God exists..

Please don't penalize me for hmm... The Big Bang None of your formulas explained how there is a change in the amount of energy in space in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Some questions to consider Does the absolute truth exist= Yes Do you know something to be true=Yes Does Logic exist=Yes Can Logic change= NO... If yes, then you have no problems with contradictions... Is Logic made of matter or is it abstract= If you said logic made of matter : Does matter change=if you said yes, then you contradicted yourself because logic=matter and does not change. If no, then you went against the physics and the law of conservation of matter. If you said logic is not made of matter : then is logic universal or person relative=UNIVERSAL because if you believe that logic is relative, then you don't. If logic does not apply universally, then it does not necessarily apply to this debate. You have admitted that absolute truth exists, that you can know things to be true, that logic exists, that it is unchanging, that it is not made of matter, and that it is universal. Truth, knowledge, and logic are necessary to prove ANYTHING and cannot be made sense of apart from God. Therefore, While this proof is valid, no one needs this proof. The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him. Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. God does not send people to Hell for denying what they do not know, but for sin against the God that they do know. Why is God necessary for truth, knowledge, and universal, abstract, unchanging logic? Knowledge: Unless one knows everything, or has revelation from someone (God) who does, something we don't know could contradict what we think we know. Truth: If our thoughts are the mere by-products of the electrochemical processes in our evolved brains, you would not get "truth" you would get "brain-fizz." Chemicals do not produce "truth" they just react. As Doug Wilson said, it would be like shaking up a can of Mountain Dew, and a can of Dr. Pepper, opening them, and watching them fizz. Neither fizz is "true," they just are. For truth you need someone (God) who transcends the natural realm. Universal, immaterial, unchanging logic: For universal, immaterial, unchanging logic, you need someone (God) who is universal (Psalm 90:2), not made of matter (John 4:24) and unchanging (Malachi 3:6). Without God, who has universal knowledge, we could not know anything to be universally true. Without God, who is Spirit (not made of matter), we could not make sense of immaterial things. Without God who is unchanging (and logic is a reflection of the way He thinks), we would have no basis for expecting logic not to change. Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified Axiom 1: Any property entailed by"i.e., strictly implied by"a positive property is positive Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property [1] Axiom 4 has been stated that it must be necessary and is possible to point out the good in all things. Godel himself had stated that, "Positive means that in a positive moral aesthetics sense. It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation." [2] The other Axioms can be summed up to be an ultra filter which I'll get into a little later on. The Axioms can be translated into the following theorems and math equation. Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified. Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent. Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing. Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. [3] Now we can see that this mathematical equation was actually done and proven. With it being solved we can see that it brings up great and highly valid evidence that God exists. People used the theorems and axioms through the use of LEO-II and Statallax. Also note how God is capitalized here. This is because this actually proves the Christian God. Not just a deity. [4] The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start referring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [3] The first premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass and energy as it shows that Matter and energy cannot be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning that the Universe cannot have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Floyd has stated. We can also see that things are not spontaneous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly explode? This is because the very laws of Physics binds and restricts nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regularity. Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by science and philosophy. Craig argues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is expanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [3] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinite the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exist in an infinite chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somewhere. This is that there is nothing known prior to the creation of the universe meaning that it since there is no determining factors to what happened before we must assume that it's personal and uncaused. This can be see by one asking how can a timeless rift be given such a temporary effect of the beginning of time? One has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe if not omnipotent. . dysteleological argument Con has not given any examples of God's design flaw in last 2 rounds, penalize my opponent. The universe was created due to the emergence of minuscule disorder....what caused this disorder to exist. Con has not answered to and has ignored that I said that Occam's Razor is unreliable. All of Con's arguments are mere theories and are not facts in this debate. An examples of widely accepted theories later proved wrong... Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant"it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein"the Static Universe is often known as "Einstein"s Universe""who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity. How it was Proven Wrong: a finite universe could theoretically become so dense that it would collapse into a giant black hole, a problem Einstein compensated for with his principle of the "cosmological constant." Still, the final nail in the coffin for the idea was Edwin Hubble"s discovery of the relationship between red shift"the way the color of heavenly bodies change as they move away from us"and distance, which showed that the universe was indeed expanding. Einstein would subsequently abandon his model, and would later refer to it as the "biggest blunder" of his career. Extend my arguments and please answer my questions If God did not create life, where did life come from. Life is not just formed from energy...