Logic Analysis pt.II- These arguments disprove the existence of God

My voters, I'm sorry you are having to slog through all the irrelevant issues that Con seems to want to press. Please don't let him distract you. If this were a more formal debate, Con would have already lost because of his lack of Topicality. He's the one that chose the resolution; he's the one that defined God, and we see that he's also the one who spent hundreds of words in round two talking about everything else. In round three, he did manage to lightly touch on the issue at hand, so I will cover those first: 0) "My opponent is playing semantics..." Con said this twice, so I feel it needs addressing specifically. As I understand this phrase, Con is claiming that I "disagree on the definitions of a word (or several words) essential to formulating the claim at issue." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) My opponent defined "God" and I accepted his definition, "disprove" which I accepted, and "exist" which I also accepted. I have accepted every definition that he has presented. On the contrary, Con is playing semantics with himself. Here in round three, he tries to *change* his definition of God so that it only requires that He create "the universal energy." I'm sorry Con, you can't redefine your God at your whim, three rounds into the debate. 1) Con says that I "cannot disprove the Law of Conservation of Energy." Why would I want to? It helps prove my argument! God cannot have created energy, therefore there cannot be a God who created *everything*. 2) """ [Pro] is stating that God cannot have created "everything" because God cannot create himself. He is ignoring, however, that outside of energy being a constant- everything else exists. Everything else came into existence through the concentration of non-created energy (because energy cannot be created). """ Finally, we see that Con has understood my argument, and it is important to note that he agrees with me! Both here and in section B (which I have below) he explicitly says that there are things that his God could not possibly have created, therefore his God could not possibly exist. His initial definition didn't say, "God created everything else" or "God created everything except energy." He said, God created *everything*. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As for the rest of con's argument, I will go ahead and note it below, but only to show that it has nothing to do with the resolution or my proof. A: "If God is the source of this energy, and God is not a creation, then his energy follows the laws of the Universe." Either Con's God exists, or it doesn't. In order for it to exist, it *by definition* created itself. Above, Con tells us "If... God is not a creation..." I expect the audience can easily see that if God is not a creation, then he couldn't possibly have created himself. Con's God can't possibly exist. "... my opponent fails to examine the entire Law of Conservation of Energy which also states that energy can only be transferred." The above changes nothing. By Con's own admission, energy was not created, yet God was supposed to have created it (God created *everything*.) These statements cannot both hold! The rest of Con's comments in this section once again, deal with scientific claims about the origin of the universe. I say again, such claims are not at issue. B: """ "Self-creation is impossible." -Right. And that is why we rely on the Law of Conservation of Energy to prove that the origins of matter lie in one extreme source of energy. Science fails to explain that source. My opponent cannot logically present an argument that thousands of physicists, cosmologists, and other scientists have failed to present. If he CAN, he has not done so. """ Here Con has agreed with my contention that self-creation is impossible, but his God *requires* self-creation unless He doesn't exist. Again, I have to remind you, the audience, that what science fails to explain is not at issue, it is not my job to prove any particular science correct, my only job is to logically disprove the existence of his God. His only job is to rebut my disproof. Con isn't doing his job. C: """ This was brought up to show the relationship between the conundrum in science with explaining the origins of a universal energy source, and the consensus in religion that God is that energy source... """ I realize why Con brought up the argument, but it still seems to escape him that "the conundrum in science with explaining the origins of a universal energy source" is irrelevant. All that is relevant is his definition of God and my argument showing that his God cannot possibly exist. D: """ Actually what I discussed was the impossibility of proving what God consists of, and this lack of proof being related to the lack of explanation for the origin of physical mass. My opponent is arguing the strawman here, and completely missing my point. """ What is he rebutting here? When did I ever mention anything about what God may, or may not, be made of? I'm not missing Con's point, I am saying that what God consists of is irrelevant. I don't need to explain the origin of physical mass, all I needed to do with present a logical argument disproving your God. I did that and you are going on and on about nothing important. E: """ I never claimed God created himself. """ What Con claims is that God created *everything* and everything necessarily includes God, if he exists. Way back in round one, I told you what Con would do and now he is, Con is using the special pleading fallacy to try to exclude God from the set of everything. What justification does he give? I'll quote it below: """ """ That's right, absolutely no justification at all. What he says instead is: """ In fact I stipulated that God was the source of the universal energy of which the Big Bang was a result. """ Voters, take some time to review his round 1 argument, I'll wait... You will find that no where did he make this stipulation; no reference to "universal energy", no reference to the "Big Bang". What he *did* say was that God is "the beginning and source of everything," not just some paltry "universal energy" but *everything*. The fact is, Con didn't even use the phrase "universal energy" until this very argument! I'm sorry Con, you can't redefine your God at your whim, three rounds into the debate. ============================================================ The only way Con's God could have created *everything* that exists, is if his God doesn't exist. The voters who know this obvious fact will vote Pro... I hope Con can do a better job of staying on topic for round four...