God does not exist

There are still several illogical flaws in my opponents argument. Again, he is attempting to prove that God does not exist. In his attempt to do so, he states that non-sentient causes are more powerful then sentient causes, and based on this, such evidence proves that God does not exist. Yet such logic is clearly flawed. Just because the black hole is a powerful non-sentient cause does not rule out that such a did not originate from intelligence. Furthermore, his proof that non-sentient causes do not originate from intelligence is because.......wait for it...... "because they are more frequent in number and are more powerful". This is clearly illogical. What my opponent is saying is that because one has more than the other, then one must be the creater of the other. According to such logic, since there are more chinese people in the world than Indians, then that would mean that the chinese created the Indians. Any reasonable person can see the flaw in such logic. Saying something is the originator of another because there is more of them is highly illogical, thus my opponent has failed to prove that God does not exist with such an argument. It is not impossible for one with intelligence to create many things that are unintelligent and non-sentient. There are more action figure toys than there are humans. Does that mean that the G.I.Joe with the kung-fu grip is responsible for your creation? My opponents argument fails, to say the least. He then states.... "The huge error in my opponent's response, is it only addressed 1 out of my 3 arguments against the existence of God. I had 3 arguments and he only attempted to refute 1 and that didn't even hold". For starters, the argument that something is the creater of another simply because it is more in existence has been utterly disproven as demonstrated above. Regarding my opponent's other arguments, they were not addresed simply because it would have lenghtened my original response even more, which I desired not to do, but will be addressed now. My opponent states that the universe had an internal cause, therefore this proves that God does not exist. He bases his argument on the statement that because the universe is expanding and such expansion occurs from inflation from the inside, then such is proof that God does not exist. Again, his is flawed logic. Just because something expands from the inside is not proof that such expansion did not come about from an authority from the outside. A cake expands from the inside when it is baked. Body fat and size expands from the inside when someone over eats. Yet in both these examples, the cause of such expansion originally came about from intelligence from the outside. For it was the use of intelligence to bake the cake to begin with and it was intelligence that made the decision to over eat. Thus the examples above completely refutes the argument of my opponent, as it demonstrates that expansion from inside can be caused based on intelligence and intelligence from the outside, as shown in the rise and expansion of a simple baked cake. Expansion from the inside does not negate that the cause originated from the outside. This would also disprove his third argument, which is also based on expansion from the inside with quantum physics. Again, my opponent fails to disprove the existence of God. Then my opponent uses a complete strawman to refute the evidence that God does exist. In my evidence, I presented that the very definition of unintelligence proves that it cannot originate intelligence because unintelligence means "no intelligence". Therefore, an intelligent creation cannot derive its intelligence from unintelligence because unintelligence has no intelligence to give. You cannot give away something that you yourself don't have. This is simple common sense. He says in response: Saying that because "something that is not intelligent is something that is not intelligent, therefore, cannot originate something intelligent" is like saying "something that is not a plant is not a plant, therefore, cannot originate a plant". Yet at no time have I ever stated "something that is not intelligent is something that is not intelligent, therefore, cannot originate something intelligent". Nor can my opponent quote and prove otherwise. Thus the fact that my opponent uses a weak strawman reflects the fact that my opponent has no logical rebuttal, thus failing again to disprove the existence of God. As shown above, I further expounded that unintelligence cannot create intelligence, not simply because it is not intelligent, as my opponent says, but that an intelligent creation cannot derive its intelligence from unintelligence because unintelligence has no intelligence to give. You cannot give away something that you yourself don't have. Thus my opponent's argument fails, as the very definition of unintelligence proves the fact that it cannot originate intelligence, thus proving that all intelligent creation originated from intelligent design, thus proving the existence of God. In his rebuttal to refute the fact that a pattern that repeates itself can only originate from intelligence, he states that snowflakes, flowers, and planet formation, proves that unintelligence can originate a pattern that repeats itself. Again, his examples display a severe flaw in logic. For he states that Microscopic supercooled cloud prop is responsible for the formation of a snowflake pattern, the contents in the ground is responsible for flower patterns, and gravity is responsible for the formation of planet patterns. He then states that because these elements are non-intelligent, then this proves that a pattern that repeats itself can originate from unintelligence. False. For all three elements (gravity, the contents in the ground, and Microscopic supercooled cloud prop) are all creations themselves. Thus the are not the origin and they themselves have a beginning. The argument fails, for I clearly stated that a pattern that repeats itself cannot originate from unintelligence, while your example involves a creation causing another creation, thus excluding its origin. The example fails. Furthermore, I presented examples of unintelligence being unable to originate a pattern that repeats itself, such as a new born baby and a dead body, both which clearly cannot originate a pattern that repeats itself because they both lack the ability to learn and comprehend, thus their unintelligence prevents them from doing so. My opponent could not refute this and didn't even address it, thus further debunking his argument. For these examples clearly show that unintelligence cannot originate intelligence. So in order for my opponent to refute my evidence, he would have to show that a dead body and a new born can in fact create a repeating pattern. Otherwise, the evidence holds as proof for my argument since you can't prove otherwsie, and as anyone can see , saying that a new born or a dead body can originate a repeating pattern is illogical. Thus the proof that God exist still stands, while we see my opponent's arguments failing at a fast rate. Lastly, it was demonstrated that without intelligence, creation originating by chance causes disorder, as proven by the fact that if one throws a bucket of paint on the wall without using their intelligence to align the paint on the paper to create a human face, the result will be nothing but disorder and a big mess that looks nothing like a human face. Again, my opponent dodged the example and cannot prove that one can throw a bucket of paint on a wall and that by chance, it will form a human face. In conclusion, the examples that I provided to support that God exist has not been disproven, as my opponent can not show from my examples evidence to the contrary, while his own argument was completely dismantled. Thus the fact that God does exist still stands