God Probably Exists

In this round I will be defending my case against Pro’s rebuttals in R2. EternalismOV1-Pro brings up two logical fallacies; Bare Assertions and Straw Man. A bare assertion is when a fact is asserted without supporting reasoning or evidence, obviously, the veracity of a claim cannot be trusted. It is a “bare” assertion. Thus, any bare assertions have no impact. A straw man is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position [3]. It uses this reasoning:1) Person A has position X.2) Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).3) Person B attacks position Y.4) Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.1) Pro’s first objection to externalism is that if the universe was eternal, then we would have run out of energy by now by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.Pro doesn’t seem to understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and what it is. The First Law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and that the total amount of energy in the universe stays the same [1]. The Second Law states that, “In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same” [2]. Entropy being the amount of energy that is unavailable to do work.The First Law alone goes to negate Pro’s claim, and lose him credibility. But the Second Law also does not comply with Pro’s claim, thus we disregard it. Pro’s second objection is bringing up red shift, that the universe is expanding. That if you go back and back in time, the universe becomes denser, infinitely denser. I agree with Pro here, until he makes the claim, “until you got no universe.” Pro gives no justification for this, it is a bare assumption. We can accept that the universe continues to shrink infinitely so that it is infinitely small, but we cannot take the step to say that then there is no universe; for the universe can exist infinitely (eternally) in infinitely small form. This step needs to be explained, and as it is not, cannot be accepted (OV1). 2) Pro brings up the KCA again to show that the universe has a cause. But, I have already done a detailed rebuttal to show why it's false, see my R2 response. 3) This is another part that hurts Pro’s credibility. Pro straw man’s my argument (see OV1). Pro goes to disprove eternalism by claiming that I argued for the nonexistence of time. I clearly did not argue for the nonexistence of time, I merely argued for the nonexistence of a distinction between the existence of past, present, and future. Reverse Modal Ontological Argument1) I was quite honestly extremely confused by Pro’s response. After reading it thrice, it seems that he runs his Truth Argument to show that God exists...again. But it does not explain why this defeats my first premise. As I defeated Pro’s truth argument, I guess I defeated this rebuttal.2) Here Pro misunderstands the argument. I’m guessing Pro didn’t read my Clarification of premise 3. I’ll just clarify it further: if the the nonexistence of God is a logical possibility (not a logically impossible thing like a married bachelor), then God does not exist in a possible world. If he were to exist in a possible world, you would find God in all worlds since he is omnipotent (this is because existing in all possible worlds is more powerful than existing in just one, and since he must be all-powerful, he would have to exist in all worlds), thus if we do not find him in one possible world, he does not exist in any. 3) ^ConclusionI have negated all of Pro’s arguments, and he has not negated any of mine, thus I win the debate. Thank you to Pro for debating me, it has been fun! Waive next round. [1] http://www.livescience.com...[2] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[3] http://www.nizkor.org...