God Exists

Thank you Con for your final argument. I have enjoyed this debate as well. I will start with your final argument / quote for incoherent attributes. Ryan Stringer argues that experiential knowledge is a necessity for being omniscient. Unfortunately any respected dictionary or encyclopedia disagrees with him, and until he gets those changed the definition of omniscient stands. If you would like to debate on what the meaning of omniscient should mean in stead of the current recognized definition I’d love to do so. But let us entertain this for a minute and try and see why these definitions don’t require experiential knowledge. What is a more powerful being when comparing the two following options? 1. A being that knows exactly what something is like without having to aquire the experiential knowledge to know it fully. (Knowing all propositional knowledge, and a manifestation of the current and true definition of omniscient) 2. A being that has to experience something to know it fully. I think it is obvious that option 1 is more consistent with a more powerful being. If God can know something so intimately by knowing all true propositional truths regarding whatever that something is, and not have to commit the experiential act to know something, seems undeniably better than a God that would have to experience something in order to know it. Another thing is that I am not saying God doesn’t experience anything, rather I am saying he doesn’t have to experience everything to remain omniscient…and so do all current definitions. Sorry Stringer but your argument holds no weight in the world of philosophy. For one thing I think God experiences the feeling of loss and sorrow. I think God is deeply saddened whenever someone chooses the path against him and causes destruction in life. He experiences joy and compassion when we do the opposite. So the argument of incoherent attributes is flattened and God is shining through.Why Not Many CreatorsFor one reason, and the most obvious here can be quoted from Ockham's razor; “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” [1] There is no need to over complicate the cause to defend a polytheistic view. Also there is the idea that multiple existing omnipotent beings would contradict each other making it so there could only be one or none. For their to be omnipotent beings working in perfect unison they would have to be completely harmonious in every line of thought…(leads to doctrine of the Trinity). But for the most part, there is no reason to assert multiple causes for the universe. So the actual “quantum leap” here would be to assert multiple causes. Singularities and the Infinite in RealityUnfortunately both your first two sources don’t go anywhere so I had to try and find them through google. I found the Wikipedia page you used for your gravitational singularity quotes and found interesting things there. For one, they also state that the infinite cannot exist in reality but in mathematics. In talking about singularities Cons wiki source also says this: "Equations for these physical theories predict that the rate of change of some quantity becomes infinite or increases without limit." This is not quantifying anything in reality at current time as being infinite. Rather it is quantifying things that exist in mathematics (rate of change) in a potential infinite (ever expanding but with a finite and absolute beginning).In using your first quote for a singularity: “A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter." Fortunately on the same page it goes into defining these curvatures that create infinites. “Solutions to the equations of general relativity or another theory of gravity (such as supergravity), often result in encountering points where the metric blows up to infinity. However, many of these points are in fact completely regular. Moreover, the infinities are merely a result of using an inappropriate coordinate system at this point.” [2] It is showing that the measurement of space (metrics) can become zero. These measurements are the mathematics of defining a negative. When mass is condensed so much to where there is no space between them they have an infinite density in that they cannot be condensed farther. But these measurements of metrics are not measurements of physical realities, e.g. an infinite amount of actual mass. This shows that these quantities are just mathematical infinites in the measuring of the distance of space given an infinite amount of time for space-time to expand or contract. No actual infinite of something exists in reality, just mathematics.Your second definition is talking about the gravitational singularity and how at the center of a black hole the space-time curvature will spiral into itself infinitely. This would create an infinitely dense singularity. Matter itself cannot be infinitely dense in relation to itself as a single particle, as it cannot be broken down past a certain point. The quantum particles are the known most elementary form of matter and if broken down farther they don’t exist. The space-time curvature may be infinite in its mathematical progress into itself, but the matter caught up into it is very finite. Conclusion Con built his argument on two concepts. 1. God has incoherent attributes, and specifically the idea of being omniscient is incoherent with itself. 2. Positive arguments for God’s existence are false. Specifically in this debate the argument of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I showed how God does not have incoherent attributes in simply giving the proper definition of the words used in describing his attributes. These incoherent attribute arguments are simply elementary understandings of the philosophical definitions, and are easily refuted as I did with the truth in their real meanings. I gave positive evidence for God in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Con gave some rebuttals, however I refuted all of them and the Kalam, in this debate, holds logically sound. I also showed how the Kalam gives us certain attributes of God by the very nature of being a causer of the universe. In light of breaking Con’s two concepts for showing how God doesn’t exist, I have won this debate and provided solid evidence for the existence of God. Thank you Con for a fun debate. Happy voting!Sources:[1] What is Occam's Razor?Updated 1997 by Sugihara Hiroshi. Original by Phil Gibbs 1996. http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au...[2] Gravitational Singularity Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org...