God Is Existent

I would like to note that none of these arguments are actually new, but they are supporting evidence for the case that I have brought up which is permitted in this debate, thus I have done no harm. I would also like to bring up if the case is still in violation you may nil it and tag me for misconduct as I would've violated the rules. I'm short on time so this round, unfortunately, will be rushed. Contention 1: Occam's Razor Now I shall get to where I left off last round. (note that this isn't a new argument as it was permitted that I would move to it this round due to running out of characters. I don't disagree with these laws in principal! But I think Con is misunderstanding them. Before I continue, I want to highlight a little mistake by Con. He stated that "a caused universe have to be refuted only by the addition of ad hoc hypothesis. " This is incorrect. An ad hoc statement would make an argument less likely, but doesn't necessarily refute it. But this is irrelevant, because none of my claims are ad hoc. First, the principle of parsimony is completely misstated. "[Principle of parsimony] appears to be based in the notion that, when there are several competing theories, ‘the simplest is always most likely to be the correct one'. However, this sound-bite version of the principle is not entirely correct and was not what Occam actually proposed at all. Simple ideas can be quite wrong and relatively complicated ideas are more than capable of being correct. […]In contrast to popular opinion, at no point did Occam ever state that the simpler explanation is always more correct or that the more complex explanation is always less correct. " [1] So what did Occam mean then? He argued that the best way to evaluate a theory "is to start from the simplest possible explanation and make it more complex only if, and when, absolutely necessary. " [1] Let me admit, that many theists make this mistake and whenever they find something they don't understand, they plug God into it. This is called the well known "God of the Gaps" fallacy [2]. These instances clearly violate the law of parsimony and are ad hoc. However, none of my claims were as such. They were all logical, rational and reasonably conclude that God is the best explanation given all the data available. I also want to add that none of my claims are ad hoc! I didn't stick the God hypothesis in any of my arguments to rescue it! I ask the audience to dismiss this argument altogether. Contention 2: Ontological Argument 4 and 5 axioms are quite self-explanitory. We can see that it's obvious that if this MGB doesn't exist in the real world we can see that it is quite obvious for the next MGB to be the MGB of the present universe, BUT because of that we can see that taking this out of the present universe we can still see that that said MGB would be greater than the current MGB as it had to be taken out of this universe for said assumption to occur, so we can see in this area that there is an MGB here and that this MGB has no choice, but to be God. [3] This point was also made last round and DROPPED by my opponent so we have to assume that we can no doubtably see here that God has to exist as there will always be an MGB in this present universe! The Godel argument goes right along here, because we can see when we plug this into the Theorems we can see that God has to exist due to there always being a "God-like" creature in the Greatest possible MGB that will ALWAYS exist in this relm, because of that, once again, we have to see that God exists. [4]Due to that we can see that I win this argument here. Contention 3: KCA My opponent argues that breaking physical laws is improbably, so it goes to his side, but that is illogical and impossible. We can see this because, as I've already shown, that things like the Kugleblitz shows that things can break the laws of Physics and supports my own arguments. We can see as we break down towards the point of singularity that once again the Laws of Physics begin to break down and for that reason we can see things like the Zero Universe and said series cannot possible be correct. This shows that there has no choice, but of devine intervention as these things exist as shown as things getting "hotter than temperature. " Now at this point you're probably woundering: What does all this, the temperature, BVG, etc. ., have to do with God? Well, let’s examine the implications of this conclusion: This cause must be outside of space and spacetime which began with the Big Bang [5] It must also be non-physical because it’s outside of space. One has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe. [Good point, but I removed omnipotence. Because they can argue that it’s extremely powerful, but extremely powerful is not all powerful. There’s no need to have a weaker argument because of technicality]. The cause is non-abstract, because abstract things don’t create things. Therefore, a cause that’s non-physical, outside of space and spacetime, extremely powerful, had free will, is not abstract and the creator of the universe. If this is not God. .. then God help us. Once again we can see that without a doubt that this point agains has to go to me. Contention 4: TA As stated last round I could not refute anything due to there only being a few hunderd characters reaming. Now I do know that it is subjective, but let's tie this in once more with the Aslem Argument. We can see that no matter what that the Greatest thing will be the greatest MGB even if you take that out then the next MGB will be the MGB. This works here as we can see that due to the interlinking of all things via the connection chain of MGB's that even if something is selfish or natural that it serves some purpose and due to all things in some personal relm being an MGB that in turn it shows that it is serving an MGB and hence in some possible world God. Due to this we can see that due to S5 axiom from the Ontological argument that we can see that If it is possibly neccessary then it is necessary. Meaning that due to the dropping of this point earlier by my opponent this in turn confirms the Teleological Arugment and thus forth proving God. In conclusion, we can see that God has no choice, but to exist. For this we just need to look at many things and that I have won over all of my contentions by cleverly interlocking them and henceforth by winning one it is easy to win the rest. We can see that I showed that no matter what God will exist for there being an MGB ALWAYS and that MGB will always be God in that case. Due to the relivence we can also see that due to the concession fo the Universe having a begining and that there bing times in the world and universe where the laws of physics are "broken" we can see that this is a key example of devine intervention and that this proves that God exists by showing that God can do the impossible.