To Affirm God's Existence is to Deny Him as Creator

I would like to get some minor things out of the way first, so I can then concentrate on what I consider the more important arguments in this debate. Pro says "Whether or not God has a cause is irrelevant to my argument. " & "If it is granted to your argument that uncaused things exist, it still does nothing for your case since God would not have caused whatever existence he is in. " Oh but it is relevant and it does alot for my case, I will go into more detail on this later on. Pro says " Any amount of existence he has is sacrificed for any amount of creation he makes. They are mutually excluding. " How is God creating something a sacrifice of Gods existence ? Now unto the more important area's. .. .. .. .. Pro says "If God did not create all things which exist then he did not create existence. I agree with Pro, uncased things can't be created. Now if Pro is trying to claim that because God didn't create some part of existence (the parts that have no cause), that means God has not created any part of existence, then Pro is committing the fallacy of composition. A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part) [1] Consider these arguments. .. .. .. 1) America has not created any Japanese cars 2) Therefore America has not created any cars 1) God has not created things that have an uncaused existence 2) Therefore God has not created anything that has existence Pro asks me "Please point out where and how I made an implication of existence depending on causation. " I refer Pro to round 2 where they said "To create reality is to not be in reality. " If something is created, then it has a cause. It is implied here that reality only applies to things that have a cause, thus things that don't have a cause (example God) aren't part of reality. But why should we accept that Pro hidden premise that only things that have a cause are things that count towards existence ? "Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). " [2] Pro commits equivocation when using the term "reality". Consider where Pro says "To create reality is to not be in reality. " Pro uses reality to only mean things that have a cause when they say. .. . "To create reality" then even within the same sentence refers to reality as being the sum total of things that exist both caused and uncaused where they say "is to not be in reality. In order to not allow for this double meaning of the term reality consider this argument. .. .. .. Type 1 Reality = Things that exist that don't have a cause Type 2 Reality = Things that exist that have a cause 1) God created type 2 Reality 2) Therefore God is not part of type 2 reality But this still leaves the option of God existing as a type 1 Reality. (Things that exist that don't have a cause) Existence = All that exists = Type 1 reality + Type 2 reality With the logical fallacies exposed in Pro arguments, this negates Pros claim that to affirm Gods existence is to deny him as creator I ask that your vote go to Con. I thank Pro for instigating this debate, till next time Freedo. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...