God Does Exist

Thank you (I guess) for your response. I would like to state that in all of my many years of debating this topic, and similar ones, I have always noticed that my opponents get angrier when they cannot answer my questions. "…don't talk to me about logic, Pro, when you clearly don't understand it." I at least understand more about logic than Con knows about how the universe came into being by itself, apparently. Yet, here she is, talking about it (or, at least saying that she will talk about it). I, once again, found many problems with Con's arguments and points in this past round, especially concerning what I stated. The largest problem is that she still did not answer my two questions from my opening argument. "My only burden in this debate [is] to negate the resolution at hand." No, it is not. Con's burden is to answer my two pointed questions; questions that were asked before she accepted my debate. Her job is to ANSWER them. At this point she has briefly touched one and all but ignored the other. But, enough of that for now; I will presently address my "logical fallacies". "Fallacy" #1: "Shifting the Burden." It is Con's job to show how the cosmos began by chance/accident, and how the laws came into being, why they are there, etc… It is my job to prove that a Deity exists, or did exist. If she cannot answer the questions, I suggest that she forfeit the debate. "Fallacy" #2: "Red Herring." I find it strange that asking how the cosmos was made without a Deity is a red herring argument when I, once again, pointedly ASKED that as one of the two main questions in my opening argument; the opening argument that Con read before accepting this debate. "Fallacy" #3: "Base Rate." What empirical statistics show that the probability of the "cosmos being purposefully made" is small? I would love to see that, but until then, here are some statistics on abiogenesis, which atheists are required to believe in: the probability of randomly assembling a cell from randomly made RNA in 1.11 billion years is 10 to the 79th power. That is 10 with 79 "zeroes" behind it. http://www.iscid.org... If you would like to see the article on it. This is beyond the point of statistical possibility. Whatever the probability is of a Deity creating the cosmos, I would assume it is more likely than randomly formed RNA making itself into a living cell. "Fallacy" #4: "Bare Assertion." Con asks, "why should I accept ‘creator of the Cosmos' as part of the definition of a deity when Pro has not proven that a deity has created the Cosmos?!" What Con is saying is that I need to prove that a Deity created the cosmos in order for us to agree on the definition of a Deity…so that we can debate on whether or not a Deity DID create the cosmos? "Fallacy" #5: "Argumentum ad Populum." I never did state that the existence of a Deity is proven by popular opinion. Please show me where I stated that, or something even close to that. What I am saying is that the majority's DEFINITION of a Deity should be used; nothing more, nothing less. Now, concerning Anthropocentrism: I am arguing that a Deity, existing in a higher reality, created the cosmos. How, exactly, am I arguing FOR Anthropocentrism? Concerning my "X and Y" argument: I am going to show a series of arguments similarly made. Please show me where/how they are illogical: I built my house a year ago (X). Therefore, I did not live in that house two years ago (Y). I just built this car yesterday (X). Therefore, I did not buy it used last week (Y). I gave birth to Lisa (X). Therefore, I am older than she (Y). Someone created the cosmos (X). Therefore, that Someone did not originate from it (Y). In each argument, we know that IF X is true, then Y must be as well (Note the word "if". I am saying that Y is true ONLY IF X is true). There is no logical fallacy here. Please show how the SUBSTANCE of my "X and Y" argument is illogical. I do not understand Con's vicious hatred for my "Virtual World" analogy. If I were able to conjure up a true "alternate realm", then I gladly would. However, I cannot. Con states, "What he fails to realize is that these video game users are in the same reality as the video game (using atoms, electricity, etc. that is in our reality to create this game), and therefore his analogy fails". How does this show that, "My opponent's analogy was SEVERELY flawed and I ripped it apart."? Because the virtual "world" is still in our reality? That is why it is called an ANALOGY. If I could show you an alternate reality, then I would be giving you an EXAMPLE. So, by your logic, all analogies are illogical? Please give another reason for it being an illogical analogy. Concerning entropy: Entropy is NOT, "when you leave matter isolated and it starts going chaotic". Here is a definition of entropy for you: http://dictionary.reference.com.... Note that it says, "a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process."(Non-working energy is not exactly "chaos", I might add) In other words, without an outside force, energy wears down. So, I at least understand a little about quantum physics. Does Con? Concerning Con's whole "Einstein's time theory": Please elaborate on it, so I may respond. And I am still waiting for a definite theory on how something can create itself. A long paragraph or two spent on it would be good, not 3 sentences merely stating the names of the theories. As for point #8, I do not understand Con's logic on it. We agree that different dimensions have different laws, yes. But, I state once again, I can give an answer for my theory; Con cannot. Please, once again, give a definite theory. And now, my best evidence for a Deity can be found in Con's last argument: "Obviously humanity doesn't have the knowledge on how to randomly create life at this point, so it does not take a genius to realize that Pro is putting forth another fallacious argument with his near impossible challenge." How can Con say this statement when she believes that life randomly happened? Why are random events able to make something that is so complex that we cannot do it ourselves? Even given every bit of intelligence, every machine, every dollar; we cannot recreate life. We are not even close. Why? I have given empirical evidence on the existence of a Deity, using probability statistics. I ask that Con answer my original questions first, then answer the others as well. Thank you.