The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1B

~Counterarguments~ 1. Omnipotence Paradox "It makes no sense for an omnipotent being to make something he couldn't move - it's logically incoherent. God could no more do that than make a square circle. " ----> It's not a matter of whether or not he wants to, but if he CAN. I do realize it's logically incoherent and that's the point, the attribute of omnipotence is in itself logically incoherent. Now to predict my opponent, if he were to say that this god is omnipotent in the bounds of logic, then sure. I will accept such an answer. HOWEVER, this will lead to one of my last points, so read on ahead. 2. The Cause of God. My opponent once again makes more defining characteristics of god, and I will accept them. So now this god can be omnipotent in the bounds of logic, has no cause, and as stated by my opponent in an earlier round: "not detectable with scientific instruments". I ask of the voter to keep all these points in mind, as I will refer to them in my last point. 3. Something Can Come From Nothing. Whether or not a virtual particle can cause a causal chain is different from if it can actually come into existence from nothing. This is TRULY a red herring ( a phrase my opponent seems to adore). 4A-4B. My opponent simply states that god caused branes to form and collide, and chaotic inflations. AGAIN, I want the voters to remember all these points, as I will be referring to everything in my last point. 5. Occam's Razor Yes, my opponent is correct. Occam's Razor simply states that plurality should not be posited without necessity in that sense that EXPLANATIONS should not be posited without necessity. I will be using this principle as my core counterargument, and I will save it for the end so I will not respond to this point right here. 6. A Possible Other God(s). "An omnipotent god would be able to destroy another lesser god, which he would see as a threat to his power. " ----> So now this god my opponent argues for will destroy lesser gods? More and more defining characteristics. .. may the voters take note of this. "To address the point that god B could have started the chain. .. Since my opponent has accepted my definition of what constitutes "god" - I'm sure he is also aware that a non-omnipotent god cannot exist because that falls outside the definition of god. A non-omnipotent god would be like a married bachelor. " ----> At the core, it's semantics. I stated an ENTITY. Not necessarily a GOD, as this debate's definition lays out. Thus, my argument still stands. *****BIG FINALE***** OKAY! I basically accepted or "forfeited' every point (except virtual particles) that my opponent refuted. To anyone, the debate would clearly seem to be in PRO's favor, but that's because I predicted exactly what would happen :). Let me break it down for you. Characteristics of my opponent's god: 1) Omnipotent in the bounds of logic (or not, either way doesn't matter). 2) Undetectable by science 3) Uncaused 3) Caused branes 4) Caused chaotic inflations 5) Destroys lesser gods Now certainly, if you were to gather my opponent's argument it is an explanation of the creation of the universe. This "god" my opponent has described is certainly a correct argument, but it FAILS before Occam's Razor for the following reasons: A. Undetectable by Science Right off from the first Round my opponent states that he is undetectable by science. For humans, science is figuring out how the physical world (or universe) works. If this god is undetectable, then it certainly takes that element of SCIENCE away. B. Too Many Assumptions We assume this god caused branes to collide, or chaotic inflations. We assume he destroys any entity less powerful than it who is also capable of creating a universe. We assume it is omnipotent in the confinement of logic, OR even we assume it is omnipotent withOUT the confinement of logic. My opponent is obviously morphing this clay he calls god, to meet the conditions necessary for the universe's cause. ~Conclusion~ While my opponent's god is an explanation for the creation of this universe, it is filled with SO many assumptions that we can justify so many other things in a similar fashion. I can state thatt he Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, and that it is confined by logic, uncaused, and made branes/chaotic inflations a mere illusion to us humans to speculate on. The Flying Spaghetti Monster DOESN'T HAVE TO BE OMNIPOTENT, BECAUSE MY OPPONENT FAILED TO SHOW WHY CREATING THE UNIVERSE IS ONLY CAPABLE BY AN OMNIPOTENT ENTITY. By the same reasons my opponent gave, this scientifically undetectable FSM could be another cause of the universe. And so can tooth fairies. And mystical aliens from Dimension 74. And flying rats from Galaxy GR43. My opponent's argument for the existence of his posited metaphysical being relies on the question of the universe's creation. With absolutely no science behind it, nor any solid conclusion arriving from it, my opponent's argument fails at the seams. So I ask of the voter: which is more convincing when pertaining the cause of the universe? A god backed up with tons of assumptions that lack evidence? Or theoretical physics who at least have math and other forms of evidence to back it up? Occam's Razor mandates that it be theoretical physics, because not only does it's theories rely on some other hypothesis/theory (such as math), but my opponent's argument makes too many assumptions and his conclusion could validate MANY OTHER THINGS BESIDES HIS GOD. No good explanation will give you tons and tons, and in this case an INFINITE AMOUNT OF POSSIBLE answers. If an explanation were to give you such an amount of answers, then it is useless.