existence of god

Rebuttal: Firstly I would like to point this out. “After seeing Joffrey's purple face (if you catch my allusion), I imagined my opponent in a similar position: this made me happy.” My opponent found pleasure in the painful death of a Game of Thrones character. I watched the video myself, it was horrific. Somehow, these kind of instances makes my opponent happy, and even happier when he imagines me in his place. I’m not sure if this is a death threat, or just trying to scare me. This is very disturbing, if anyone else wants to see what my opponent thinks is happy, or what my opponent wants to do to me, visit this. “You see, Con has no sense of humor, which is a sad prospect for me and the other fun-lovers of DDO.” I completely understand if my opponent likes to bring humor into his debates, personally, I like to get as much to the point as possible, I hope my opponent can respect how I wish to do my debates, and I will respect his. I’m sorry, but I didn’t know that what you said was intended as a joke, I didn’t think it was, I apologize. Perfection: “I combat this by saying that existence is perfect, in the eyes of God at least.” Can you prove that existence is perfect? “Trying to disprove God by claiming the world is imperfect is naive as it places a human's idea of perfection above the idea of perfection held by God.” Would my opponent like to state was the idea of perfection is held by God. If my opponent is to use God’s idea of perfection, my opponent must first prove that God exists. This rebuttal is based on assumption and speculation. Rebuttal of 2nd Point: My opponent does his rebuttal the same as the one prior, so I will use the same rebuttal as above for the same point. Rebuttal of 3rd point: “Even a being that knows it's choices in advance, such as God, still makes those choices. Knowing what your choices will be or the outcome of those choices has nothing to do with making them.” Yes it does, if the being knows what it will choose in advance, it has to make that same choice, it is fixed to the same path and has not ability to change it, no free-will. Origin of Existence: “No, it does not prove the existence of God on it's own, but implies that there is a major break in human logic. Nothing can explain the fact that something came of nothing. As I specified in my argument, a break in human logic like this implies that there is a supernatural element present in existence, which would be God.” Ok so my opponent starts off by saying that his argument does not prove God. Then he goes on to repeat what I already defeated (in bold), and can be turned back on itself to prove that God cannot exist because something cannot come from nothing. Then, after these two faults, goes onto use the God-of-the-Gaps argument, which does not prove God’s existence of all. It is not reasonable to assume that just because something cannot be explained, that God must have done it. Birth of Original Idea: Let me explain, I thought that it did not prove God at all because it just explained that Christianity was different from other religions, I did not see at the time how this proved God. My opponent goes on to explain this, “The fact of being so different from other religions shows that a non-worldly being created this religion.” Thank you very much for that, now that I know what the argument is, I can actually rebut it. I will use the same rebuttal I started and elaborate on it since my opponent got very angry, (frankly I would be too, I apologize, I should have provided more) so I will show how Christianity is actually not so different from other religions, and therefore defeat it. Here are some similarities: Both the Judaist, and the Islamic religions believe in only one god. Both the Judaist and the Islamic religions believe in angels. Both the Judaist and Islamic religions believe in prophets, or divine relations. Both the Egyptian, Greek, Islamic, Judaic and others all believe in a heaven or a hell. Both the Islamic and Judaist religions believe in circumcisions. Both Judaic and most other religions believe in prayer to their god/gods. Both Judaic and most other religions believe in some type of afterlife. Both the Judaic and many other religions believe in some kind of holy book. Both the Judaic and many other religions believe in animal sacrifice. Both Judaic and other religions such as Hinduism believe in the confession of sins. These are only a few examples, I am sure that there are much more, but I believe I have stated enough to defeat the argument. http://www.beliefnet.com... http://www.religionfacts.com... Ontological Argument: As I read through my opponents rebuttal, all he does is make fun of my sources (except at the end about the realicorn, but it still wasn’t even a full argument.) And if you look carefully, does not even defend his argument at all. This makes me think that my opponent did not actually have a rebuttal for the argument and instead tried to distract me with the false argument of my sources. And to defeat it anyways, I cited those sources because that is where I got information for my rebuttal, not sure how those defeat me. In the future don’t make fun of your opponent’s sources as a rebuttal. “The realicorn simply defines the realicorn as existing.” Yes it does and so does the ontological argument according to you. “It attempts to prove the existence by God using only the definition of God…” Additional: “Yet my opponent attempts to disprove God through claiming he is imperfect by human standards and knows of sin. There are ways to debate the existence of God in the negative, but these are not them.” I think that this is a rebuttal because it does not prove God at all and is an attempt to defeat my arguments. My opponent says that my arguments are false because I’m using human standards for God. I ask my opponent this then, what other standards are we supposed to use then? We cannot use God’s standards because you have to prove he exists first. If you mean the definition of God, definitions only apply to things that exist. Other: “Apparently my opponent has already decided that he has won the debate.” I did not make that assumption at all, I apologize if it came off that way but that was not how I meant it. “Voters, help me take his confidence down a notch and strike the fear of God in him. Ha. Now that was clever.” I don’t think trying to get voters to vote against me just to make me not confident in myself. Voters should vote on who they think had better arguments, conduct, etc. Voting should not be teaching someone a lesson on the assumption that I am arrogant. Conclusion: My opponent has either sent me a death threat, or states that he likes to envision me dying. This is scary and should be docked from conduct, yet I feel that a death threat should deserve more docking of points so should be used inflicted in some other category. Sources should either be tied or I win for we each used citations, except in the response I just replied to my opponent did not use any citations, so I guess I could win in that category since I always cited my sources while my opponent did not, up to interpretation. Spelling and grammar should be tied, and I believe I won convincing arguments, but that is up to voter interpretation. This debate is over for me now, and in the voters hands, I hope they will make the right decision. I would say I have enjoyed the debate, but thus my opponent tells me that he enjoys envisioning me choke to death, so that kind of ruined the experience. Anyways, thank you!