Does Ohrmazd exist

Thanks to " Inquisitive " for his reply. I would ask " Inquisitive " that in his future replies to write in paragraphs, as it is easier to read and flows better for anyone who is interested in this topic! Thanks...─────────────────────One. Cosmogony───────────────────── " Inquisitive " begins his response by saying that it is false to say that everything which begins to exist has a cause, and says that the believer doesn't follow his own rule as he believes God is uncaused! However, Inquisitive is mistaken here ─ for not only do theists hold that everything which " begins to exist " has a cause ( Ohrmazd never began to exist ), but Ohrmazd's existence is explained in the necessity of his own nature. We know this because Ohrmazd has all " intrinsic maxima " of " great-making properties " as Christians argue. Ohrmazd thus has the maximal " necessity " which is greater than " contingency "! So, not only is Ohrmazd uncaused, but he needn't a cause through his necessity.Inquisitive then misunderstands my point about imagination and possibility. I can imagine breathing in outer space, even if it is impossible for me to do so. So, just because I can imagine inhaling and exhaling in the cosmos, does not therefore mean that I can do it. Points about " the Matrix " and other " brain-in-a-vat " scenarios completely miss my point here. This was meant to argue against Hume's equivocation of imagination and possibility. Indeed, it is ridiculous to claim that things can appear out of nowhere, without a cause. Even appeals to the " Copenhagen model " of quantum mechanics grant that virtual particles first require a vacuum! Most of " Inquisitive " responses afterwards are bare assertions, or repetitions of his earlier points, both of which miss my point completely. I would remind " inquisitive " that the first premise states that which " begins to exist " has a cause, due to contingency, and thus Ohrmazd is immune to this, even if he still requires an explanation, which is his necessity.─────────────────────Two. Morals─────────────────────" Inquisitive "s style of line-by-line debating is incompatible with my style, as he seems to mark off every one of my points as irrelevant, without first understanding the structure of assertion and then support for that assertion. For instance, he writes off " we all know morals exist " as unwarranted ( and irrelevant ─ which is a bizarre claim indeed, as that line is absolutely central to the moral argument that he is attempting to attack... ) So in the future, " Inquisitive ," and readers, please stay cognisant of the structure of my debating style... If " Inquisitive " denies that the Nazi's who created the Holocaust were wrong, then he is in the vast minority, as almost every conscience would have a deep aversion to acts of genocide similar to the Holocaust. Under my opponent's view, we have no reason for law, or justice, or any other system, as he does not even recognise the moral wrongness of large-scale murder. It is reasonable to declare that the Nazi's were morally wrong, and I think most of the readers here will agree." Inquisitive " then tries to attack the Christian's who feed the hungry with a statement about pedophilic rape. Not only does this misunderstand my broad claim about feeding the hungry being generally a morally good act, but he provides an example of an act ( pedophilic rape ) which he believes to contradict this claim, and thus view as morally wrong. So, " Inquisitive " not only misunderstood, yet again, the point of this claim ( to provide an example of a morally good act ) by responding with a specific counter-example in the vast minority of charity work, but he himself provides an example of a morally wrong act.Afterwards, " Inquisitive " attempts to attack my line attacking cultural relativism by declaring that if Aztec scriptures were the source of morality, then I would be wrong, and I wholeheartedly agree with his point. However, we have no reason to believe that the Aztecs were morally right in their sacrificial acts, nor do we have reason to believe that Aztec sciprtures are a source of morality. Rather, the source of morality that " Inquisitive " himself abides by is our conscience, which is the universal mental phenomenon I am referring to." Inquisitive " then, yet again, provides examples of those who he believes to have committed morally wrong acts -- Nazi's, Al-Qeda, and the Truman administration... If they are morally wrong, then my opponent contradicts one of his very first statements, that the " we don't " know the Nazi's to be morally wrong in their creation of the Holocaust!" Inquisitive " then attacks my line of " morality exists in the heart " and responds with morality existing in the " mind and reasoning " to which I agree. The " heart " here does not refer to the organ, but rather to our conscience, which determines the moral rightness or wrongness of any act. " Inquisitive " also agrees that morality exists as reasoned. As such, he has not made clear his stance on morals, but rather attempts to attack every one of my points, whether he agrees with them or not ─ I would ask " Inquisitive " if, in his next round, he clarify his stance on the nature of morals. And then, " Inquisitive " declares that Stalin would not agree with my statement about intiution and morals, to which I would reply that Stalin is therefore wrong. I could just as easily say, " well, I do not think most moral philosophers would agree with you. " This is simply an appeal to authority and has no value in the discussion.Lastly, since " Inquisitive " denies that Ohrmazd is the best explanation for morals, if they exist, then I'd ask " Inquisitive " to provide a superior, naturalistic explanation.─────────────────────Three. In Conclusion...─────────────────────In conclusion, my opponent misunderstood the arguments in cosmogony and morals, and provided a rather shallow response to each, especially contradicting himself in the morals case. I have shown that these two arguments are sound, and that " Inquisitive "'s objections are false.