Does God exist

The reason I could not respond to the others was because of the 10,000 character limit. I will address everything in this round. Also I only used the first round for making my statements and building my own case, I will offer direct rebuttals in this round as well. Rebuttal 1"This is false, according to the current model of the big bang, there was no time, or space before the big bang. According to this model, the universe came into being from a point which came from nothing.""However, the energy is not coming from nothing, because we don"t have nothing to work with. Before the origin of the universe there was literally no time or space. The laws of physics did not exist."I also addressed these two points but I will offer them again and add some new points. This would fall under a different type of nothing. Some people assume the laws of life and physics came into play at the time of the big bang, if this is the case the laws we now operate under would not work before hand.He does admit this. " It is true that quantum fluctuations create energy, and are uncaused"This is where he is admitting something can come from nothing within the laws that we operate under now. He is asking how could something come from nothing, if the nothing then was a different type of nothing which is the second type that I addressed. If we know nothing can come from something now, then is it no more probable to assume something could possibly come from nothing then? This is not out of the realm of possibility. Seeing as how we both have no idea what laws were in place then, I think it is a far more likely assumption than adding a God to the argument. My adversary also makes a huge error with saying the standard big bang model shows there was a time before the big bang. It does not do so, it simply shows what happened after the big bang. These are the high points of the model itself. "First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning( The Big Bang)Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins."http://www.big-bang-theory.com...This is referring specifically to the rate of expansion of the universe , and also cosmic background radiation which was discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson( Which I may add was on accident ). The CBR is actually how we can measure the universe to tell what type of universe we live in. You can use the light from the CBR and measure parts of it, to determine the energy within the Universe. Which I said in my original post is 0. Bear in mind my adversary must show that there is something prior to the big bang if he goes down this road as well. Dr Krauss also addresses this in a lecture he did. His description was far more detailed, but I will try to provide a brief summary while adding my assumptions to it. I am not going to use charts or graphs but just hit the basics of this. Nothing we know or that my adversary has shown supports there was a time before the big bang. We believe the unvierse began to exist at the time of the big bang, and everything began to operate at that point as the model says and shows. Label the big bang (X). If we began to exist at (X) and (Y) is this present point in time it would look like this. (X) >>>>>>(Y). All the > are points in time in between the start of the universe and now. My adversary is claiming this >>>>>(X)>>>>>(Y). For this to be true, he must show there are points in time before the big bang. That is on him to demonstrate this and meet his BOP. There is no evidence I have seen or nothing that I know that supports this in full.Rebuttal 2"My opponent says that the fine tuning argument is based on the assumption that humans are special. This is not the case"This is the case in a way. When we think life is designed for us to life, we are claiming we are special. We are one in billions of billions of galaxies that have life. There is nothing special about thinking that we exist. If God were going to make a fine tuned universe, He would have did a much better job. Almost 99 percent of species on this planet have died out and we will do the same. I have already shown and explained why quantum fluctuations. can play into this. If something can come from nothing, it is just all about the probability of it happening. Its all mathematics, it is all probability and chance as to why we exist. These are the the essentials of how and why we exist.This is almost a direct quote from Steven Hawking and William Lane Craig. My adversary states this "if the rate of expansion after the big bang was altered by as little as 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 we wouldn't exist"Hawking says this and which is often quoted by William Lane Craig. "Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size."He then later goes on to say this as well, which Craig and my adversary both seem to forget. "Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...Rebuttal 3"My opponent says that the moral argument is flawed because God could condone anything. Whatever God says is good, is good. He is the creator, the moral giver. We are merely his creation, we follow his rules."This really is not an adequate rebuttal so it is hard to refute further. He says that what God says is good is good. So I ask my adversary again what happens if God where to say rape is good? I would like for him to specifically address the Euthyphro Dilemma that I mentioned in my first round. Rebuttal 4"The resurrection of Jesus: Jesus's tomb was discovered empty. Two theories have been put forth by unbelievers. One, that someone stole the body. The Jews had no motives to steal the body. Another theory is that the people went to the wrong tomb. The people who went to the tomb watched Jesus being lane down, so they knew where the tomb was."Granted that if we decide to admit everything in that regard is true, there are 100's of people who had access or knew about that tomb and could hide the body in that time period. It would be quite logical to assume someone could have moved it, in order to falsify the claims that Jesus was a divine being. We are talking anywhere from grave robbers, guards, and the court that sent him to die all together. So many people had access to the tomb. As you already stated it could have been the wrong tomb itself. The tomb itself and most were called an ossuary at the time, and they found one with writing in it mentioning some of the events that happened in the bible. Such as a fish and a man being swallowed which represents Jonah and a image of a man being risen which is suppose to symbolized Christ walking. This could have been placed here by anyone whom found the tomb, and it is a long shot to assume that this is the actual tomb itself.http://publicrelations.uncc.edu...Rebuttal 5"Experience with God: God can be experienced personally. You can know God, aside from argument alone. Even if all of the arguments I present are proved wrong, you can know God just by experiencing him. Atheists obviously have never experienced God."Experience is subjective and very vague. This is almost so hard to respond to because there are no facts within it. Someone could thank they had experience that involved God, when it is really a scientific phenomenon. Think about how adrenaline gives people super human strength some times and works off emotion. Some people have lifted cars to get people out from under them that they love. Then say something like God gave me super strength. We now know this is not true and can be reasonably explained. The same can be said about most of these "experiences". Belief is God is based off of faith, and once someone says they believe by faith the debate is over. We debate with facts not faith. In Closing. My adversary has still failed to meet his BOP and show that a God does exist. I have gave reasons and logic to show why the universe can exist without a God, and why a God probably does not exist.