God exists

This time he says that the universe had to have a start and before that there was nothing, and therefore god was there and made universe from nothing. I think it goes without saying that nothing here logically follows. If nothing existed before universe it follows that god didn't exist either. But my opponent believes that something always existed, why then he needs god to create anything? R2) The Mathematical proofOk, until then my objections stand. R3) Gödel's ontological argumentI hope it's clear to everyone that what my opponent does here is unacceptable by any means. Instead of making an argument he gives us a link to 16 page pdf document. What does he expect me to do? Paste a link to other 16 page pdf with my rebuttal? He also thinks that entire Gödel's proof takes only one page of that document, it's not true, argument starts at page 8 and finish on page 11. Four pages. Three of which my opponent missed in previous round. He says that article he refers to prove that Gödel is correct therefore god exists. That's nonsense, let me quote an important passage that about sums it up:"Now Benzmüller hopes that using such a headline-friendly example can help draw attention to the method. "I didn't know it would create such a huge public interest but (Gödel's ontological proof) was definitely a better example than something inaccessible in mathematics or artificial intelligence," the scientist added. "As we can see Gödel's proof was simply a good example to use to draw attention of other people. The intention of scientific paper was to prove that computers are capable of proving mathematical theorems using unconventional methods. Because Pro didn't even mind to write that argument, I'm not obliged to respond to it. However let me comment on one thing. Pro says that because proof is correct, god must exist. The sheer fact proof is formally valid doesn't mean it's anything worth notice. Argument has to be sound in order to draw any actual conclusions, let me give an exampleP1 god doesn't exist or 2+2=5P2 2+2=/=5Conclusion: God doesn't existIt's correct, or more precisely, valid mathematical proof. If we accept premises we can't arrive at other conclusion without contradiction. Yet it's not sound, there is no reason to accept first premise. It's up to my opponent to estimate amount of space needed for an argument. If he knew that Gödel's proof is too long to use it, he should give it up and use other arguments, or split it into two rounds. Presenting entire argument in a form of long PDF document is not the way debate system works otherwise we would end up posting longer and longer articles instead of arguments. Articles should serve as sources, not as independent arguments. R4) Watchmaker"I agree with you that complexity doesn't determine the creator, however it is usually a factor and is why i posted it. "No it's not. A match is infinitely less complex than elephant yet we recognize it as something designed. Complexity isn't factor at all. Then my opponents quotes me, he says that I don't provide any explanation for my claim that we have naturalistic explanation for how living organisms could come into being without designer. I think the answer is obvious - evolution. The theory of evolution explains very well, how very complex forms of life could come into existence without anyone's intervention. I hope Pro accepts this theory. Given that complexity was the only reason Pro gave to think that universe is creation, and since I proved that complexity has nothing to do with recognizing design I think it's safe to say this argument doesn't hold water. R5) Pascal's Wager Pro concedes it's not an argument. R6) JesusMy opponent claims that god exists because Jesus rose from the dead. What proof does he have to support it? Supposedly 500 witnesses saw it. How he knows it? From the Bible. How does he know Bible is reliable source? I don't know, I hope it's not because "it's revealed word of god" Below I present why there is no reason to believe Bible was revealed by any god. Also it's worth notice that resurrections were quite common back then (2 Kings 13:21) so even if Jesus resurrected there is no reason to take it as an evidence of his divine origin. =Defending my own arguments=A1) Problem of informationLet's assume for a moment that what Pro said is right, and Bible got this one thing right. What does it prove? It proves that if you make enough claims, and Bible does many, you're bound to get right at least some stuff. According to Genesis universe, including all galaxies, stars, planets was created in six days. We know that stars couldn't be created long after big bang occurred. Pro may try to explain that days mentioned in Genesis aren't real 24 hour days. If he believes that one day=x amount of time, he has to show evidence to support this claim. Otherwise he has to claim that universe, and planets were indeed created in six days, it's impossible given our current scientific knowledge (first hydrogen atoms were created long after BB [1]), or he can claim that Book of genesis can't be taken literally, therefore he admits that his previous claim is just cherry picking. There are more anti scientific claims in the Bible especially regarding earth:A. Flat Earth - Job 38:13; Isaiah 11:12; Rev. 7:1B. Stationary Earth Eccles. 1:5; Psalms 93:1, 96:10, 104:5; Joshua 10:12; 1 Chron. 16:30C. Earth rests on pillars - 1 Sam. 2:8; Job 9:6, 38:4What's more important, according to verse 2 of Genesis, which is the one Pro refers to, there was some surface of water in very early history of the earth. We know it's impossible due to very high temperatures on earth back then. [2]Pro says that even though god is omnipotent it does not necessarily means Bible should be inerrant. I beg to differ. If I was omnipotent and omniscient god I would certainly find a way to protect my guide from being misunderstood. Assuming of course that I would care. Pro also claims that ten commandments is enough for human to know how to live. Again it's not true. The problem is my opponent forgets about other commandments god gave to Moses and about which we know they are ludicrous and out-dated. Let me give you few example:A. It's ok to beat your slaves as hard as you wish as long as he survives a day or two Exodus 21:20-21B. Females are worth less than males Leviticus 27:1-7C. Homosexuals should be put to death Leviticus 20:13D. It's ok to stone unruly children Deuteronomy 21:18-21E. Rape is ok, as long as you pay small fee Deuteronomy 22:28-29When it comes to contradictions, let me put one:Genesis 1:25-6 says that God created the beasts then man. Genesis 2:18-19 says God created Adam and then the beasts. I proved that alleged scientific knowledge in the Bible is just evidence of cherry-picking. I also showed that its moral teachings are highly disputable to say the least. Plus there are obvious contradictions. I think that's more than enough to say there is not a single thing about Bible which suggests it's revealed word of god. Therefore my argument standsAlso it looks like we deal with New World Translation here, therefore I used it as my source too. [3]A2) Problem of evil and gratuitous suffer1. AnimalsDropped. Apparently all loving god doesn't care about animal suffer.2. HumansMy opponents gives vague response here. "If everyone followed and acted like Jesus, there would be no suffering or evil. " So according to Pro poor African children dying each day are apparently guilty of not accepting Jesus in their hearts. What about natural disasters? Are tsunamis and earthquakes going to stop when everybody accepts Jesus? Why all loving god would design such a hostile place? And what about first humans who didn't have a soul? Isn't soul necessary to be redeemed? I think my argument still stands. Vote Con! =Sources=[1] . http://tinyurl.com...[2] . http://tinyurl.com...[3] . http://tinyurl.com...