existence of god

When I first saw what my opponent's next round was, I put a scowl on my face and watched ten minutes of Game of Thrones and thought about what to reply with. After seeing Joffrey's purple face (if you catch my allusion), I imagined my opponent in a similar position: this made me happy. You see, Con has no sense of humor, which is a sad prospect for me and the other fun-lovers of DDO. Apart from his poor attitude, my opponent has also done a poor job on his rebuttals, practically disregarding two of my arguments and focusing a disproportional amount of time on the blandest one. I will first provide my own rebuttals and then go on to rebut my opponent's rebuttals. REBUTTALS1st Point: PerfectionThe fatal flaw in this argument is the assumption of an objective perfection. This whole argument rides on the idea that the world (or existence) isn't perfect. I combat this by saying that existence is perfect, in the eyes of God at least. True, He constructed an existence that allows for free will and this created the human-perceived imperfection that Con is referring to. Existence and the world was created exactly as God intended it and is therefore perfect. Trying to disprove God by claiming the world is imperfect is naive as it places a human's idea of perfection above the idea of perfection held by God.2nd Point: My opponent is basically claiming that because bad things or qualities exist, God cannot be perfect. This is really in the same vein as his first argument and contains just as many flaws. Qualities like lust and envy are byproducts of an existence that permits free will. Making bad decisions (which is a byproduct of poor qualities like lust and envy) is the exercising of a human's free will. Remember, the omnipotent and omniscient God made a perfect existence and the defining factor of that existence is the ability for the organic creations within to make choices that wouldn't necessarily correspond with the decisions God would make. Relating back to the previous argument, this of course makes those beings imperfect in our eyes, but they are nonetheless perfect in the eyes of God, because they are exactly as he intended.3rd Point: A being that is aware of what it's choices will be doesn't have choices? What kind of reasoning is this? My opponent basically claims that for something to be a choice, it's outcome has to be surrounded by uncertainty. Even a being that knows it's choices in advance, such as God, still makes those choices. Knowing what your choices will be or the outcome of those choices has nothing to do with making them. I think my opponent is trying to adapt the argument that human's lack free will because God made us and knows exactly what we will do to work for God. This third argument isn't confusing, it just lacks sense. Defense of Origin of Existence:The reason I included this argument is because it implies the supernatural. No, it does not prove the existence of God on it's own, but implies that there is a major break in human logic. Nothing can explain the fact that something came of nothing. As I specified in my argument, a break in human logic like this implies that there is a supernatural element present in existence, which would be God. Defense of Birth of an Original Idea:My opponent's rebuttal to this one is rather humorous. First, he tries to prove it wrong by showing one, literally just one, similarity between the Judaic religion and the Egyptian religion. That is just lazy! And then my opponent furthers to rebut my argument by simply saying this, "it does not prove God at all." Does he say why? No! My opponent's rebuttal is lacking and quite frankly, lazy. Well, allow me to clarify for the voters: the reason this implies the existence of God is because the Judaic religion is so different from other religions of the time. I won't rehash the reasons it is so different here as they are included in my round 2 and received absolutely no critique from my opponent. Take that as you will. The fact of being so different from other religions shows that a non-worldly being created this religion. A being that proposed forgiveness over justice, piousness over forcefulness, and in the ultimate show of mercy and love, gave up his son to save his murderers. This is not akin to human characteristics or other religions of the time.Defense of Ontological Argument:This rebuttal vexed me greatly. The argument I present that is the most boring and used in literally every debate over the existence of God known to man is the only argument Con takes any time to actually rebut. It is also the only argument he provided any source for, but here is the catch: his source defeats his own argument. It is always rather hilarious when this occurs. I will also provide an exert from the source my opponent took his argument from. "Notice, however, that premise 1 of Gaunilo's argument is incoherent. The problem here is that the qualities that make an island great are not the sort of qualities that admit of conceptually maximal qualities."And further on, "Anselm's notion of a greatest possible being seems to avoid the worry expressed by Broad and Guanilo." 1Do be more careful with your sources, Con! As this source states, anything with qualities that have no intrinsic maximum are not eligible for the ontological argument. This would include all of my opponent's funny little examples like time-travelling rubber bands and such. And then, almost as laughably, my opponent uses the argument of a youtuber to debate St. Anslem. The Realicorn. Let's just say there is a reason that youtube has not become the center for philosophy in this modern world. The realicorn does not follow the ontological argument. The realicorn simply defines the realicorn as existing. The ontological argument defines God as the greatest being imaginable, and to be the greatest being imaginable, something must exist. This source also refutes itself pretty well in the comment below the video. What a joy!Additional Argument: This also sort of acts as a rebuttal, but I felt that it deserved to stand as its own argument. Any follower of Kant (which is most modern philosophical thinkers) understands the idea that our reason and the evidence we use to formulate and support it is founded on a subjective view of existence. This means that we see the world based on the reason and ideas that are intrinsic to our species. The only reason I includ this argument is because it, as well as my previous arguments, point toward an existence and a universe that is far beyond the understanding of our feeble minds. What we see and what we know is all based on the formation of our brains! Yet my opponent attempts to disprove God through claiming he is imperfect by human standards and knows of sin. There are ways to debate the existence of God in the negative, but these are not them.In Closing: In closing, I just wanted to say a few things. My opponent was rather pompous with his rebuttals and even downright rude. First, his critices my early attempt at comedy. Which is surprising given his profile pic, which I found humorous.And then this line: "I actually thought that the arguments would be somewhat good, but whatever, next debate I guess." Apparently my opponent has already decided that he has won the debate. Voters, help me take his confidence down a notch and strike the fear of God in him. Ha. Now that was clever.