God is a logical concept

The process of this debate will not go very smoothly if Con and I are presumably arguing about the logic in the concept of "nothingness," if I understood my opponent's entire argument correctly. He says that I must provide my evidence that something can't come from nothing and he says that he does not believe you can prove nothingness! But because we know that there was a beginning to the universe, we can safely assume there once was nothing at all (except, perhaps, God). Plato and I agree(d) that it is logical, otherwise said as common sense, to believe that something cannot come from nothing. Unless my opponent can prove the opposite, this debate is in my favor. My opponent clearly bashed me for bashing Stephen Hawkings. This is getting nowhere, Con! But alas, I must go with it. Read on to see that S. H. believes there was a beginning of time and there will be an end. This is, in fact, what he said about the beginning of time: "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end. When I gave a lecture in Japan, I was asked not to mention the possible re-collapse of the universe, because it might affect the stock market. However, I can re-assure anyone who is nervous about their investments that it is a bit early to sell: even if the universe does come to an end, it won't be for at least twenty billion years. By that time, maybe the GATT trade agreement will have come into effect." He obviously seems to be quite sure about the dates and calculations. But the funny thing is, on the lecture he wrote [1] he didn't give any scientific reasoning for his belief that the universe didn't need a cause for the effect. So due to entertainment this brings, I will provide some quotes that Prof. Hawkings said about the meaning of life: 1. "We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." Really? That's great to have in mind. 2. "I think computer viruses should count as life ... I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image." He says the opposite of what the Bible says about God, which says that we are created in His image and in His nature. Interestingly disgusting, in my opinion. 3. "The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes." I am going to attempt to refute this because I think this is why atheists like you might believe God isn't necessary (or a logical concept). The questions that still aren't answered are these: Why are humans the only (and most) intelligent creature that is possiblly existing in our universe? And: Why is there life at all? And lastly: Why did time itself even begin? Rebuttals Con says: "My opponent used the first cause argument, which relies on the idea that something cannot come from nothing. As I pointed out above my opponent has yet to prove this nothing concept using logic. As such this argument has been effectively rebutted until my opponent can present evidence which shows both that the Casmir Effect is not real and logical, i.e. the quantum fluctuation is not nothing ,as well as further logical proof that the nothing presented as an alternative is in fact nothing." Who is the Burden of Proof on, anyway? Since I am arguing that God is a logical concept, I might have the burden to present proof for the statement that there was a Cause of the effect. But because my argument that something cannot come from nothing is logically sound which means in this case makes common sense, and Con has not given any logical arguments that support his side of the Casmir Effect, I do not have anything to prove. His illogical arguments cannot disprove my logical statement. Con says: "The meaning of life is not a logical argument. As this can clearly be subjective and logic is not meant to be subjective, it is meant to be objective or true, i.e. facts. To demonstrate this, let me give definitions of the words objective and subjective." My opponent then gave the definitions. "Now my opponents meaning of life is based on the argument that a god exists, or the supernatural. This is subjective as my opponent has not shown any proof that a god exists and this world view is based on emotion until it can be shown to be true." The meaning of life does not have to be based on the argument that a creator exists. In fact, I want it to be based on something different, but I have found no alternative. It is impossible to keep God out of this argument, whether I am pro or con, because a Creator makes things so much less complicated yet is mind blowing and logical; this makes it undoubtedly the most logical concept. This case, of the meaning of life, always seems to come back to the Cause and Effect argument because it is common sense that something cannot come from nothing. Until it can be proven that a Creator God is not possible, have you refuted me. My argument remains standing because you cannot, in any way, debunk the thought (concept) of a God. Nor can you tell what the meaning of life is. Con says: "My opponent now makes that massive jump of assertion that the unproven creator is the Christian God. Yet, at this point my opponent has proved nothing! My opponent also assaults our sense with verses from the Bible, a book which needs to be demonstrated as accurate and the true word of God before it can be considered logical and relevant to the debate. However, before this can be done my opponent needs to logically demonstrate that God exists which has not been done. Please see the previous arguments if you do not believe me." First off, please scroll up to Round One invitational. You will see that the three definitions I give are logic, God, and Christianity. There happens to be a reason for that. Secondly, I must point out how my opponent has proved nothing either! Thirdly, the accuracy of the Bible can be easily proved by Creationism. But in this debate we happen to be arguing the concept of God, not the existence of God. These are two different subjects completely, meaning Con has been off topic for most of this debate so far! Creationism/Evolution is for a different debate, but I can give you all some good sources [2], [3], [4] that can explain 'God' to you. "My opponent has made baseless assertions after in building their case for a logical God concept. What makes it worse is that some of these assertions are demonstrably false, i.e. the Casmir Effect." How, dare I ask Con, is what I said false? None of what he said was logically sound, but that's because he didn't prove anything for his statement the concept of God is not logical. Conclusion I concede that some of my arguments may have been appeals to emotion. But if Con thinks so too, he should give examples so that I can explain what I was trying to get across. My opponent took his rebuttals the wrong direction by saying nothing can be done if I don't prove "God exists" and "something can't come from nothing." Next time he should think twice about who has the BoP and not spend a whole round arguing about definitions and saying things like as such "everything my opponent throws at the debate at this moment does not stick as it is illogical..." yet does not explain why he says such. Thank you for your time, Con, but let's stay on topic for this round. Sources [1] http://www.hawking.org.uk... [2] http://answersingenesis.org... [3] http://alwaysproventrue.com... [4] http://www.proofthatgodexists.org...