General Theism Contains a True Proposition for God's Existence

(1) As our definition of theism has been established, we will no longer address this issue for the remainder of the debate. (2) Atheism of the negativeThe negative asserts that "whether we disagree on terminology here is irrelevant. " However, this is not the case by any means, since the imperative matter of exposing the negative's obligation to a BoP is required for the resolution before us. As such, he states that I am correct in stipulating that merely rebutting my arguments is not sufficient. He writes, "He is correct, to a certain extent, that simply demolishing his arguments does not, necessarily, prove that there is no god, or that "god exists" is a false claim. However, if he cannot prove his claim is true, the "default" position is that it is unsupported, and fails. "My opponent seems to be suggesting rules that I am unaware of. Etiquette of debate seems to be that one side [affirmative] offers his case in a first affirmative (as I have done) and is met with a follow up case; the first negative who establishes his own arguments and offers a rebuttal to the first affirmative's case. However, my opponent has only done the latter, and not the former, and therefore we have no reason (on a negative perspective) to believe that the given resolution is false. If he is in fact an atheist (and such seems to be the case), then he would take the proposition "God does exist" to be a false proposition. According to the Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology (The Origins of American English Words) on the origins of the word 'atheism', it writes: "(n. ) 1587, borrowed from Middle French atheisme, from Greek atheos denying the gods (a- without + theos a god + Middle French -isme -ism) - atheist n. 1571, borrowed from Middle French atheiste, from Greek atheos + Middle French -iste -ist. (cp. 1995, p. 44)I think it is safe to say from the atheistic position that an atheist asserts (just like Eric Maisel did in his book, "The Atheists Way"): "There are no gods (including God). " (cp. 2009, p. 1) My opponent falsely assumes that he has no burden of proof on his position and as such I consider him confused on the issue of the proper definition of atheism; more over that he has not substantiated his own position against the resolution but only [wrongly] attacked my case. Therefore, there exists no case against the resolution before us. (*) My opponent had posted a quick excerpt from Bertrand Russell regarding his famous "Celestial Teapot" analogy. To make a passing comment, this "celestial teapot" analogy is a false analogy. In other words, it does not do justice to my position of theism by representing it. The supposed inability to disprove the gods of Olympus accusation in comparison to the inability to disprove the Christian god I take to be a rather idiotic accusation, because this suggests that the proposition regarding God's existence is not falsifiable, and clearly this is false (see my 1st rebuttal). The God I am advocating by definition is an immaterial, omnipotent, and eternal being, which is not found within the natural faculties of the universe (indeed, we are not suggesting that God is some kind of natural phenomena). If there were a teapot flying in an elliptical orbit around the the pull between Earth and Mars, we most assuredly would have noticed. Therefore, my opponents analogy is false and irrelevant. (3) The Cosmological Argument (Regarding Agency) - I had stated the issue in my argument which establishes God as eternal (since, the universe being finite, requires an uncaused cause outside the faculties of space-time to bring these entities into being), all powerful (this cause through his power brought the universe into being out of nothing by the faculties of his own power and will), and immaterial (he created space, he therefore cannot be contained by space). If this Cause is a First Cause, and brought the universe into being a finite time ago, then it follows that this Cause has personal agency to his willing of the universe to come into being. Timothy McDermot writes, "The existence of the cause expresses itself in activity, but that activity is the coming to existence of the effect. Causality, then, should not be given its modern reading as involving a sequence of two changes: it is one change in the effect as seen from the cause. " (quoted from Winfried Corduan, "The Cosmological Argument"; cp. 2007, p. 212). Material or Impersonal causes do not will things into existence. (3.2) Something Cannot Come From Nothing My opponent again here does not understand my position let alone what he is arguing. Quantum Fluctuations are not objects that come into being out of nothing, the discussion originally brought up was virtual particles through a subatomic vacuum. As such, this does not demonstrate "out of nothing". If it is out of nothing, then I would like to see what my opponent means by "nothing" - which as such, I take to mean the containment of negative attributes (e. g. void of space, matter, energy, etc. ). Indeterminism does not mean "lack of cause", but rather expresses a matter of uncertainty, or even freedom from the bondage of certainty, to make a point. The Con misunderstands "something cannot come from nothing"; even in the Quantum Physics instance. (3.3) "Before" TimeI am suggesting that the universe can be seen as a sequential matter of cause and event (hierarchal in the Thomistic sense) - for example, E1 + E2 + E3 + E4 . .. and ad infinitum. I am suggesting that the universe is not a brute fact that contains the explanation of its existence within itself. That would constitute the universe to be a logically necessary being (indeed it is not, the universe is only contingently so). As such, the universe requires an explanation of its exstence outside of itself. I had argued for this in my first and second affrimative. I lay the burden on my opponent to show how this is not so. (3.4) The Matter of Infinite RegressI had never suggested in my initial argument that (1) there are two opitions: (2) finite beginning or infinite regress; (3) therefore, finite beginning. I had offered reasons as to why an infinite regress is logically impossible. However, my opponent suggests that "it's no more illogical than something having agency yet being 'outside time', or even something 'outside the universe'". I had established this case in my (3.1), my opponent confuses the proper definition of causality. (4) Concluding Thoughts My opponent has not only not given us reasons as to why the resolution is false, but also has confused the position of his opponent. The matters supposedly "rebutted" by my opponent do not constitute an adequate case against the existence of God, let alone the arguments I have offered. I urge my opponent to offer some arguments on behalf of the resolution, or as such we leave the only arguments to choose from from my case - which I find have been susbtantially logically and deductively so. With that said, I now turn the rebuttal over to my opponent.