God Exists

Opening Statement I thank Con for his attempts to refute my arguments. I will now present my conclusions and shall look forward to his final remarks. Concluding Rebuttals Prophecy Con argues that the Jews returning to Israel is self-fulfilling. He doesn't seem to understand the point of prophecy, because all prophecy is essentially self-fulfilling. The real point of prophecy is that once it has been stated, nothing will be able to prevent it from happening. Not even the Holocaust wiped out the Jewish race, and they were still able to restore the state of Israel afterwards. Con does not seem to fully grasp just how powerful an argument this is, as this feat by the Jews was hardly a simple task. And as my opponent has presented no valid reason for the quote from Newton to be rejected (as only resorting to an attack of integrity to the source supplying the quote), it becomes an increasingly amazing prophecy as it could have only been fulfilled in the 20th century, which it was. Con argues that I have given no reason to prefer God for the fulfillments of prophecy without asserting which part of my syllogism (whether it be the premises or conclusion) was incorrect. My opponent extended his argument without refuting mine and only presented arguments that attacked the authority of the prophets of antiquity by demeaning them to have had psychic fits. Now my argument will stand and Con can only make a speculation against it without further discussion. Consciousness Causes Collapse Con argues that the apparatus is sufficient for collapsing the wave function. He fails to understand that both human consciousness and an apparatus collapse the wave function. An apparatus is created to supply another method of measuring the functions, but consciousness alone is sufficient, and also necessary in order to create said apparatus. He fallaciously tried to argue paradoxically that human consciousness is the cause that effected the wave collapses billions of years before they happened (He did present the possibility for retro-causality, which is itself only possible when humans alter the natural flow of quantum entangled particles by switching the pairs). I dropped the argument for the benefit of Con, and proceeded to point out that we have a vast universe with wave functions that won't collapse unless they are observed. If there is no observer, how is our vast universe “reality”? What consciousness is causing the collapse of wave particles beyond what we have observed in the universe? Since my opponent evaded answering this question, my argument will now stand and he can only speculate against it (or finally provide his rebuttal), even though he ironically asserted the opposite. Solar Eclipses I did not present a straw man fallacy. Firstly, I asserted that the moon is more likely to be designed, (never assuming was designed), then asked Con to provide an alternative explanation so we could discuss and debate which was more likely to be true. Con argued that “no one knows the odds” and pleaded that this was a sufficient rebuttal towards my claim, even though I have already demonstrated this was clearly an argument from ignorance. And because our sun and moon both do appear as the same size to us, this is not an unproven assumption. Should our universe be created, I would expect mathematical synchronizations such as this, which is what we see. Since Con evaded a rebuttal throughout his rounds, we are now unable to further my argument. My argument now stands where Con may finally give his alternative explanation, but it will only be a speculation without allowing me to refute it. Problem of Evil Con argues I used a false analogy, when Scripture emphatically compares God as a parent, numerously calling him “Father.” If Con had a parent that prevented him from doing anything wrong, he would immediately develop a strong dislike towards his parents. An all wise God allows freewill; an unloving God would create robots that must love Him. But that is not love. My opponent asserts free will is highly debated in philosophy, then fails to provide a reference proving so. As we live in a society with laws, asserting free will is demonstrably justified, whereas anyone denying freewill has the burden of proof. But to appease his request: quantum mechanics disproves determinism and proves free will. It was only because of classical mechanics that people falsely assumed determinism. http://www.realclearscience.com... My opponent asserts there is no evil in heaven. “There was war in heaven” (Revelation 12:7). Obviously freewill exists in heaven, which refutes his unwarranted assertion. Angels did leave heaven, as they were not created as robots to serve a master without choosing to do so. My opponent again makes a paradoxical argument with a freewill analogy. If sin was something that we were physically unable to do, that is not freewill. A blind man is not free to see whatever he pleases, as he may wish to see many things but will never be able to do so. This unwarranted assertion is disproved. My opponent argues that if Adam and Eve were created perfectly, then the blame is on God. First, it is not said that they were created perfectly, rather, when created God said “very good.” Good is not perfect. Secondly, my opponent brings up the term perfect, without defining what his view of it is, as everyone sees it differently. I would say a being with freewill is perfect, as this is vastly superior to a god who wouldn't be able to create someone with freewill. Humans can create robots, but we cannot create something and allow it to make it's own choices. The fact that we do have freewill is a strong argument for God. Temporal Minds. I did not present a straw man fallacy. My opponent has never experienced anything atemporal. He is not qualified to speculate that an atemporal mind could not exist. Also, atemporal is defined as: “not limited [to] or affected by time”, but it is not a lack of time. My opponent used the fallacy of equivocation to make an argument. It fails. http://www.definitions.net... However, as previously argued, the God of the bible is never described as being outside of time. “From eternity to eternity I am God.” (Isaiah 43:13) This blatantly identifies Him as in time, and the point is that He is eternal, not necessarily outside of time. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Again, this directly puts God inside time, only claiming that He made material things, not claiming that God created time also. The Bible is written from a human perception, so I would expect it to be perceived through an A theory of time. We know that the sun doesn't move, yet we still say it “rises” and “sets” in relation to our perception, so I would not expect the Bible to be emphatically making a statement for A theory of time. Concluding Statement I would like to thank Con for this engaging debate. However, as my opponent submitted to evasive tactics throughout the debate, we were unable to progress to a more in-depth discussion. Nevertheless, I expect some thoughtful conclusions. Good luck, Con.