Resolved: God Exists.

Ah, the dreaded third round. I'll now attempt to dispute everything you've brought up from your second and third round arguments. But before I do that, I'd like everyone (including you, Lannan) to keep in mind that not having a definitive answer to a question does not mean we can just assert that God made it or caused it to happen.So let's get to it!Ontological ArgumentThat's a great idea and all, and I can see the type of logic to support it, however that is not evidence or proof of a maximally great being's existence. Right off the bat, you assert that "it is possible that a maximally great being exists," yet you fail to realize that a possibility doesn't mean certainty. If everything you're saying was in fact true, we would have in fact discovered this maximally great being, considering it is maximally great. However we have not, and what you currently have is a theory. "It is possible" does not mean "it is absolute."I understand to 100% completely disprove the existence of God, I would basically need to show evidence of myself being in every possible place in space and time at once. However, you are asserting that something exists, and I am disagreeing. Your lack of evidence supporting the existence of God is in a sense my evidence to disprove the existence of God. I can easily make up anything (The Flying Spaghetti Monster, for example) and say "because you can't disprove it, it exists." However that isn't how our society and laws of logic and reality work.I say there is no possible way God can exist in any given circumstance, considering a maximally great being is impossible to exist, as if it does exist, we would have come in contact with it, as it is maximally great. The Ontological argument is somewhat hard to argue against, because there's no evidence to support your theory to begin with, so I can't argue against your evidence, and all I can really do is use your lack of evidence to support the non-existence of a maximally great being. You saying "it's possible" does not actually make it absolute. Plus, that's a lot of "ifs" before your assertions. Not only is it not possible, but even if it were possible wouldn't make it an absolute.Kalam Cosmological Argument1. Correct2. Possibly correct*3. Possibly correct*There's a very good chance that the Universe is infinite, ie. it always existed [1]. This does not completely rule out the Big Bang Theory, but what it does do is provide a reasonable explanation backing up the idea that the Universe has always existed. So if there's even a possibility (supported with some evidence) that the Universe has always existed, this means God did not create it, as matter can not be created nor destroyed. However, according to Stephen Hawkins' 'no boundary proposal', "As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field, to create matter" [2]. So, "nothing" doesn't exist. In it's place, before the Big Bang (if the Big Bang is what caused the universe to form), was pure energy, which was transformed into matter. Scientists are also in the process of being able to turn pure light into matter [3]. So we're one step away from being able to prove that something can come from what you consider "nothing."So let's see, 1. The Universe may or may not have began to exist, and could very well be infinite.2. If the Universe did have a beginning, it can be explained by turning energy into matter, something not needing God's intervention.3. The Universe (if it had a beginning) has a cause, which can be explained by quantum fluctuations, which I explained in my previous round, and once again, not needing God to intervene.You not having a definitive answer does not mean it was God.Thomistic TASomething serving a purpose does not lead to God. Humans have goals. Random events happening are not happening to achieve their goals. Stars exploding, planets forming, and life starting is not based around a goal, it's just a random event. A house being built is a lot different than a solar system or even universe being formed. A person consciously building a house in order to sustain life by providing it with shelter is not the same as a random fluctuation in space, causing a cosmic explosion to create matter and all that. Because humans, with a conscious, can see how our planets orbit our sun, does not mean the solar systems were designed by a conscious being, or formed in order to achieve a set goal.All teleology does not need to be grounded to a single being. Random events happen, some are detrimental, and some are beneficial. Cherry picking the beneficial ones to support the theory of God does not support anything.Big BangI can see what you're trying to say, but unfortunately it doesn't really flow that well. God creating "the heavens and the Earth" has little to nothing to do with space and our solar system and the rest of the universe. That saying implies there was a beginning - a question lots of philosophers had, and that provided a temporary "answer." It also showed what created everything, another question many philosophers had, so there's another question "answered." And finally, it answered the question of "what is beyond the Earth," by saying the Heavens. So The first line in the Bible answers three questions that ancient philosophers had, something very important to society, as we, as the human race, are always looking for answers. At the time, it's what was needed, but over the thousands of years, we've disproved (to an extent) that God created everything, and that beyond our Earth is just Heaven - which is why so many people used to think they saw "fallen angels," as what we now know to be "space" was thought to be "Heaven." So "The Heavens and the Earth" can nowadays be interpreted to mean the universe, but at the time, that's not what it meant.6. Correct.7. As I stated earlier, the Universe could be infinite.8. Possibly infinite.9. No, as I stated by my quantum fluctuations. God is not the only thing that could have caused the universe to come into existence, if the universe did have a beginning.10. No.This is an interesting statement, however it doesn't necessarily get us anywhere. Time is relative to the "beginning" of the universe, but more importantly the rate at which we are "moving forward." Time is not controlled by anything, and it can be argued that time is simply a unit of measurement for events happening throughout the Universe. One hour from now, I won't have any time to submit my argument. It's the rate at which things continue to happen, and we've measured it in seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, and so on are simply human measurements of and representations of a period of things happening.This does not prove God. This means we don't have a 100% understanding on what "created" time, but I'd say it's safe to assume nothing created it, and it's simply the rate at which things in general move forward and change naturally.ConclusionYour ontological argument is basically saying "if God exists as a maximally great being, he exists for sure," does not prove anything other than you have a theory. The Kalam argument doesn't hold much merit, as it's been hypothesized that there is at least one way the Universe could have come into existence without the help of God - through quantum fluctuations. The Thomistic argument cherry picks the beneficial random events from history and asserts that it was God's plan - once again nothing more than a theory. A lack of understanding the rate of time is not evidence of God. Thanks![1] http://www.google.ca...[2] http://www.hawking.org.uk...[3] http://www3.imperial.ac.uk...