God is a logical concept

Thanks to my opponent, this round I will keep brief and to the point. In fact I will not be replying to most of the contentions as you seem to be adamant about logic I thought why not debate logic. Logic If you have an argument with propositions and a conclusion. Then if any one proposition is wrong then the whole argument is invalid. In fact as the following source says “A sound argument is an argument that is both valid and factually correct.”(1) Which brings me to the next point. Nothing I will dedicate my argument in this round to the fact that Pro argues most importantly (the main assertion) that something cannot come from nothing. This is demonstrably false. I will now go into further detail why. Please note that all of Pros arguments rely on this assertion. As such, if I can show Pro is wrong using evidence based science then Pros arguments fail. My opponent has said this debate is not going to go smoothly if we disagree about what nothing is. With this, I completely agree. I have shown what nothing is according to the standard model (quantum vacuum) and this has been demonstrated. However, it seems my opponent misunderstand this, and as such I will go in detail to what nothing is. Nothing: The quantum vacuum otherwise called as zero point energy.(2) What is interesting about this nothing, is that in this nothing you can see particles arise and annihilate. So you are seeing something coming from nothing, please see reference 1 from round 2 if you are in doubt about this. Now while some physicist may disagree to what this nothingness is, that is what exactly is the quantum vacuum and if there is no quantum vacuum then is there is no big bang etc.(3) These questions have clearly very large implications, as if we disregard the quantum vacuum then the big bang did not happen which leads to an eternal universe and the concept of god dies with this proposition. On the other hand if we accept the quantum vacuum as nothing and the big bang did happen, then god also dies. As from this nothing, something can in fact arise. Please go to this link and watch the video.(4) I hope now my opponent is beginning to see why I say they need to prove nothing. I have shown the only real concept of nothing to be true, to counter my argument you need to disprove this and show the that your nothing is real. Something from Nothing again My opponent has said I have not shown the Casmir effect to be logically true? Yet the link I provided in the first round shows this to be a very valid scientific phenomena. Maybe my opponent thinks science is not logical? In the movie clip mentioned in reference 4 cited above, you can see what is meant by the Casmir effect. In fact, here are a number of scientific publications which have demonstrated the Casmir effect.(5,6,7) I have also decided to embed a youtube video that further demonstrates the Casmir effect here.(8) Its long so you don't need to watch it. http://www.youtube.com... In brief the Casimir effect is obtained by evacuating a cylinder with two metal plates of negligible mass put near each other. You are literally removing everything in this cylinder, that is there is no gas, no light, there is nothing as defined above. Then when you observe this tube of nothingness, what you will see is these metal plates moving together. You are literally observing something coming from nothing! If you are not impressed now, then nothing will ever impress you. Some other pointsRegarding Stephen Hawkings, I don't mind you bashing him. I was just pointing out the flaws with your argument which has to do with nothing. So basically see the arguments above.Also the questions you say are unanswered are irrelevant, as you have yet to prove your initial premise.As such why do I need to answer these questions when your argument to get to these questions is flawed. In fact I think these questions could make some good debate questions.ConclusionIn this round I have shown that something can come from nothing. My opponents whole concept of god being a logical concept is based on this premise. I have demonstrated this premise to be flawed, as such the idea that god is a logical concept is void. This is according to the laws of logic which my opponent holds so dearly.Now I hand the debate over to my opponent for their final round. (1) http://people.umass.edu... (2) www.calphysics.org/zpe.html(3) http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...(4) http://www.newscientist.com...(5) http://arxiv.org...(6) http://arxiv.org...(7) http://web.mit.edu...