God Exists.

Thanks to my opponent again for his response. It's been a very fun and amicable debate. I'm going to just dive right into it. My opponent claims that flaws are subjective. I completely disagree. For example, if something has lost a limb, it has lost the ability to function with what it previously had. This is a flaw. It is objective because the thing has actually lost something and therefore cannot do what it previously could. Remember, words are not subjective, the are objective noises and sounds we use to describe real experiences. Non-existence is a flaw because it lacks the ability to do anything. It is nothing. Forgive me for my wording. What I meant was that matter that created matter cannot go on forever. My opponent's third rebuttal is a misunderstanding of infinite regression. If there is a line, where is the middle? The problem is, there is no middle. A line goes on infinitely in one direction and infinitely in the other. But you cannot have a present if the line continues infinitely back. For where is the start? There is no start, and if there is no start, there is no present. There is no past, present, or future with an infinite regress. But we are in the present moment so there must have been a beginning. Notice, there is nothing wrong with an infinite progression, only regression. Matter is contingent. We know that matter and energy have not existed forever. They could not have caused the Big Bang because "before"(using time to understand this here) the Big Bang, there was nothing; no matter, no energy, nothing. God can exist because God is existence itself. He doesn't need to exist in anything. Things can exist outside of time. Numbers "exist" as numbers but they are not within time. They exist outside of time as a concept, an objective way to measure things. Logic exists outside of time as an objective way to measure reality. If there was nothing, there would be no one who could use such things, but nevertheless they would still exist because it would be true that "nothing existed(except for the things I already described)". God is both a state of being and a person. This is a hard thing to understand but if we understand that existence is actuality, then actuality can be an all-powerful being. 3) Existence itself is actuality. It is the changing of one actuality to another, over and over again. My opponent misunderstands existence as being and becoming. But existence is not this and becoming is only the changing of one "being" to another. 8) Esse is pure actuality. Existence is actuality. When something "changes" it is one "being" becoming another. This does not contradict my argument. 12 and 13) Existence is a being, a being capable of doing all things that are possible. The argument from CatholicAnswers.com explains why. Once again, things can exist outside of time, there is no reason why something cannot decide something outside of time as long as that something has always had and will always have that intention. God can do things outside of time. My opponent accuses me of ad-hoc reasoning, but his very definition is basically the same as mine. Notice the word "virtually". Virtually - nearly, almost. So, I don't see how my opponent can claim I'm using ad-hoc reasoning. God can do all things that are possible for him to do, or in my opponent's words - "virtually unlimited". It is not logically possible for God to learn. This does not make him not all powerful, for God is able to all things that are possible... for him to do. He cannot do things that are impossible because those things are nonsense. My opponent is trying to compare God's ability to our ability. It doesn't make sense. Thanks again for this debate. I await my opponent's response. Hope to hear from you, Nicholas. Sources: https://www.catholic.com... https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...