God Does Exist

I'm sorry to hear that you were not able to cite my arguments, it makes it hard to read with those missing from your round BEFORE I BEGIN CONCLUSIONS, REMEMBER THAT PRO HAS NOT YET FULFILLED HIS BURDEN OF PROOF: He said if we do not know what caused the universe, then it has to be god. So according to him, rather than just saying we don't know, you should assume that this god did it. Blindly. Let us look at his arguments/rebuttals: When I said: "God is supposedly omnipotent, pure, and omniscient. 2. If god was pure, he would want to destroy all evil. 3. If god was omniscient, he could find evil. 4. If god was omnipotent, god could destroy all evil. 5. Evil exists 6. Therefor, god does not exist. For evil, we can substitute pain and suffering. " He responded: "Con is actually shooting himself in the foot here because he recognizes evil and good. On an atheist worldview there is no standard of good and evil. If Con assume there's such a thing as evil then he must assume there"s a such a thing as good. If he assumes there is a such a thing as good and evil there must be a moral law to differentiate between good and evil. If he assumes there is a moral law, then there must be a moral-law giver who gives us that moral law to know good and evil. But, that is who Con is trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there"s no moral law giver, there"s no moral law, and hence morality would be neutral like the animal kingdom, and what we call good and evil is just an illusion since there would be no such thing as good and evil. " Janet completely ignores the statement; "For evil, we can substitute pain and suffering" Pain and suffering does exist. Clearly. Evil is an opinion. I could say There does not need to be a moral law giver. Even if we said I believed in a moral law giver, he ignores the argument entirely and does not say why god does not destroy evil. I think abortion is evil. I think gay marriage is fine. Bob thinks abortion is fine. Bob thinks gay marriage is evil. So, as we can see, evil is an opinion. That is why I said we were going to define evil as pain and suffering. It would be to confusing just to say: "Evil" JanetSanders actually agrees with this definition: (In the message section) DudeStop: "What did you define "evil" as" JanetSanders733: Suffering and harm, morally corrupt" My opponent agrees that pain and suffering is a fair term for evil. My argument still stands high; We do not need a law giver, and Janet avoided the argument entirely. In fact, I could have even said that the definitions contradicts each other. I don't have to believe in good and evil. I could just say that if good and evil exists, and god wants to /can destroy that evil, then that contradicts with itself. Make sense? Then we see pro make things up, and yet again ignore arguments: "Con assumes that I believe in Intelligent Design. Also Con argued that I am arguing for the God of the Bible. This is a bare- assertion fallacy that Con made against me. 1) I am not arguing which God exists. That is a different topic for debate. I am simply arguing that there must be a God who exists necessarily in order for our Universe to exist. 2) Nowhere did I ever mention that I believed in Intelligent Design at all in this debate. Con just assumes that evolution disproves the existence of God without giving any justification whatsoever. And, he also assumes that I believe in ID" 1. He states that I think he believes in intelligent design at the beginning, and the end of his argument. Point to a time where I said you believed in intelligent design? (ID)? I never said that. My argument was that intelligent design was faulty. .. (Which he ignored so I'll count that as a concession) I have an argument designed to say we have no need for a god. I predicted that someone would say that we need god for because their is no way the earth, humans, and the universe could come out of nothing, and that it was so precisely designed that it requires a creator. My argument basically refutes those points, meaning their is no need or requirement for a god. There is also no reason to accept god. .. 2. It is logical to say you wanted the god from the bible. In the forums, you asked me if I wanted to have a debate about god. Also in the forums, you were arguing for the Christian God. Why wouldn't I assume this? It's not a bare assertion. I guess you could say I made an inference, but to ask me to debate you then change your stance is cold. .. I also never said evolution disproves god. I was trying to disprove intelligent design. .. I don't think I ever touched evolution, except for asking why we were created with useless body parts, which yet again, you didn't answer. You only said: "How do you know these don't have any use? " Please point to a use the third eyelid has? I mean it does nothing. We also have body parts that make it harder for us to live. Let's look at some more arguments. "B) Con then asks why the cause can"t be an "immaterial, causeless, eternal, powerful, spaceless, timeless, uncaused, non-sentient force that randomly creates things"? Well it sounds to me like Con is describing God. God is the immaterial, causeless, eternal, powerful, space-less, timeless, and uncaused non-sentient force" Pro has refuted his own argument. He actually says later that god is: "loving, just, compassionate, kind, forgiving" And what does sentient mean: "able to perceive or feel things" God has felt love. Perceive definition: "To understand" God understands the earth and it's laws. Therefor, according to pro, god is sentient. Conclusion for this one argument: Pro has been confused. "Con raises the issues of why the Universe could not have been caused at the same time of its effect. My question for Con is: Why can't the cause and effect exist at the same time in an asymmetric dependency relation? For example, a heavy chandelier hanging on a chain from the ceiling. The ceiling and chain hold up the chandelier; the chandelier and chain don't support the ceiling! Because the ceiling pre-existed before the chandelier and chain. So Con"s argument is faulty at best, because there must be something that is pre-existent to the Universe, that is uncaused(God" Here, Janet sander's ignores yet ANOTHER argument. In this argument I asked him to: 1. "Why accept god over simultaneous causation? How he responded: With a question that had nothing to do with it. What he did wrong: A chandelier hanging from a ceiling does not equal simultaneous causation. Simultaneous causation is when the cause and effect are simultaneous, and all of the states (ABC) are caused at the same time. He basically got causation mixed up with simultaneous causation. If something was holding up the ceiling, it WOULD be simultaneous causation. But he forgot that something had to cause the ceiling, otherwise that would not equal simultaneous causation. Pro obviously doesn't understand the argument I have made. "C) Con mentioned some model called the Ekpytrotic Universe. However, I quoted Alexander Vilenkin, a well-known Russian Physicsist who said that any Universe that has been expanding can"t have a past-eternal beginning. It must have had a beginning. This would even include the multiverse if one even exists" In this argument I asked pro to: 1. Why should we accept god over Ekpytrotic universe? His answer: "I quoted Alexander Vilenkin" A quick response: Okay? So why should I accept what this person says? Where's this quote? How does he know this? Where's your proof that this is true? Pro's argument is full of holes. I'm gonna quote Hitchens now: "god Is not real" Therefor, because I quoted somebody, I am able to assert anything. (According to pro's logic) What he did wrong: He tried to assert things without proving them. There is no reason to accept this is true. "That which can be proven without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence as well" He did this twice actually. We see him saying that according to "my logic" Gravity cannot be proven. Really? Do we have no evidence for gravity whatsoever? We of course know that gravity exists. Why? Because we have done tests explaining the effects of gravity. Same with the others. If someone just said: "Hey, what if we had a force pulling us Down? " Without actually giving any evidence, then he cannot assert gravity is real. But we know it is, because it has been proven. "This is such an old philosophical argument that has been refuted. Con asks the old school-boy question "Who created the Creator? " If God is created then he"s not God he would be a creation. God by definition is the greatest conceivable being possible. That means he must be uncaused, eternal, timeless, immaterial, space-less, all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent, loving, just, compassionate, kind, forgiving, etc"" Okay thank you. That actually just proved my argument. If an intelligent mind can exist without a creator, then there is no need for a god. CONCLUSION: Pro accused me of many fallacies. Pro dodged arguments. Pro conceded to one of my points. Pro never cited any arguments. Pro switched his case. Pro's argument was refuted. Pro has no case. Thank You! I'll be willing to debate anyone else on this subject if they ever challenge me. .. . Make good choices my friends,