God exists

=Rebuttals=R1. SomethingIt's really hard to say what Pro is arguing here. He says that even if there was absolute nothing, it still wouldn't prevent god from "creating himself". It's logical contradiction. Nothing in this case means absence of anything including potentiality or ability to create anything, even god. He then argue that he didn't really mean nothing, but nothing plus god. He says that "before" universe only god existed. How he knows it? I don't know. It's just wild assertion unsupported by any evidence. I can claim that multidimensional aliens were there. My claim has as much substance as the one of Pro. R2. Gödel's argumentMy opponent openly admits that he indeed treats a link to long pdf as independent argument. It's patently absurd. He forgot that he is the one debating here, not authors of this pdf. Because no arguments was presented in any round, at best we just saw few axioms and definitions, I'm not obliged by any standard of debate to respond to it. However I'll do it anyway. As you remember in my previous round I was arguing that it's not enough for argument to be formally correct if you want to draw any real conclusions regarding actual world. It also has to be sound. In his response to that my opponent quotes passage which states that. .. Gödel's proof is correct. How is it rebuttal to what I wrote? No one doubts Gödel's proof is formally valid, after all we're talking about great mathematician. My opponent basically conflates words "valid" or "correct" with "sound". Again, look at my proof:P1. God doesn't exist or 2+2=5P2. 2+2=/=5C. God doesn't existIt's called disjunctive syllogism [1] and it's valid argument too. It proves without ambiguity that god doesn't exist. Pro basically claims that it's the only condition we need in order to draw a conclusion regarding actual word. Because we have two equally valid and correct proofs, one against, and on for the existence of god, Pro must claim that god both totally exists, and doesn't exists at all at the same time. It's logical contradiction and it clearly indicates that Pro's reasoning doesn't fly here. R3. WatchmakerOnce again my opponent make assertion instead of argument. He claims that god used evolution to form modern life. Fine, I claim we live in matrix and aliens just uploaded animal NPCs. Both our claims are equally baseless. R4. JesusMy opponents argue that Luke is so reliable that we should trust his every word. That's nonsense. Luke was not a first hand witness, his gospel was written decades (probably 50 years[2][3]) after Jesus' death. It alone makes him hardly reliable on this topic. His gospel also contains supernatural events (which is not a big surprise) that violate currently known laws of physics therefore rendering him even less reliable. Under no circumstances we prefer historical testimony over contemporary known laws of physics. We never say "look, science tells us that Earth is a spherical, but according to this testimony its flat, therefore we should rethink our physics". Why should we use special pleading with respect to Luke's Gospel? We know that dead people don't come back to life. Human brain starts dying 3 minutes out of oxygen deprivation [4] and after 3 days there is not much left to revive. Pro also uses work of historian Phlegon. Unfortunately, Phlegon was born long after Jesus death[5], his chronicles were probably written over 100 years after Jesus. So again it's not reliable "source". As we can see the case for resurrection is rather poor. To top it all, aliens are more plausible explanation for resurrection. What If Jesus was a highly advanced cyborg designed to fool us into believing he is a god? Existence of aliens is compatible with laws of physics plus we know advanced organisms like to make fun of others (humans and funny cat videos etc). =Defending my arguments=A1. Problem of informationAs you remember I was arguing that if god existed we should expect there to be a one very clear, neat and perfect guidebook which would lead us throughout our lives. I think it's very reasonable prediction. After all god is caring, plus he judges us after we die and whether we believe in him or not is considered to be an important factor during this judgment. I claimed that nothing that we know indicates such state of affairs, there are many books, they are incompatible with each other, most of them contain contradictions, anti scientific claims, and dubious moral guidelines. Also religions varies very much depending on cultural and geographical differences. That's precisely what we would expect if religions were man made. My opponent didn't refute any of these statements, namely he didn't explain dubious moral teachings in the bible, nor it's contradictions, nor it's anti scientific claims. He basically admits that indeed there is nothing about Bible to suggest that its authors were divinely inspired. He says that god's day are not our days yet he does not provide any specific exchange rate. He says that many verses are metaphorical, I agree that proves my point, why would god prefer to use metaphors, linguistic technique so susceptible to misinterpretation, instead of clear and easily understandable language? Isn't it true that god wants to establish relation with his creation? Isn't it true that god wants us to follow his commandments? Isn't it true that god wants us to live in accordance to Bible? If so, why he did literally everything to make us doubt in his guidebook? God which doesn't provide any trustworthy tips on how to live, yet judge us accordingly after we die is an evil and unjust god. Not what Pro argues for. God which doesn't provide any tips or rules and doesn't judge us is an indifferent non intervening. Deistic god. Again not the kind of god we're discussing here. A2. Evil and gratuitous sufferMy opponent say that because Adam and Eve screwed the things up the entire universe has to suffer. Wow, just wow. What kind of justice is this? I don't know. Pro probably forgot that the key point of my argument is the existence of gratuitous suffer. Animals don't have souls yet as I proved earlier they are capable of suffering. Therefore their suffer will never be gratified. Gratuitous suffer is incompatible with idea of all loving and just god. My opponent doesn't really address this point. He merely states that it's human fault. It still doesn't explain how on earth is it right to punish innocent creatures for human sin. It doesn't explain why god would put a tree of knowledge in Eden, it looks almost as if god wanted people to sin so he could punish and judge them later on. It doesn't explain what kind of gratification animals get after death. Are we supposed to believe that all loving and all powerful being created animals only to let them suffer for long years and then annihilate them? I stated that if Pro believes only humans have souls, he has to confront a hard problem. At which moment during evolution humans got soul? Pro believes in evolution and he believes Adam and Eve existed. These are both incompatible beliefs. Adam and Eve couldn't be first humans for very simple reason. Their human parents existed earlier, and possessed all human emotions, consciousness, awareness etc. At some step as we go back in history we arrive at a moment when soulless parents give birth to child with soul. It means that even though they were humans to the same extent as their offspring they didn't even have a chance to be redeemed. In other to repair it Pro would have to reject evolution or Christian doctrine of soul. It disproves Christian god once and for all. I think I addressed and refuted all Pro's arguments. On the contrast he wasn't able to address mines. Therefore vote Con! This is the last round, my opponent can't make further arguments or rebuttals. [1] . http://tinyurl.com...[2] . http://tinyurl.com...[3] . http://tinyurl.com...[4] . http://tinyurl.com...[5] . http://tinyurl.com...