God exists!

Very interesting choice! I thank you for this debate and lets get started! Now you used this definition of god (1) God: noun a person or thing of supreme value And you applied it to nature by saying that since nature is a thing of supreme value then it is therefore a god. First I would like to look at the definition of value, since this is in your definition of god. (2) 3: relative worth, utility, or importance I will focus of the third definition of value since it is the one that most applies. The rest have to do with monetary value or numbers. So value means something of relative worth or importance, but this must be of supreme worth or importance in order to fit your definition. Lets see what your source has to say about nature since that is such a broad thing. (3) 1 a: the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence b: disposition, temperament 2 a: a creative and controlling force in the universe b: an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual 9: natural scenery As we can see Nature covers a broad range of things ranging from personality, to the universe, to scenery. I have chosen a few of these and will breakdown each, giving my argument that they are not a supreme value as in your definition of god above. 1 a: the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence b: disposition, temperament Now the inherent character or basic constitution of a person is not of supreme value. Everyones personality is different and therefore has different value. We do not hold a child molesters inherent character in high value or the disposition of an abusive husband. In order for this type of "Nature" to be of "supreme" value all constitutions, temperament, and essences of people and thing must be important or have "supreme" worth. 2 a: a creative and controlling force in the universe b: an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual Part A is the most interesting because you could tie in part B with what I said above for number 1. Now A is calling nature the creative and controlling force in the universe. This is not so because there are several forces not just one that keeps the universe going. (4)These are gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Without one or all of these different forces we could not live at least in this universe. Which is another problem with nature described as such, because there is a theory that these forces are environmental based on what universe you are in! ((5) The quote is below the philosophy artwork pic) So how could this force be the supreme importance when there could be an infinite number of different forces in different universes? 9: natural scenery Now this, however nice, is not of supreme value. It just boils down to what natural scenery is worth to you and its importance. People in big cities try to get away from natural scenery and thrive in a man made environment, and thus it is not of importance to them. I personally like some natural scenery, but I like to visit not live in it. I have taken your definition that nature is a supreme value and therefore god and given my counter arguments that nature as described above is not a supreme value. You have given a very interesting god to debate and I look forward to your response! I would like you to counter my three definitions of nature and their value since this was your definition. You made me think on this one and thank you again for your choice! (1)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (4)http://en.wikipedia.org... (5)http://www.theatlantic.com...