God Does Exist

Thank you for your response. There are many problems with Con's various arguments and rebuttals, and I will do my best to correct them, as well as respond to her questions. The numbers correspond to her points: 1) "Neither faith nor certainty (i.e. the ‘It's a mystery' card) can play a factor in proving his case." My opponent wants me, apparently, to have an answer for everything concerning a deity. Obviously I do not, and never even claimed to have such knowledge. Please reread the opening argument. Con will find that I asked two definite questions (note that I asked "How did" rather than "How could", and "How were" rather than "How could", meaning that I am asking for DEFINITE answers. I will remind Con that she accepted the opening argument, and thus must answer these two questions, which she has not.) to which she, as Con, must provide definite answers. I, as the Instigator, am asking how the cosmos could have begun without a Deity. Con repeatedly attempts to shift the burden of proof on me. I will prove my case, and I hope that she will attempt to do the same, rather than skirt responsibility. Also, note the double standard: I cannot speculate (or, use the "mystery card"); Con can, and has throughout every single defense of her atheistic beliefs. 2) As for refusing my addendum to her definition of a deity; why stop there? If Con were to take the words "supremely good" out of her original definition, she could include Hades, Zeus, and other such gods that would not be considered "supremely good"…or even "supremely... powerful" for that matter, since they were not omnipotent. The vast majority of deities spanning the various religions, especially modern ones, are thought of as responsible for the creation of the cosmos. The Buddhist religion is an exception to the rule; one of the few. I find this to be a poor argument with semantics, which is usually done when one cannot defend their position with logic, facts, or even probable theories. 3) I will come to this at the end of this argument. 4) I never did state that this Deity is "infinite", especially per her definition. I do not understand how Con can conclude with such assurance that an "infinite" Creator MUST be a part of His creation. Con's logic in this point is severely flawed. Also, when I used the word "if" in my statement quoted by you, I was not resting my argument on that word. This is once again flawed. My argument was this, "If X is true, then Y is true as well." Con missed the point of this argument. The reason for it was to show how it would be impossible for a creator to have originated in the thing that is being created, nothing more or less. 5) Few analogies are perfect. I will let the voters decide if my analogy is sufficient. I find no problem with it, as it serves its purpose of showing a creator and his/her relation to the creation. 6) Con quote: "He is using my Big Bang explanation to infer that I do not know where matter came from." This is what I said: "Matter ‘may' (and that is a slight chance) be eternally there, but how can you explain perpetual energy in the face of entropy?" The question is aimed at energy, not matter, and still stands. 7) I am not sure what Con is arguing here. What I am saying is that both sides have the problem of what made the first thing that is made. The only difference is that I believe that this Deity created time as well, making Him unaffected by it. Con believes that time has "always" existed, which begs the question of what started these chain of events to make life, and what started that beginning "spark", and what started that, etc. If time had a beginning, this problem is easier to tackle (albeit still difficult to comprehend). This Deity creates time within this natural dimension, and the history of the cosmos begins. 8) It is only natural to assume that an entirely different dimension has different laws. I ask Con, do the different dimensions you theorize on have the same laws as ours, or different ones? Finally, here is my proof that a Deity exists. I would like to see Con make something living out of a jar of dirt. Con may even use the jar itself, rather than just the dirt. In fact, Con may have the mind of every single scientist, lab, unlimited funds, anything Con wants (Naturally, I have no authority to offer this). There is one catch, however: Con may only do the following with the jar of dirt: drop it (on whatever she wants), break it (in any way she can), explode it (with any type of explosive she can think of), and/or leave it alone to be affected by the elements. Naturally, no life will come from it, no matter how many times, in how many different ways it is done. Any scientist, any logical person would say the same. Why? Because INTELLIGENCE has to guide the creation of life. I would not expect a Honda Civic to make itself, nor would I expect the same for a personal computer, skyscraper, or jet. Everything complex has intelligence guiding it. This is what nature teaches us. You are ignoring the laws of nature when you state that the cosmos created itself by accident; not the "superstitions" of humanity. Much of humanity claims that a deity exists, and for good reason: much of humanity can see that nature is far too complex to have been the result of an "accident". A Deity outside of nature, one that could be called "supremely good or powerful", would have had to create it. I ask again for two definite answers to my very pointed questions in my opening argument, as I have answered every question you have asked (as far as I can tell). Also, I asked for a "definite theory on how something created itself" in my last argument and am still waiting for one.