Earth is flat, so there must be a God.

Thanks Pro for accepting the terms and definitions.Pro was unpleasantly surprised that I defined the terms in such a way...oh well.It might be a good idea to include definitions for useful terms of the resolution.Hence my actions.*Earth That Is Flat*Pro's attempt to indicate locations of the earth's surface without hills ironically proves these locations to have hills.A hill is any "naturally raised area of land, not as high as a mountain."http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...1. Pro's 1st location, Kansas, has a surface topography of .9997, with 1.0 being perfectly flat, according to Pro's own source.Well, while .0003 may not seem like a lot, to a small creature, this would in fact be a hill...it's just a .0003 incline or raised area of land.Look at Kansas's inherent incline from Pro's source... This area is not without hills.Also, a pancake is far from flat; upon close inspection, pancakes are generally plateau-like with craters strewn throughout its surface...hardly without raised areas.Just check Pro's source on the matter.2. Pro's 2nd location, The Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia, isn't flat at all, and it shouldn't surprise readers that Pro didn't include a source for this salt flat, because said source would be damning to Pro's point.So I will."Using...Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, a team of scientists has found that Earth's largest salt flat is rougher than expected...although the salar appears to be perfectly flat to the eye, by applying an innovative method of error correction to their data, the team was able to identify broad features ranging in height from a few centimeters to half a meter and extending over distances of tens of kilometers or more."http://www.gpsdaily.com...The title of the article is "The Hills And Valleys Of Earth's Largest Salt Flat."So, this effectively negates this location from being "without hills."3. Even if Pro *could* have shown these areas to be perfectly flat, it still wouldn't affirm that the surface of the earth is without hills; to reach the conclusion that the surface of the earth is without hills because some parts of the earth's surface is without hills is called a fallacy of composition.http://www.nizkor.org...By assuming that something true of the part is therefore true of the whole is fallacious, and should be dismissed when considering the resolution.*Therefore, Creator*Pro says:"I'm sure my opponent may be wondering at this time about how this may prove a Creator."My response:Yeah, and after reading Pro's 2nd round, this is still the case.Pro inquires:"How is it, when the earth is (supposedly) spinning at 1,000 mph, do such large expanses exist that are perfectly flat?"My response:Well, Pro, you haven't shown anything to be perfectly flat, so it may be the case that there are no large expanses that are truly flat.Pro continues:"Logic and common sense tell us that any object spinning at such speed will exhibit centrifugal force, especially at the equator of a planet, and could never be flat."My response:Right, hence why the surface of the earth isn't without hills.Pro concludes:"Our creator has countered this centrifugal force, and flattened out these many areas of earth."My response:The creator, who Pro fails to identify/mechanistically explain, has incompletely flattened out Pro's indicated locations on earth?I'm baffled.Pro wants us to believe that since the earth has quasi-flat areas, that some creator made it that way.Well, the universe wasn't created, because creation is itself a temporal process, and time began at the beginning of the universe; time is expressed as space, which also began with the universe, so a creator *could not* have preceded its creation without spacetime, and this makes creation of the universe impossible, and, by proxy, god in this debate.Pro's position has been negated on both fronts.1. earth =/= flat2. god =/= must be