Resolved: God Exists

Thank you Con for that response. == Rebuttals == According to Con, physicist Alex Filippenko has shown that random quantum fluctuations can produce energy and therefore, the universe. However, upon examining Con's own source of this information, that statement is not quite accurate. Let's look at a few quotes from Con's article: "Filippenko stressed that such statements are not attacks on the existence of God. Saying the Big Bang "" a massive expansion 13.7 billion years ago that blew space up like a gigantic balloon "" could have occurred without God is a far cry from saying that God doesn't exist." "'I don't think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God,' Filippenko said." "'If we're after the ultimate origin of everything, however, invoking the laws of physics doesn't quite do the trick. It may get us one step closer, but it doesn't take us all the way,' Filippenko said." "The question, then, is, 'Why are there laws of physics?'" [Filippenko] said. "And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'" "'The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now,' [Filippenko] added, 'one that we may never be able to solve.'" "The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics." So, quite contrary to my opponent's claim, Filippenko is fraught with self-doubt about the theological significance of these findings. He essentially agrees with my earlier rebuttal - that even if the laws of physics created the universe, that still demands an explanation for where the laws of physics came from. Indeed, it's quite possible that God used physics as his mechanism of creation. Filippenko even goes so far as to admit that a "divine spark was whatever produced the laws of physics." Con has yet to offer an explanation for this and thus my argument remains largely unanswered. M-theory: Continuing to say that M-theory and its associated models show that the Big Bang cannot be caused by external forces is almost meaningless. As I stated before, the "M" in M-theory stands for "mystery" because no one knows if its true. Furthermore, no scientists agree on what M-theory really is or which parts are actually truth. It's an experimental theory, and it therefore cannot even be considered as a valid argument. Even if it were true, we've seen that according to Con's own sources it still doesn't disprove God's existence. I'm still waiting for Con to provide this "rational evidence" they keep referring to that suggests there should not be a God. Omnipotence paradox: Unless Con is willing to admit that I soundly and unquestionably defeated their argument here, then I did not refute it. By definition, refuting is actually showing something to be false, while rebutting is merely attempting to do so. [1] I believe what I wrote qualifies as a rebuttal. I did not assume the existence of God, I assumed that if He exists, then he is necessarily omnipotent, as Con's own definitions imply. With this argument, Con is attacking the existence of omnipotence, not the existence of God. I quote: "Thus, omnipotence cannot exist." I fail to see how me writing "God must be omnipotent by definition" is any different than Con writing "If God exists, he is omnipotent." The difference is, at best, merely semantic. As I stated in the last round, Con's whole argument for showing why omnipotence is impossible relies on self-refuting logic, sophistry, and linguistic tricks. Is this really supposed to be considered a strong argument? The strongest evidence for this is that the definition of omnipotence - the ability to perform any action - cannot include actions that limit the ability to perform any action. Such allowances are self defeating and render Con's definition meaningless. Con says God either can or cannot - I agree. God CAN perform any action. God therefore CANNOT limit his own ability to perform any action. These two statements have the same meaning - because refusing to limit unlimited power is allowing it to remain unlimited (say that 10 times fast, lol), which preserves the definition of omnipotence. Omniscience Paradox: I believe my rebuttal still stands. Con cannot prove that contingencies actually exist. Con cannot prove that changes in the space-time continuum are truly uncertain events. It is entirely possible that a supreme power is guiding these changes, and that there are no possible ways for them to occur apart from the ways in which they actually did. The only way to prove otherwise would be to go back in time and observe the same event occurring differently than it previously did. The shared BoP demands that Con show proof that Quantum Mechanic Wave Function is truly contingent. Cosmic Question: God can be eternal because, if he exists, he is a spiritual being and not a physical one. He is not an object. Gravity is a physical property. Once again, this is kind of a silly question because if God was created, then whatever created him is actually God. So this question doesn't disprove God. Moral Authority: Con makes the claim that morality is relative (subjective). In accordance with the shared BoP, I would ask them to show proof of this claim before I respond. As things stand, Con has given no reason to accept this as true. == Remarks == I firmly believe that you cannot 100% prove God's existence or non-existence. For example, if God exists then he would be supremely perfect, supremely powerful, and supremely knowledgeable. Humans, on the other hand, are extremely flawed and limited in all three categories. Therefore, even if God did exist it would be impossible to use such a limited perspective to perceive, define, and understand such a supreme being. Even if omnipotence or omniscience seems impossible within the confines of human logic - it is entirely possible that some additional realm of logic exists beyond the capability of human understanding in which the divine operates. This is why I proposed we seek to prove which scenario is most LIKELY (see round 1 for definition of likely). I have shown evidence that there is a 10^10(123) to 1 chance that the universe did NOT occur by random chance. I have also shown that the past cannot be eternal and therefore something had to cause the universe/laws of physics to begin. I have also argued that all the evidence we have available suggests that life cannot come from non-life, but evidence does prove that life can come from other life, and consciousness from consciousness. I hope my opponent will take the time to offer a response to these arguments in the next round. Thanks for a great debate so far! [1] http://www.vocabulary.com...