God Exists

Contention 1: Greatness Though greatness may be subjective we can get this, as Con said, by comparing him to other things, however, the flaw with my opponent's argument is that something of this maximium greatness can indeed be compared. It is imagined that God is the Maximuimly Great Being (Ontological Argument) meaning that there is nothing greater than God. Everyday we learn of new things in the universe from Blazars to Kugleblitzes. Comparing something to this seems to be impossible, but the laws of Physics can indeed be broken. Let's observe the Kugelblitz. This is something that is so hot, that it is hotter than temperature (Plank's Constant), because of this intense heat it immidiately causes a black hole in space time. [1] We can already see that in modern science that our laws of Physics and nature can be defied and if something like a Kugelblitz can defy what we think to be the very escense of the universe then why can't this God that seems to do the exact same also exist? My opponent asks what is average? Once again this pertains to perspective. From what do we look at it from? If we are an ant then surely humans are above average. Meaning that we ourselves would observe ourselves as average. Though humans like to think of it different and we like to think of ourselves as the center of the universe. This has been proven that if we had two very identical universes, but slightly different we could line up any two points in that universe and find that the individual point is the center, but we can also do it for any other point as well. [2] This actually reveals that humans beings are NOT the center of the universe and the actual center is, everywhere. This means that since the humans aren't the center of the universe something else is. Since the universe is so large and exspansive we don't know where we can see that this can only be a Maximumly Great Being as the center and thus has no choice, but to be Maximiumly Great. Contention 2: Incoherence of a Caused Universe I can agree with the Big Bang and the BGV as it supports my own arguments, but I shall be refuting externalism. John Lucas, philosopher, argued that, "The Block universe gives a deeply inadequate view of time. It fails to account for the passage of time, the pre-eminence of the present, the directedness of time and the difference between the future and the past[3]" He raised three key issues with externalism. We apparently fear death because we believe that we will no longer exist after we die. However, if Eternalism is correct, death is just one of our temporal borders, and the forms of the world with you alive in it would continue to exist even as one consciously moves forward through time toward dissolution. You are about to go to the dentist, or you have already been. Commonsense says you should prefer to have been. But if Eternalism is correct, then a resemblance of you in the future is already feeling better. When some unpleasant experience is behind us, we feel glad that it is over. But if the Eternalism is correct, there is no such property as being over or no longer happening now—it continues to exist timelessly, alongside eternal, unchanging moments of perfect contentedness. Here we can see that there are several issues. It is obvious that when we die that we do not continue to exist. This shows that all points in time would eventually led to your death, but they could not already exist or all meet the end as it would violate the simplicity of externalism as it would have to show that you are still existing in some possible point in time. The second point is also key as it shows that we would preferred to have already have done something vs. currently doing the thing, but under externalism wouldn't it already make sense that if we've already done it that we'd already have the benefits and hence not needing to do it in the present creating a paradox that contradicts this theory. The third point shows that we would always be suffering as we would always be expierencing a moment now, but at the same time feeling content that it is over while also feeling pain and suffering which is impossible. On the matter of proving God by doing mathematics we can see that this is indeed possible as Scientist Godel has actually given the following proofs for God and they just so happen to fall under this contention.Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positiveDefinition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails BDefinition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplifiedAxiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positiveAxiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positiveAxiom 3: The property of being God-like is positiveAxiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positiveAxiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property [8]Axiom 4 has been stated that it must be necessary and is possible to point out the good in all things. Godel himself had stated that, "Postitive means that in a positive moral aestetics sense. It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation." [8] The other Axioms can be summed up to be an ultrafilter which I'll get into a little later on. The Axioms can be translated into the following theorums and math equation. Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. [9]Now we can see that this mathematical equation was actually done and proven. With it being solved we can see that it brings up great and highly valid evidence that God exists. People used the above theorums and axioms through the use of LEO-II and Statallax. [10] Contention 3: Atemporal Minds Much of this is correct, but there are a few inaccuracies. For example, you argue that God and his mind contradict, but it is unlikely. How we come to this conclusion is ironically provided by your own argumentation. You see God is outside of time and this relm, but since he also does things in this relm then spacetime becomes a factor. So we can see that everything can exist outside of the relm of spacetime, but once it comes on to this plane then it is affected as his own actions and words are in the Bible and we can see that this is obvious and thus by this own argumentation that God can exist. Contention 4: InferenceThis opening part was already refuted when I have shown that the laws of physics can be broken due to Kugelblitzs and even when we look at the opening moments of the Big Bang and even black holes we can see that the laws of Physics become broken down meaning that there is some missing key part that is included here in this part and it is simply that of God. [4] [5] In a lecture Steven Hawkins showed that when the universe was created that if it were created as shown in the Bible it had to have been by God and it is backed by the fact that the Laws of Physics cannot explain singularities that there has to be devine intervention. Steven Hawkins in his book, Grand Design, argued that, "If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative: One has to do work to separate a gravitationally bound system, such as the Earth and moon. This negative energy can balance the positive energy needed to create matter, but it’s not quite that simple. The negative gravitational energy of the Earth, for example, is less than a billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the Earth is made of. A body such as a star will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is (the closer the different parts of it are to each other), the greater the negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater (in magnitude) than the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy. That’s why empty space is stable. Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can." [6]Meaning that if you remember my sourcing of that of Neil Tyson in my last round you can see that God's causation and interfearance in the creation of the universe is possible by simply that of a Supernova followed by a black hole. This Black hole could have easily created the universe that we live in today and can actually explain the constant Big Bang-Big Crunch cycle that astrophysicists have hypothesised. [7]