God Exists

My thanks to my opponent for presenting me with a fun, challenging, and cordial debate. That last quality is sorely lacking sometimes, and I am glad to see that this is not the case here. "Sorry this one wasn't so quick. I won't try to provide an excuse. I was just slow." No worries. It is quality, not quantity, which counts. ;) 1. Information exists, and etc. "I don't quite see the passage of information as a force, though. Perhaps the reception is a driving force, but the actual exchange, I'm not so sure." The transmission of data is a twofold process of expression and reception. For reception to occur requires expression of the information to be received. Both are merely two aspects of the same force, as it acts upon and is reacted to. 2. Definitions of Being and of God "So if we toss out definition 3, as it shows it as a person then we are left with the multiple definition 1's and definition 2. Because all of those refer to existence, they get you exactly nowhere, as that's where you're trying to go in the first place." They get me somewhere if I show that the ‘being' being discussed exists. "Unfortunately, our agreed definition of "exist" isn't much help. However, the most appropriate definition of ‘existence,' brought to us from Merriam-Webster is an ‘actual or present occurrence." I think you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that a metaphor or abstract idea is an "actual or present occurrence.'" I am not positing God as a metaphor or an abstract idea. I am positing God as the definition of the sum of all processes leading to the transmission of information. Similarly I could deconstruct the word ‘tree' into all biological constructs classified as "a perennial woody plant." http://en.wikipedia.org... It's much simpler to say the word ‘tree', though, just as it is much simpler to use the word ‘God' than the sum of all processes leading to the transmission of information such that it necessarily must be that being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness serving as ruler of the universe, and which is frequently the subject of worship. "But God is not the expression of the passage of information." This is only one aspect of God, technically. God is arguably greater in scope and expansiveness than the ordinary understanding, but, by virtue of possessing such scope, necessarily includes lesser understandings. If I define John as a ‘person who is a lawyer', and John turns out to also be a doctor, he does not cease to be John because my definition didn't encompass all of what makes John, John. If John turned out to only be a doctor, however, there would be a conflict in definitions. As it stands, God is a being perfect in power, wisdom and goodness (necessarily by virtue of being proven omniexcellent), who just also happens to be even more. Hence my distinction between God and the godhead (i.e. God as we know God and God as God is in God's entirety.) " it would seem to make little sense to differentiate the information exchanging processes in life with those found in non-living nature" How does that have anything to do with there being a God? I was just providing an argument for a full explanation so that you wouldn't limit the scope of God to the information exchanged solely to, by, within, and amongst living things. "'That version of God arguably still exists, though only if you accept that the concept of spirit is a metaphor for information.' But under the definition of God, you can't do that. It isn't a ‘Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness.'" Sure it is. A being does not need to possess consciousness to be. If we assume that life is a small subset within Everything and that consciousness is an epiphenomena of information processing as a small subset in living things, then consciousness, being limited in scope and function, could hardly be the definition of ‘being.' Not even Merriam-Webster requires consciousness. It merely requires that a being actually be. 3. You are what nature would have you think you are. "Yes, but it is not making me believe in a "Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness" who is the "ruler of the universe."" To the extent that you are powerful, wise or good, or that anyone has ever been so, it has only been through those processes that are described as a subset of that which I have contemplated to be God. Therefore, to the extent such expressions have any meaning, they only have meaning through God. 4. Omniexcellence is rationally proven. "That is a very good argument, but it isn't arguing for a being." It is arguing that that which I have classified as a being is perfect in power, wisdom and goodness. This part isn't meant to prove the elements of being. 5. Information = spirit. "Wow! You have a lot of faith in an argument which I made clear last argument that I did not accept!" You said you did not accept that God could be a metaphor. I agreed. You said nothing about spirit, which merely describes a quality of God (subset again), not the entire thing. 6. God is a being that is ruler of all things. "I can see your reasoning for a ruler, but it seems like the being came in in hopes that I wouldn't notice. I noticed." God is proven as a being earlier and as ruler by necessity of being that which allows rule to occur. I think it would be safe to say that you have conceded all points save ‘being.' My thanks to my opponent for this opportunity to debate. I do appreciate it. Now I shall make my last appeal: God must meet these criteria for me to win the debate: 1.God must be a being – hence he must exist 2.God must be supreme in power, wisdom and goodness – hence he must be their source 3.God must be a ruler of the universe – hence he must be responsible for all happenings in the universe 4.God must be worshipped as to point 3. I have shown: 1.God, as I define the qualities of God, exists 2.God is the source of all occurrences and is all occurrences, and hence, is the source of all power, wisdom and goodness and is all power, wisdom and goodness, and thus is perfect in them 3.God directs the universe, and so God is ruler of the universe 4.God is described in part by those major religions I mentioned in round one, and worshipped as to that part by them as the ruler of the universe. Ergo, I have proven the existence of God. No small feat, that. Vote Pro! PS Thanks again to my opponent for this debate!