"Does God Exist," Redux - A-ThiestSocialist has failed to prove that God exists

"I was under the original interpretation that you were going to fill the void of my original opponent, but since that is not your interpretation of the resolution (and you are the author) I will continue under your guidelines." Sorry, but the topic quite clearly states "A-ThiestSocialist has failed to prove that God exists." This has most definitely been, right from the start, a debate regarding the validity of your original arguments. It is NOT about the existence of God, but rather whether or not those arguments are valid. "The theist world view is that created the earth, and created man, and that God exists. The atheist world view is that the world is simply matter in motion, being that there is no tangible cause or God to the world." Assuming that there was supposed to be a "God" before "created" in that first sentence, it's a fair definition of the theistic point of view. The definition of the atheistic perspective is somewhat lacking, though; an atheist is not one who says that there is no cause for things, simply that whatever the cause is, it is NOT a conscious, supernatural entity; a "deity," if you will. Simply put, the atheist denies the existence of God. Why complicate it with meaningless phrases such as "matter in motion"? I have to wonder where my opponent came up with that phrase; generally, it is traceable back to some writings of Thomas Paine on deism vs. atheism, but Paine's writings had some problems as well. He was clearly no physicist, and the "matter in motion" argument which he presented was invalid. So either please show exactly why "matter in motion" is an important aspect of anything relevant to this discussion, or let's set it aside, OK? But whether or not the definition of the atheistic "world view" is correct is really a trivial matter; again, the topic of the discussion is the validity of a specific set of arguments. I am not required to show valid alternatives in order to show those arguments invalid; an invalid argument is an invalid argument, whether or not a valid alternative has been shown to exist. My opponent again fails to address to flaws in the "intangibles" argument; his claim was that the "atheist world view" did not allow for "intangibles," or "intangible absolutes," and that this claim was somehow evidence that the theistic view was the correct one. However, his simple assertion that atheists do not allow of intangibles does not make this claim so, and he completely fails to give any evidence or reasoning to back up this claim. That's not surprising, since the claim is NOT true; clearly, the question of "theism" does not enter into the question of whether or not one "believes in" intangibles. An obvious counter-example is the existence of emotions, or even thought or consciousness itself; clearly such things exist, are intangible, and are accepted as existing by atheists and theists alike. We also all accept the existence of other intangibles, such as, say, radio waves (which clearly cannot be directly perceived by humans, and yet there is no doubt of their existence). In fact, it would appear that the ONLY intangible not accepted by the atheist is God, to which we can only note: "well, DUH..." But my opponent seems to continue to rest a great deal of his argument on this, as in: "The atheist world view does not allow for these intangibles to be consisted of anything else besides human creation or thought, or physical matter." First, we note that this is again an unsupported assertion making claims about the supposed "atheist world view." But even if it is true, what examples of such "intangibles," which are NOT created by human (or the equivalent) thought, or physical matter, does my opponent wish to offer, OTHER THAN the example of God himself - which, of course, is the question at hand? Keep in mind that any example offered would have to be something which IS widely recognized as actually existing; an appeal to examples which could be as fictional as the atheist believes God to be clearly isn't going to work. "Next, to answer the random argument distorted and proposed by my opponent, on things requiring a creator. This is true, but essentially irrelevant. The argument doesn't simply say that everything requires a creator and it has to be a theist worldview explanation, the argument calls that the theist worldview stands because of the impossibility of the contrary." How wonderfully circular this is! "The theist worldview stands because of the impossibility of the contrary" depends on the "contrary" (atheism) being actually shown to be impossible - but in the argument in question, its "impossibility" DOES depend on the notion that a creator is required for all things. Otherwise, it would again reduce to mere assertion, with no logical basis whatsoever. But since we've already disposed of the "all things require a creator" argument, there isn't a logical basis here anyway. "To demonstrate and test the logical validity of something, or to disprove a proof of examples, you need to provide counter examples." - Nonsense. A logical argument stands or falls on its own; if you show that any of the assumptions are incorrect, or that the logic used to derive the conclusion from those assumptions is incorrect, the argument fails, whether or not an alternative explanation can be offered at the same time. In other words, we wind up with a situation in which we say, "We don't necessarily know what the answer IS, but we know it ISN'T this..." We do not, for instance, know exactly how gravity works. But if I were to make the assertion that objects attract other objects by throwing out tiny little ropes and then pulling them in, it is simple enough to show that assertion wrong even if the true nature of gravity is NOT given as part of that argument. "Next, I previously addressed the uncreated entity argument that God does not require a creator because he is not a thing" - but again, this is simply a way of completely arbitrarily ruling "God" out of the class of entities which require creation. Actually, the notion of an "uncreated" God is far more problematic than the notion of other things, including the universe itself, being "uncreated," since of course God would have to be of a higher order of complexity (and therefore more unlikely to exist "just because") than anything within his supposed creation, or even the entirety of that creation itself. My opponent would also clearly like to explain everything away by simply saying that I "don't understand" his arguments (with the implicit "but they're correct, anyway, trust me on this!"). On the contrary, his arguments are all to readily understood - again, they are simply not logically valid. The example he himself gives at this point shows this: "The argument isn't as you boil it down. It's saying that for logic to exist, God has to exist, so to argue and use logic, you're already assuming God's existence." Do you honestly not see the problem with this? The statement that "for logic to exist, God has to exist" is a COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION. It does not logically follow from any accepted assumption or fact which has been previously presented. Note that I would be JUST as justified (which is to say, not at all) in arguing that "for logic to exist, God can't exist, since God is a bundle of logical contradictions - therefore God doesn't exist!" The argument re "morals" is again based on an unsupported assertion - that there is such a thing as "absolute morality" (and therefore, supposedly, God exists). The problems with this re the nature of God as conventionally described have already been covered, so I see little to be gained in repeating it here. In closing, my opponent's responses to date continue to show little more than unsupported assertion and highly questionable "logic." There can at this point be no question re the validity of his original arguments - they're simply wrong.