God Exists

Thanks for that, Pro.It would appear I've caused Pro some anxiety, yet I didn't create it.It's just a debate Pro, so chill, finish it out, and let the voters decide.Let's finish this.*Causation =/= Creation*Pro recalls:"Con asserts that causation and creation are not the same."My response:Hey, so does the Oxford dictionary!causation - the ACTION of causing something.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...creation - the PROCESS of bringing something into existence.(the agreed-to definition from round 1)A *causation* is a general term that can refer to ANY cause and effect, while *creation* specifically involves the genesis or the bringing about of something via a process, a series of events over time.Creation, unlike causation, has a product as the result of its effect, not just any old general effect.Not an assertion, bud.Pro further recalls:"let's recall the candle and flame example."My response:Yeah, let's.Pro can you explain how the flame can be *causing* (present continuous tense) something without preceding time or the passage thereof or "timeless" as you claim?Can you differentiate between the initial cause and the initial effect without using temporal concepts/relationships?How do you know the flame isn't causing the candle if you're claiming there's no time difference between the two?Pro contradicts:"the candle is eternally causing and creating the flame."My response:How does something begin eternally causing (present continuous) anything without time or the passage thereof?Can you explain "is causing" without using temporal concepts or relationships?How do you know if the candle preceded the flame if you have no time to distinguish between their beings? Pro deepens the contradiction:"Without the candle, the flame would go out of existence."My response:Without time or temporal concepts, how do you know the flame is contingent on the candle and not the other way around?Rapid oxidation also occurs over time.No time, no fire, no flame.Pro asserts:"God is eternally causing an eternal universe."My response:Pro, our agreed-to definitions have god in this debate being the creator of the universe.The process of bringing into existence, what you agreed creation to be with respects to the universe, necessarily entails that there was no universe (no spacetime) in order for the bringing into existence of the universe to occur.If there was once no spacetime, as the inverse of the Hubble constant demonstrates, how did your god precede the origin of time and then use a temporal series of events (creation) to bring about the origin of time (universe)?Can you explain what "eternally" means without using temporal concepts, time, or the passage thereof?Pro asserts:"God is the creator of the universe (the reason it comes into being rather than goes out of being)."My response:Bringing the origin of spacetime into existence, with a series of related spatiotemporal events, one after the other, without the spacetime to do so is nonsensical, contradictory, and serves as a negation that the universe was created, by your god or otherwise.No creation, no creator, no god.*Virtual Particles*Pro claims:"Virtual particles have a transcedent sufficient reason in Quantum vacuum fluctuations which occur in the quantum vacuum energy..."My response:Nope.A vacuum is just zero energy, or the lowest energy state, in empty space.A perfect vacuum would have no particles, no radiation, no gravity, and NO SPACE.So while Pro would have you believe that the vacuum is some transcendent sufficient reason for quantum fluctuations, when there was no remaining space, when there was no universe yet, there was zero energy and zero space, a perfect vacuum's lowest energy state.This lowest energy state is a fluctuation of virtual particles that NEVER remain thanks to annihilation.These fluctuations are fundamental to the universe and its origin and are not transcendent.Pro grumbles:"A Quantum fluctuation is not really an object...rather it is an event that describes certain unstability in the Quantum vacuum energy...virtual particles are the result of Quantum Fluctuations."My response:Virtual particles are doing the fluctuating!There are no quantum fluctuations without virtual particles and their forces fluctuating; you've got your contingency flipped here.The vacuum is not an event, rather it's a description of the lowest energy state.Pro whines:"Con does not understand what a Qunatum fluctuation is."My response:Ugh, and you spelled it wrong.I don't mind the errant accusation, but I'm pretty sure this source proves otherwise, and it's a simplified explanation for all.http://physics.aps.org...*MGB*Pro attempts P1 of the MGB again:"An MGB is possible because no logical contradictions entail."My response:The lack of logical contradictions does not a proof of possibility make.Either way, a Maximally Great Being is itself a contradiction.An MGB would have to have the ability to *infinitely remain* the most powerful; it's maximally great in the quantity of powers and the extent of power.An MGB would also have to have the ability to destroy anything that exists; it's maximally great in destruction.So if the MGB has the ability to destroy itself, which is a part of the set of "anything that exists," it therefore doesn't have the ability to *infinitely remain* the most powerful.If the MGB *CANNOT* destroy itself, it's not maximally great in the quantity or extent of powers, because it CANNOT do something.See why the MGB argument is not so logically great?Also, as I stated before, just asserting the possibility of something doesn't make it possible.You have to show *how* something is possible, and logic alone cannot do that.Bring some evidence that something is possible and use logic from there.Not the other way around.Pro lies:"No where in my argument do I ever say that "it is possible therefore it exists"."My response:Oh really?Pro from round 1:"If it is possible that a MGB exists then he exists..."My response:It's precisely your P2 of this awful argument.Pro, that's the whole MGB argument, hence why WLC should be punched in the face.The dumb argument is just saying "if it's possible, then it exists somewhere."*Punch**Random Rebuttals*Pro reneges:"I accepted that creation COULD be temporal."My response:You *accepted* the definitions of this debate by accepting the debate!These definitions don't just say that creation *could be* temporal, they say that creation *is* temporal, because it defines creation as a process.Pro, you agreed to these definitions.Voters, using the opt-in voting standards should take note of this.Pro mentions his god:"Yes, as I said above, he is creating the universe every second goes by."My response:How many seconds went by when there was no spacetime, Pro?Can you explain a second without temporal concepts or using the passage of time?That's what you're asserting your god did.You're asserting that seconds went by when there weren't seconds to go by.Pro deepens the flaw:"My response is that God himself is timeless but becomes temporal at creation."My response:So your god, being timeless, used a series of time-based actions, one after the other, when there was no time, and then poof, time originated and your god changed from timeless to temporal, which I assume for eternity he would remain.You're basically saying that the universe created your temporal god, precisely antithetical to the resolution.Now this next bit, Pro seems to think is some sort of joke, or I wasn't being serious, but nothing could be further from the truth.I had asked Pro how one could distinguish between a human causing the footprints in the sand and the footprints in the sand causing a human if there were no time between the two things.Instead of Pro responding to this obvious flaw in his perception, Pro does something else.Pro cowers in fear and unpreparedness:"I have no time for this. This is becoming a huge waste of time. I will not even bother continuing this debate."My response:To translate for those of you following the debate, Pro has no response for the obvious contradiction of using time to originate time and he cannot distinguish between creator and created product without using temporal concepts or mentioning the passage of time, because as I had already pointed out, precedence is temporal.If Pro is really going to run away from me, Pro should man up and just type "forfeit" for the next round, instead of letting the debate expire.Voters should vote on this debate to help each debater progress and determine a real winner given the opt-in standards of voting.I request that moderators actually remove inadequate votes, particularly if they are vendetta votes.Thanks for the debate Pro...don't run away.