The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1H

Having a look at my earlier debate[1], TheSkeptic challenged me to this debate. As I confessed there, that post consisted of some of my half formed ideas. I was curious to see, how the logicians at debate.org approach my argument. Indeed this was the kind of response I was looking for. I hope this will enable me to mould my arguments more logically and forcefully. I would like to sincerely thank my opponent for his effort. Normally, I like to go on with commonly understood meaning of most words, avoiding syntax based logics. However, a particular irritant is present here, which is critical for this debate and must be resolved. The problem is: the meaning of word `existence' is cyclic. [Definition - Existence] http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. The fact or state of existing; being. I am not this definition as wrong. My contention is: This problem is inherent in the concept (`Existence' needs `exist' for existence! ). I am going to propose an alternative for the purpose of this debate, and I hope that my opponent will accept it as reasonable. I am going to define existence using an assumption. The assumption is: "we exist". Is this assumption correct? I can think of no way to verify whether we really `exist'. Indeed many philosophers (notably among Hinduism and Buddhism) consider everything as illusion (Maya). But this is a harmless assumption. If we don't exist, this debate is immaterial. Starting from the assumption: `we exist', I discuss the thesis in 4 steps. Existence of God will be evident after step 2. 1. If nothing exists - then nothing exists: It is a simple statement - proving itself. This also means - something is never going to emerge out of nothing. Our statement is true - independent of time. Even if we manage to conduct an experiment and show that something is emerging out of nothing, it just means - something is happening along time axis. A framework has to exist - in which these physical events can take place. This framework may have nothing to do with space or time or universe as we know it. 2. For anything to exist, there has to be a self-existing entity (God) - who can create things out of nothing: Something cannot come out of nothing (from last statement). There has to be some entity which defines existence. Either the entity is there or nothing is there. Since we exist, this entity is present. From now on we address this entity as God. The self-existing God has to establish everything which exists. So we can consider God as the creator of everything. Let me repeat. God has to be self-existing. If this is not so nothing would exist. That would go against our assumption that we exist. I will not be entertaining any questions about who created God. God has to exist by himself. 3. We are not God We are not self-existing beings, capable of defining reality. We are extremely limited. We are insignificant specks in a universe which is mind bogglingly big. We are dependent for our lives on cells and small scale beings. I don't see any need to elaborate more, unless I am challenged on this. 4. God is All Powerful This is an attempt to establish God's power. We have established God as a self-existing creator of reality. I think we can safely state that God is `All Powerful' - capable of doing whatever he intends. --- God is `Self Existing', `All Powerful' and `Creator'. In terms of Islam the corresponding names are: `Al-Qayyum', `Al-Qadir' and `Al-Khaliq' [3]. These three characteristics match with all monotheistic religions I know (Islam, Sikhism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and partially - Christianity and Hinduism). One property, central to all religions, but which I am not defending here is `God is good'. (Sadly, this is often forgotten by the followers) --- 1. The original debate: http://www.debate.org... 2. These are the 99 names (characteristics) of Allah. http://www.islamicity.com...