God created everything

<"Oh father please help pastox for he is a lost soul. "> I'm beyond saving. .. haha. <"It could if other deities existed, but only the Catholic Christian God exists. "> Haha. .. well, usually, I'd ask for proof, evidence, or just some logic -- but considering this is the last post in the debate, such a thing would be useless. What I'd like to point out, though, is how that refutes. .. well, nothing I said. I said that premise *could* be used to support their existence -- *not* that they actually exist, so telling me that they don't exist seems futile for my opponent to do; it's a misrepresentation of my argument. And whether the satirical deities exist or not doesn't change that my opponent's rationale isn't valid due to it not following his conclusion, as I showed with the mock deities example. <"It is logically impossible for any other deity to exist because they aren't all loving and all holy like God. "> So, my opponent's argument is this: other deities don't share the same characteristics of god; therefore, other deities can't logically exist. This is another non-sequitur; just because other deities mightn't be as loving as the Christian god doesn't mean they can't exist; those traits and their existence aren't mutually exclusive. <"This isn't a game of pokemon: things don't evolve. I mean what, all of a sudden did a chimp get the experience and evolved into a human? You have got to be kidding me! "> Hahaha, greatness, man. I wish it was a game of Pokemon, especially since in my Silver version, all I'm missing is a Bulbasaur, and I have one in an egg. Too bad the game won't work, though. But yeah, seriously. .. evolution doesn't state that chimps evolved into humans, which means my opponent is setting up and attacking a false argument -- one which I never used. <"So the perfect universe and our existence only serves as proof of the Christian God and not the FSM. "> Haha, the supposedly "perfect" universe only works as proof of the Christian god because. .. god made man in his image? Another non-sequitur. There's no logical connection in my opponent's above argument. Not only that, but my opponent misrepresented my point, which, in a nutshell, is that the concept that the universe is perfect can't logically be used to prove that god exists, nor that god "created everything. " That line of reasoning is, like I said, a non-sequitur, which means it's fallacious, which means it's invalid. <"God created the logical and therefore exists above logic. "> If god is above logic, then he mustn't exist within the confines of reality; if he doesn't exist within reality, then he mustn't exist. My opponent's argument is self-refuting. In essence, if something can't exist within reality, then not only do we have no reason to believe it exists, but it *can't* exist. <"And yes, being all loving and all powerful does mean that god created everything because he loves us so much he uses his power to create us! "> Being all-powerful, in and of itself, is an inherently flawed property. But I digress. .. Well, that's essentially a rehashed version of this: <"And God did create everything because He is Holy and all loving and all powerful. He loves everything so much that he used His powers to create it! "> And yeah, it's still non-sequiturial. Just because god's supposedly loving and all-powerful doesn't necessarily mean that he created. To summarize, my opponent carried the burden to prove that god created everything -- but he has failed to do so. Heh, anyway, thanks to deity for this debate.