God Exists

Preface:Science cannot disprove logic. B: The “Necessary Equine” and Friends “I have already pointed out multiple times that a 3 omni God’s existence is impossible” And I have refuted your arguments. I “lack imagination”, according to my opponent. Firstly, this is a new argument of his. Secondly, it is an old argument in theology. Anselm has already responded perfectly in Chapter VII: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu... VII Is it an “argument from ignorance” to say that no one can imagine a square circle? I would hope not. The reader is surely reasonable enough to realise why I don’t want to waste more characters here. “Pro resorts to ad hominem attacks first questioning my knowledge and now my ability to research a topic.”1. My insults have always been in addition to substantive demolitions of your points, not points themselves.2. I think what I’ve said has been proven to be true by the following: “we can easily imagine a world in which substance does not permit the type of extension necessary to allow for a Maximally Great Being, which would be impossible if such a MGB were necessary.” This is perhaps the worst attempt at reason in the debate. No, that substitution does NOT work. Do you want to know why? Because God IS NOT AN EXTENDED THING. GOD DOES NOT HAVE EXTENSION. PRETTY MUCH NO ONE HAS ARGUED THAT GOD IS EXTENDED. I want to say it again: GOD. IS. NOT. CORPOREAL. C: “Proving” Necessity and Possibility All that must be said here is that induction may be faulty, but deduction is ALWAYS bulletproof. Logic don’t give a single darn ‘bout your observations, partner. E: The Omnipotence Paradox I do not redefine anything. Millennia of theology uses omnipotence in the way I have. The meaning is implied by the word, much like the word “table” implies certain things. I did not change or add anything – nothing about my usage was unprecedented. The reader is smart enough to know this. D: The Reverse Ontological Argument My opponent proves, yet again, his lack of comprehension. It is AN ACCEPTED LOGICAL FACT that, in S5 logic, the possibility of a necessity resolves to a necessity. This is no secret. A teapot… is not necessary. Section Two Note how my opponent does not even TRY to engage with my original argument. Rather than admit that he simply does not want to respond to my Second Proof, he offers random odds and ends to give the illusion of refutation. This will not fly, and, since this is the last round... my opponent is out of luck. Even if I lost on all other points, Proof Two alone would fulfil my burden, and it has been carried by either apathy or incorrigibility. “He drops my argument that I have mentioned multiple times.” This is a flat-out lie. There are two “arguments” this line could refer to – that there could be “lesser” or “many” Gods, rather than one God, or that the Big Bang explains everything. In the last round, I dealt with both elsewhere, which is why I noted that… I had dealt with both elsewhere. He goes on to simply restate those arguments, even though I had previously dealt with them elsewhere. Section Three1. “Why not x? Pro has no answer.” Ignoring the fact that I EXPLICITLY answered. 2. My opponent says that cause-and-effect may not always hold. The problem is that it must, or else we simply would not be able to speak about those cases where it does not. As Wittgenstein said, “The limits of my language are the limits of my world”, and, wisely, “whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.” The issue is not mere temporality. It is causality. If the Universe is self-caused, then… it is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (my prior justifications would apply). Even in the case of Pantheism, my God carries. A: Omnipotence My opponent has dropped ALL of my responses. He certainly thought these points were relevant when he thought they weighed in his favour. Now that I’ve shown him wrong, apparently not… B: Omniscience I never claimed that these three subsections were meant to establish existence. It was just to show that my God, in a pre-emptive defence against your attack, does fulfil the first round’s definition. C: Omnibenevolence My opponent expels onto the page a list of evil. I fully admit to the evil. I am contending that it is possible for this evil to exist for a reason. The point, Monsieur, was to show that there is no necessary contradixion between the existence of evil and the existence of an omnibenevolent God. This is all I have to do in order to defang your argument; if evil and God may coexist, pointing to evil does not rule out God. Remember, my opponent must show why God is not POSSIBLE, not merely unlikely or unsavoury. I have offered the mechanism by which this possibility is to be preserved. Proof One: I’m not sure why my opponent waited till round three to have a systematic crack at my first argument. Weird. 1. This has been said again, but my opponent was not listening. I did not “define” anything into existence any more than the geometrician “defines” triangles into having three sides. Triangles, from their nature, have three sides, not by definition. The definition only labels accurately certain truths and relations in the world. 2. A MGB may very well be impossible. There is no way to know this. Even if it were not impossible this does not mean that it is possible. 3. “his argument works for maximally existent unicorns” I have destroyed this claim. 4. So the reader is perfectly clear: the Law of the Excluded Middle is what my opponent attacks here. One of the most fundamental laws of logic. His argument is, basically, that there is a difference between propositions about the world and propositions about beliefs about the world. That’s… completely irrelevant at worst, and helpful to me at best. For that distinction is EXACTLY why my opponent’s argument fails. In reading my point, he equivocates between the two types of propositions, believing that I am talking, at one point about the world, and at another about belief. Since I did not once mention belief, and explicitly cited the law of logic I relied upon, his counter dies. 5. One does not ask someone to offer evidence for the triangle’s three angles. Loose Ends: I’ve moved some things around to keep like with like. I want to make this absolutely unambiguous to the reader: where I have said “I have already done [x] and proven [y]”, I obviously imply that my points work to support each other. The cohesiveness of my system survives unless my opponent is able to decisively debunk all of my prongs. I do not think he has dealt with even one, much less the multitude. -- “A being created by another can clearly be better and this does little to establish his case anyway.” Absolutely not. Reader, consider but one question: whence does the additional greatness in the created come from, if not from the creator? And if it does come from the creator, surely it cannot be added? -- Given that this wipes out a large portion of my opponent’s case, I URGE THE READER TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS SECTION. “science has given us an explanation for for all of life and matter so a creator god is not necessary.” Contrary to what you seem to think, science does not “prove the impossibility of God”. I accept the Big Bang. I accept that evolution occurred and is occurring. None of this is relevant, for God could have, and indeed must have (see Proof Three), set these things into motion. My opponent has failed to do the work of going from “Science is accurate” to “Science being accurate shows the impossibility of God”. IN FACT, HE ADMITS THAT HE DOES NOT INTEND TO. “I have in no way said that some form of creation is at odds with evolution.” Then evolution does not make God impossible, which makes God possible, which means, since God is a necessary being, God necessarily exists. This, plus Proof One (which my opponent has only seriously attacked by attacking the possibility of God, WINS ME THE DEBATE.