defending is not. However, despite the point already being once again in my favor, as I believe it is, I will also raise two other contentions with my opponent's flawed view of this argument.1. A first state of time must have existed. Time exists within the realm of logic, correct? Everything logical must have a cause. Therefore, time must have had a cause. If time had a cause, then it is not infinite. If time is not infinite, a first state of time existed.2. I'd also like to point out that time can not be proven to be infinite. The A theory of time is great and all. However, there is no way to scientifically observe, test, and conclude how time works. The fact that there is an A theory of time that is quite popular does not make it hard fact. In fact, it's anything but. Remember, despite these two seperate arguments, the fact that God is omnipotent, created logic, and is therefore exempt from it, is enough to prove my point. My opponent may try and state that God is not logical, because he can't exist in logic. This is nto true at all. Not only have I shown how he could've created time within logic, but he also could've created time outside of logic, due to his omnipotence. Either way, his existence is possible. P2: An omnipotent creator is improbable. I'm sorry, I must've misunderstood this argument. I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent my opponent and didn't mean to fluster him. I'm sorry. If I understand correctly this time, essentially, the only thing we have to draw away from this is that the universe supposedly has a 95% chance of coming into existence on its own. Since this is a high probability, and we can't prove God's existence, we should conclude that the universe created itself. I stated that I conceded this, so long as it was understood that this only proves that if the universe has a 95% chance of creating itself, then it is more probable to believe this theory than one involving a God. However, as I showed in my response to P3 (which I'll readdress) and in C3 in R2, this isn't true and holds no weight anyways. (Or at least, not enough)P3: Origin of matter can be explained through simultaneous causationIn logic, everything must have a cause. This is the foundation for why this argument falls. All of the "examples" that my opponent has presented do not prove his point at all. Simultaneous causation is when something is the cause of something, and the effect causes the causes, which causes the effect. .. etc. There is no record of any matter creating itself, and there never will be. My opponent has done a fantastic job of proving simultaneous causation's existence. However, it does not apply in the fashion that he is trying to force it to. In order for something to be possible, it must be shown to be possible. In order for something to be probable, it would have to be shown to be likely. Sadly, my opponent has done neither in attempting to explain the origin of matter without a God. Until my opponent can show either how simultaneous causation can cause matter, or another probable method for the cause of matter, we must assume that our omnipotent God must've done it. C1: The God we are debating is omnipotent, as defined by Pro. Not responded to directly. An attempt was made by Pro to refute it indirectly in his P1 - R3. However, I've shown that an omnipotent God would have to be able to live outside of logic. Regardless, this point isn't contested. (And it shouldn't be. It was more of a reminder to Pro anyways. )C2: The KCA proves need for God's existenceThis point has been refuted indirectly already. God can exist outside of time if he created it. Therefore, the divine creation of time was not simultaneous causation at all. Also, I would like to reiterate that (although it's a bit irrelevant) I'm not trying to disprove simultaneous causation. I merely showed how it can't explain the origin of matter. I hope that was straightforward enough not to be seen as snaky. It's the same line of reasoning I've been following all along. However, I'd be disappointed if Pro didn't try and discredit this point still, of course. C3: My opponent's arguments don't accoubnt for life/the complexity of lifeMy opponent tries to brand this argument as a logical fallacy. However, science doesn't assume that it'll eventually be able to account for things. Does the fact that we don't have another (non-divine) explanation for these things prove God's existence? No. But by Occham's razor (as touted by Pro), it would be much more simple and logical to assume that a creator was the cause for the universe, rather than stating that science will eventually find the answer. Occham's razor suggests that it is much more logical to take the single leap of faith that God is real (and everything in creation is the consequence) rather than having to take a million other non-divine answers on faith (which all would've had to coincide to form our universe) and to assume that anything still left unanswered would eventuall be answered by science. Therefore, by Occham's razor, science's lack of answers for such questions increases the probability of God to the point where His existence should be assumed. With that, I await my opponent's final arguments. I'm enjoying this debate. On a side note (with a bit of humor): I'm going to need something more than logic soon. Not for arguments, of course. ;)But for sources! (Does the dictionary link count? ) XD