God exists.

Alright, let me clear it up. I did specify the JudeoChristian God in my first speech, as that is the one that I am most familiar. But as a more general "God", I think this sums it up quite well. "God" (whoever it may be, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the God of the Old Testament, New Testament, Yaweh, Allah, what have you) is "a supernatual intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even when think of doing them) " [1] I'm not interested in holding my opponent to this definition of a theistic belief system, since that's not this debate. He's free to defend them if he wants, but it's up to him. But that is what a God is. You prefer this definition of a "god" to my opponent's of a "Supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe". My opponent has a pretty confusing justification after his definition, and it is never clear if he *is* or *isn't* defending a god who presides over human affairs. I propose that we *do* leave out impersonal gods like that of Deism, and just focus on the supernatural god of theism. It is pointless to talk about a god that means nothing in our lives. It is much more beneficial for everyone involved if we were to talk about a god that actually has a bearing on people today, or at least claims to. You prefer my definition of a god because that is the common usage of what it means to be "God. " You ask anyone on the street, and that's what they'll tell you is god. Also, I have an issue with my opponent's definition of Exists. There seem to be two separate definitions in there, and I think the one he intended to apply to the debate is the second part:"to have an actual or real being, whether material or spiritual" [2] But what does it mean to have an actual or real being? A quick search on Merriam Webster as to what it means to have a being is not helpful at all. The definition of being seems to be "the quality or state of having existence. " [3] Wait what? To exist is to have a being, and to be a being is to exist? That seems circular. Granted, a quick Google search isn't too helpful, since they all relate "being" and "exist" without really defining either one. But here's what Google's first response is when I put "define: exist" into the search bar: "have an existence, be extant" [4]. A little further down we see a definition that might help us out which is: existence: "In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses and persists independently without them. " That definition seems to work. It's clear and concise and it's something that intuitively makes sense. Something that exists is something that we can experience with our senses. Short, sweet and simple. The easiest way to define what "God" is was well to use a God we were Now then, with definitions out of the way, there is something else that must be determined here. How do you, as the voter, determine who wins the round? Well here's how. There's the burden of proof. My opponent has the burden of proof to show that a God exists, has an existence, a being. Bertrand Russel puts it quite well in his parable of the celestial teapot. "Many orthodox people speak as though it ere the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved , it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. " [5] So for me, the God is the teapot, and it is my opponent's job to prove his existence. Ok so what does my opponent present? He presents the Kalam Argument. The Kalam argument is very similar to Aquinas' proof of god's existence, which loosely states; "Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God. " [6] There are a few problems with this argument. A. It makes the unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to regress. Even if we allow my opponent to make this statement, that "God" is extant, there is no reason to believe him on that he is all powerful, all seeing, good, etc. My opponent in his definition says that "this god is all powerful" but how does the Kalam argument in any way justify this statement? Therefore, the God that he proposes is not sufficiently proven to exist by the Kalam argument. B. This doesn't fit under my definition either. There is no warrant that he listens to prayers, forgives sins, etc etc. C. The issue with my opponent's argument is all it does is label something as God. That doesn't prove God's existence. If I label my hand God, and I drop the cup I'm holding in it, does that mean that God dropped my cup? Merely labeling something is not enough to prove that something exists, and in fact calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst misleading D. What caused God? That's what I've got for my opponent on his argument. He hasn't met what it means to be God yet, and as such his proof is insufficient to prove God's existence. It's quite full of holes. It's holey. Sorry. Had to. ```````````````````````````````` But moving on. Why God most certainly does NOT exist: 1. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747 The Boeing 747 argument is that "the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747. "[7] Dawkins continues to say that this argument is also applied to the evolution of complex living bodies, where it intuitively seems to make sense at a first glance. I mean, you can't make a dog by randomly shuffling things around. At least that would be what at a first glance makes sense. However, God faces this same problem. Dawkins puts it quite well in saying that "however statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747. " That's if you believe the creationists. This *is* an argument against intelligent design, but also against God himself. If He is the supposed intelligent designer, then who designed him? If everything has a cause, what was His cause? The argument is turned on its head. That's all I've got for now, since again, the onus is on my opponent to show God's existence, not for me to prove he doesn't exist. Works Cited: [1] Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Print. [2]My opponent's Round one Speech [3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] . http://www.google.com... [5] Russell, 'Is there a God? ' (1952_, repr. in Russell (1997b). [6] Dawkins [7] Dawkins