God Does Not Exist

Final Rebuttal 1: My opponent said, "the creation narrative does not restrict us to the 6 literal days as my opponent would object. Genesis 1 is open to a wide variety of interpretations and one is by no means barred to the literal interpretation. " If evolution is accepted, Eve did not exist. If Eve did not exist, she couldn't have eaten the apple, and 'original sin' would not exist. The entire Bible relies on 'original sin' existing. My opponent stated, "They found that their are 10 steps within the course of human evolution that are so improbable in their reality that before they could happen, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and the earth would be incinerated. " You cannot make a probability claim when you only have a sample size of one. This also assumes that evolution is an entirely random process and based solely on probability. While genetic variation may be random, natural selection is not. An organism's ability to survive is directly related to it's inherited traits. Final Rebuttal 2: "He was unable to carry his own cross after being brutally tortured by the Romans (Luke 23:26). We can then logically substitute the cross in this situation for a rock in which, Jesus was unable to lift although still remaining ontological God in nature. " Jesus being unable to lift the cross only furthers my point. Just because God supposedly existed in human form, that does not mean his omnipotence would be limited in that form. If it did, he would not be omnipotent. The cross cannot be logically substituted: if Jesus could not carry the cross, he was either not omnipotent, although that contradicts your definition, or he was putting on a show for the people around him. Final Rebuttal 3: "Imagine a heavy ball resting on a cushion from eternity past, the physical proximity of the ball and cushion will form a concave depression (indentation) in the cushion that is co-eternal with the ball and cushion. " The cushion with the ball on it is not similar enough to the universe for this analogy to be used effectively. In the analogy, the cushion with the ball on it has existed eternally, but the universe has not. Time presupposes physical causality because nothing physical exists eternally. The universe is purely physical except for abstract things, like numbers. Numbers do not pose a problem though, as they are not real, but are instead a measurement system used to describe things that do exist. My opponent said, "He uses 'always existed' as term to define time within the bound of time which is terribly misleading. " I was using the term 'always existed' correctly. The Oxford English definition of always is: 'At all times; on all occasions. ' The Oxford English definition of existed is: 'Have objective reality or being. ' If my opponent has a quarrel with the dictionary definition of a word, I would suggest he/she should speak to Oxford University about it. My opponent concludes by saying that the universe has a cause, yet there was no point in time where this cause could have taken place: "But nonetheless, we must object that a timeless entity did in fact, because the universe since there is no point 'in time' where this cause had the opportunity. " My argument stated that the universe does not need a cause and that there was no point 'in time' where it could have been caused. My opponent failed to rebut the first point, and he/she actually agreed with the second point.