God exists.

KalamCon says: Well pro says everything that begins to exist has a cause i can just say that everything that has sentience has a cause beause sentience cant come from, nothing because if it did there would be no reason why sentience came out of nowhere and not someone else and thats' the same argument he is using so he cant argue against it or he refuts his own argument. premise 2 is also true because you cant create things if your not sentient, like a rock never created a house or anything. So if god creates stuff thatn that prove that he must have a sentient and if he does then he cant exist as rationawiki already proved http://rationalwiki.org......Con makes the argument that because we've never observed anything without a sentinence create anything, that means that nothing without a sentience can create anything. This doesn't apply to God, as we haven't observed everything. Con will have to prove that everything that creates something has a cause, because so far his argument is this:(P1) We have never observed anything without sentience create anything.(P2) If we haven't observed something, then it's impossible.(C) Therefore, it is impossible for something without a sentience to create anything.Premise 1 makes the mistake of forgetting to include that we've also never seen something with a sentience create something. Con may want to argue that humans create things like buildings, but we don't create things in the way that God does. We create something by rearranging certain elements to make something that looks new. God creates new things.Con also makes the mistake of trying to use this argument:(P1) It is impossible for something with a sentience to come from nothing.(P2) God has a sentience.(P3) God came from nothing.(C) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist.I doubt the second premise is true, but let's (for the sake of argument) say that it is. God did not come from nothing, he didn't come from anything, which is different to coming from nothing. That's like saying I started the game with no money when really I never started the game. God is eternal, he always is and always was. He is the creator of time.Con says: this argument is already proven false by modern quantum physics and cosmologics so that right there provs my opponent has no credible point in his argument which is just false and no one belives it except stupid theist who have no understanding of science and astrologyLaurence Kraus is an expert in physics and he knows what hes talking about when he says that the unvierse didn't get created by god apparently pro thought that he is smarter than a THEORETIC PHYSICIST.First of all, Con has failed to show me how my argument is false. Second, he has ignored my arguments that back up the Kalam Cosmological argument. If Con ever wishes to respond to them, they're here [1]. Next, Con says that since Lawrence Krauss is a theoretical physicist and I am not a scientist at all, that he is right and I am wrong. This isn't necessarily the case.Con says: the kalalm argument is cherry picking because it just says that god doesnt have a cause. But as I already proved with the sentient argument god must have had a cause if was sentient so ist arbitraryly cherry picking to just say that 'oh god doesnt need a cause because hes god' and, that violates occams razor which is an unbreakable law of logic and again this proves that pro has no rationalargument but just stupid christin propaganda instead.The Kalam Cosmolgical argument does not cherry-pick. It states that everything that begins to exist has a cause, which means that things without beginnings to their existence don't necessarily have a cause. But it is obvious that things without beginnings to their existence don't have causes, because if they don't have a beginning to their existence, they are eternal, and they are not eternal if they have a cause. Therefore, anything without a beginning to its existence doesn't have a cause. If Con can think of anything else that has no beginning to its existence that exists, then it doesn't have a cause. Also, Occam's Razor is not an unbreakable law of logic, try to find anything on this article that says that Occam's razor is an "unbreakable law of logic" [2]. Occam's razor certainly doesn't prove that the more complex hypothesis or the hypothesis that makes the most assumptions is false and the hypothesis that is the least complex or makes the least assumptions is true.BibleCon says: con says that this debate isnt about the christian god well i say back that christianity and judaism invented god based on paganism so my opponent is just ignoring my argument s since there is no rebutal because it s obvious that the bible is wrong and stupid.I honestly can't see how there's a link between them. I am not talking about the Christian God or the God based on Paganism. I have defined God as a being that is spaceless, timeless, uncaused and created the universe, so we are debating over a spaceless, timeless and uncaused being who created the universe. Con devoted a whole section of his arguments to talking about the Bible, which was supposedly written on the influence of the Christian God. The Christian God is different to the being we're debating the existence of because the Christian God posseses properties that the being we're debating the existence over doesn't have. Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, Omnipresence and Omniscience, for example. The being we're debating the existence of is different to the Christian God because although there are some properties that they share, they are different because the Christian God posseses properties that our being does not posses. Conclusion-Con has still failed to refute the Kalam Cosmological argument.-Con has failed to present a sound argument of his own.-To win this debate, Con will have to succeed in doing the two things above.Sources[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor