Does God Exist

In order to successfully argue the rest of the debate, I will have to address the omnipotent and omniscient arguments now. God is still omnipotent and omniscient. I'm sorry, but I must have missed the part of the def. that says omnipotent is "having the power to do all things that are intrinsically possible". Here's an actual def. "almighty or infinite in power, as God." Where do you read intrinsically possible? Your def. of god does not fit your new made up def. of omnipotent, it fits the original def. used by dictionary.com. I agree with you, the def. is utter nonsense as shown by the paradox of the stone, but that is why God is utter nonsense, his very existence is a contradiction. NOBODY can be omnipotent, but yet your bible says that God can. And whoa, whoa, whoa, I never said Omniscient is "having all knowledge and not having all knowledge." I only said Omniscient is having all knowledge. Your God by your def. is "infinitely knowledgeable." By substitution, your God is omniscient. Knowing what it is like to learn is objective. Each individual experimental truth you learn may be subjective, but actual experimental knowledge is objective. Every agent knows what it is like to learn. Therefore your God has experimental knowledge and knows what it is like to learn. He has gone from a state of not-knowing to knowing. Now lets take this and make a conclusion. God has not always been Omniscient. But yet you say he is eternal, invariant and universal. You say he has been always been omniscient. But this clearly wrong, God cannot be both omniscient and eternal. When pro argues in the next round, I urge him to use the def. of omnipotent and omniscient that his def. of God matches with. In conclusion, I have shown why God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient as he is described on both dictionary.com and pro’s def and yet be eternal. Pro says that I commit to the idea that the laws of logic are governed with convention. But everything accepted by men is governed by convention; to say otherwise is to say that absolute truth exists. For if absolute truth doesn't exist, then neither can laws. So why do I say absolute truth doesn't exist? Well here is where the new argument comes in. The infinite regression problem The infinite regress problem can be defined as “A causal relationship transmitted through an indefinite number of terms in a series, with no term that begins the causal chain.”(1) Name any known truth and label it (P1). But in order for (P1) to be valid, it has to be backed up by another known truth labeled (P3). (P3) must be backed up by (P4) and (P4) by (PN) where N stretches onto infinity. Basically, the number of questions why to support any truth never ends. And before my opponent says this is absurd, answer me how it is absurd and label your answer (P1). Now take (P1) and back it up by (P2) and so on and so on. So if no absolute truth exists, then everything we accept is governed by convention. The question then becomes, what do we base our laws of logic off of? What we base our laws of logic off of As pro argues, we must base our laws of logic of off something invariant and universal if we are to come to an objective truth, basically something eternal. There is only two things that fit this description (1)God and (2) the universe. But wait, God is not eternal, that would mean he is invariant and universal. But the omnipotent and omniscient arguments have both shown that God cannot be invariant and universal. So by process of elimination, we must base our laws of logic off of the universe as we have always done. Men did not base the laws of logic off of God, they based it by observing the environment around them, their universe. Pro says that universe does not exhibit the notions of the laws of logic. Please then make a cup a cup and at the same time not a cup. Please demonstrate how light goes 186K miles per hour and then not 186K miles per hour. Become a dog while you’re still human. Pro ask “Did we find the number 2 in a rock and then start employing it?" No, we found two rocks and then start employing the number 2. I never said that the actual universe has abstract notions, but that rather abstract notions depend on the universe. Abstract ideas by themselves do not exist, they are meaningless. That has to be able to transmogrify-or made real- into the sensory plane. If they are unable to, then they are invalid abstract notions. My conclusion is that the universe and the laws of logic work in tandem, with the latter working dependently on the first. This leads to why TANG is still valid. I have just shown why the laws of logic cannot exist independently. They must be dependent on something eternal if we are to come to an objective truth. And as shown by the mention the omnipotent and omniscient argument, God is not invariant and universal. As for why I still call the laws of logic “laws”, it is because it matches the def. of law. The def. of law is “a body of observations that at the time it is made, has no exceptions that have been found to be a law.”(4). The laws of logic does not contradict this def. and therefore I accept it as a law. Pro's evidence dismissed Of course I was going to dismiss pros evidence, if i didn't I would have no basis for my argument. But I didn't show how pro's evidence is wrong from a naturalistic viewpoint, but from a Christian’s viewpoint. Pro has four points that make up the def. of evidence. 1) Evidence comes in degrees of strength. Agreed. 2) Evidence comes in different kinds. Agreed. 3) Evidence is not in and of itself but, rather, support for a premise that is used for proof. Agreed. But wait, Pro's evidence doesn't support his premise. His premise was "A Christian God exist". Let's go with pro's answer for a minute which was yes. This also means that miracles and testimonies support the premise "A Islam God exist" and the premise "A Jewish God exist." But the evidence cannot support all these premises, all the premises are contradictory. One must come to the conclusion then that the evidence presented by pro does not support the conclusion "A Christian God exist". I am not as pro says, pointing to other religions as alternative explanations of evidence but, rather, showing how the evidence is not of any religious deity. 4.)Evidence can lead to multiple or even conflicting conclusions base on interpretation. Agreed, but I didn't argue from a different interpretation, I just showed how your interpretation is wrong.” I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours”- Stephen Roberts.(2) I truly don’t think anybody could have said the conclusion to this argument than Stephen Roberts. Conclusion I have shown how God’s existence is a contradiction from the omnipotent and omniscient argument. If we are to accept the laws of logic, we cannot accept God. As a final thought, I thank pro for the chance to argue this in a rational manner and in good conduct. Also I apologize if the argument seems unfinished, but I had to hurry and finish up as I may go without internet due to bad weather in the hours to come. I had fun doing this debate and hope KRFournier did too. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk... (3) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (4) http://dictionary.reference.com...