God Exists

I'll accept the definition of God as: an omniscient, omnipotent, all-good being with the largest compossible amount of great-making properties. "This attacks at premise two of my argument (The universe began to exist). In my OP, I gave several arguments for the beginning of the universe, which my opponent seems to have neglected. Though my opponent did respond (Inadequately, as we shall see) to my thermodynamics arguments, he completely ignored my argument from contemporary big bang cosmology. As such, premise two (The universe began to exist) still stands." I thought about this some more, and came up with a new conclusion. If you define the universe as the expansion after the Big Bang, then yes, the universe did begin to exist. But the matter and energy before the Big Bang occurred have always existed because of the Law of Conservation. "While it may be physically impossible for matter to be created or destroyed, there is no problem in affirming that God created matter out of nothing. God is not bound by physical and contingent laws, he is free to supersede them at his will. It is true that according to the first law of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed. But this is a scientific law that God is not subject to." First you state that 'it is impossible for something to arise out of nothing,' but now you claim 'God created matter out of nothing.' Then you try to defend your failed and contradictory Cosmological Argument by assuming 'God is not bound by physical and contingent laws.' This is based off of nothing, since there is no evidence of God, nor of anything not subject to physical laws. Your argument is based entirely off of assumption and blind faith, opposed to scientific evidence. "If, however, he wishes to posit a multiverse theory or something akin to that, then he shoulders the burden of proof for demonstrating the existence of multiverses." Ok: http://www.dailygalaxy.com... "It follows analytically from the very concept of God that he does not need a cause. For remember that the definition of God that I gave in the beginning is "a being who possesses the greatest possible array of compossible great making properties." Since God is the greatest possible being, it follows that there is nothing that is greater than him (For THAT would be God). This entails that since that there is nothing greater than him, there exists no being that can cause him to exist. Hence, the very concept of God precludes his being caused." Again, my opponent is blindly assuming that God exists, didn't begin to exist, and is not bound by physical laws. He then tries to back this up with more empty assumptions such as: 'This entails that since that there is nothing greater than him, there exists no being that can cause him to exist.' These are useless contentions if you have nothing to back them up. "nowhere did I claim that God has existed for an infinite period of time. I believe instead that God is omnitemporal (Timeless sans creation, but temporal with creation)" So now you're claiming that things can exist out of time. Again, statements like these are useless to your argument when they have absolutely nothing to support them. Since you asked for arguments against God, I'll present them. It is impossible for a God to be omniscient, because it is impossible to know everything that will happen in the future. For instance, if I'm at a stop sign, I can choose to turn right or left. This decision then affects where I drive, and can even affect my entire day or even life. I could choose to turn left, then get into an accident and have permanent injuries for the rest of my life. It is impossible for a God to know this. It is also impossible for a God to be all-good and all-ruling, because evil would not exist if he was all-good and had the power to stop evil. Now I will turn it over to my opponent.