God Does NOT Exist, God is NOT Great, and Makes Life Worthless

I thank Geo for his presence and punctuality. It's nice when a debate is forfeit-free. ====> G O D S - E X I S T E N C E <==== :::Argument from the Universe::: Interestingly enough, Geo had been assuming--up until now--that God was finite. I'm glad I posted a link to the Westminster Confession of Faith's description of God in my last round because I wouldn't dare defend the existence of such a God. So can his Argument from the Universe defeat an infinite God? Apparently, it can… if you define the term infinite for an auto-win. He's equivocating infinite the same why he equivocated universe. In round one, he defined Universe as all of existence. Now he defines infinite exactly the same way, making them utterly interchangeable. As a result, his argument hasn't changed, dragging along the same fallacies with it. As I stated before, Christians make a distinction: there is all of existence, which includes God, and there is his creation, which is a subset of all of existence. Yes, we assert God is ever-present in this creation, but that does not logically necessitate that he IS creation or creation IS God. Geo should not simply take P2 for granted. He should have shown why it is logically impossible to separate God from his creation. Nowhere in my definition of God is infinite equated to all that exists. He is infinite in being and perfection, which simply means he the most perfect and was not created. He is infinite in knowledge, meaning he knows all things about all of existence. He is infinite in time, which means he is eternal rather than temporal. Nowhere does my definition assert that God and Creation are the same. He might encompass his creation--surround it--but that does not logically dictate that they are indistinguishable from one another. This serves as a reminder as to why we need to carefully define the characteristics of God before go about knocking down Gods of Straw. :::Kalam's Cosmological Argument FAILS::: P1: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause. Let me refute this in a way that may not have been clear before. Saying the Matter always existed, begs the question. We don't KNOW it always existed, we've simply observed that it is never created or destroyed in the known physical universe. KCA sets out to prove that matter had a cause, in the next premise. But first, it establishes the indisputable fact that, in a temporal existence, things have beginnings. If everything else we know began, then why not matter? P2: The universe began to exist. {That makes no difference. The matter and energy of the singularity point never began to exist. It was always there.} Circular reasoning. This premise is based on the conclusion being false. Geo should have used another means of refuting P2. P3: The universe has a cause. {It almost seems as if my opponent is willing to grant me that matter and energy always existed.} I said matter's eternal existence is irrelevant to the argument KCA was making, but I do not concede this point. In fact, I've already pointed out that its question begging. {***KRF must unequivocally show that space, time, matter, and energy began to exist. He has not.***} Actually, you proved it by failing to refute KCA. In 100% of our observations of this temporal universe, things have a beginning point in time. Therefore, given the law of parsimony couple with the fact that there is a singularity in our universe, it is reasonable to conclude that matter, energy, space and time began as well. Indeed, this is what Alexander Vilenkin's theory was getting at, which you never addressed. :::Ambiguity of the Uncaused Cause::: We both agree that the ambiguity is not, in and of itself, helpful to either position. However, Geo asserts that it compliments his other arguments. Well, the door swings both ways. This ambiguity also compliments my refutations of his other arguments. ====> G O D - I S - N O T - G R E A T <==== :::God Can't Be Great::: {P1: God exists outside of time-space and is separate from creation. P2: If the above is true, God doesn't exist everywhere, only some places. :. Straw God is not infinite.} By simply adding a third premise that God has more dimensions than we have conceived, then it is possible for God to be simultaneously distinct from creation and omnipresent within it. The point is, where does Geo get this definition of God? Notice how God is infinite in the Argument from the Universe and finite here. Geo is simply cherry picking the attributes that best support his fore drawn conclusions. Simply put, God is, by definition, great. Whether you agree with his existence or not, he is bigger, better, stronger, and smarter--by definition--than everything. How do you refute a definition? :::God is a Tyrannical Dictator::: If God does not punish, then God is not just. If God does not forgive, then God is not Good. God gives us the freedom to choose heaven without having to be perfect, while those that do evil and curse God are punished. He is both righteous and merciful. I believe that makes him 'superior in quality of character,' 'noble,' and 'remarkable or significant.' ====> G O D - D E G R A D E S - L I F E S - S I G N I F I C A N C E <==== Geo keeps ignoring my point that he cannot prove whether or not life-significance is degraded because such things cannot be objectively measured. For every person that finds predestination degrading, there's a person that finds that it adds significance. I can't say it any other way, so I'll rest my case. ====> T A G <==== I will confess, given the space constraints, I did not pick apart every worldview and show how they fail to account for abstract and absolute entities. However, I did leave room for Geo to show me how his worldview does. So, let me illustrate how Naturalism and Idealism fail. It's all I have to work with. Naturalism presupposes that only matter and energy exist. This worldview cannot account for either abstract or absolute entities. Abstract entities, which occur in the mind, are nothing more than electrical impulses in brain matter. They are subject to differentiation between brains and therefore unreliable. This means I can dispute the Law of Non Contradiction because it's merely a convention. However, Geo would not accept such a dispute. He would insist that logical laws are universally binding and unchanging. So, in a Naturalistic worldview, where else could these things be? In a Christian worldview, God is transcendent, universal, unchanging, and logical. Therefore, His mind accounts for logical laws that no one can dispute. Idealism presupposes that only ideas exists, or at the very least, that they are the only reliable thing. This worldview can easily account for abstract entities, but not absolute ones. We observe that there are conflicting ideas. The logical conclusion is that all ideas, right and wrong, exist and we experience and trade a subset of these. So, how do ideas determine which other ideas are right or wrong in a way that cannot be disputed? They simply cannot. Geo insists that he is arguing for OBJECTIVE truth. He is using logic (Argument from the Universe), science (Cosmological Argument), and morality (God as Tyrannical) to make his objective case. However, in order for his arguments to even succeed, then Geo's resolution must be false. God is the only rational justification for the reliability of the very things he uses to refute his existence. ====> C O N C L U S I O N <==== Geo has struggled with consistence definitions and terms. His redefines God, universe, and infinite in his Argument from the Universe and uses circular reasoning to defeat Kalam's Cosmological Argument. He failed to address some of my arguments, such as Alexander Vilenkin's theory and the inability to objectively measure life-significance. Finally, he didn't attempt to show how TAG was wrong other than to call it "ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS!" I thank the voter