God does not exist.

In Pro's response, Pro focuses a lot of energy on semantics. So hopefully I can shine a little light on this subject. Brilliant! Let's get STARted. *Superhuman*I can't for the life of me figure out why Pro would choose to focus on the term "superhuman" instead of the term "being. "The term "being" in this debate is defined and accepted by Pro to mean "existence. "There is no "intelligent" qualifier or restriction to the definition of "being," so "being" means ANY existence intelligent or otherwise, and that's totally fine with Pro. The problem is that Pro said in round 1,"The opponent's definitions seem reasonable and are certainly commonly understood terms"Therefore, Pro necessarily agrees that the definition for god is a "superhuman any existence," even if Pro thinks superhuman isn't exclusive enough; the "being" term of this debate is not altered by Pro's challenging of "superhuman. "So Pro can challenge the usage of superhuman and claim that using it to modify non-intelligent beings is nonsensical, but Pro exactly did just that, by accepting the definition of "god" and "being" in this debate. god - a superhuman being. being - existence. Pro says about "superhuman:""Attempting to apply the adjective to non-intelligent beings is an inappropriate application of the word. "My response:How about applying the adjective to an existence, as you accepted the definition of god to be in this debate, Pro? Why did you accept the definition of god to be a superhuman ANY existence? Then, after all of that, why did Pro attack the term "superhuman" when clearly Pro wanted the definition of being to be "intelligent being" and not just any "existence? "By accepting the definitions of "god and "being," Pro commits that inappropriate application of the adjective Pro so openly condemns. Pro accepts that being means ANY existence and this should weigh heavily when voting. Pro says:"It is valid to claim that "superhuman" only modifies nouns that also have the quality of "intelligent. "My response:Why? Because the term superhuman's been found to describe fictional characters in popular culture that happen to also be fictional intelligent beings? Lame. Pro continues:"I provided a litany of examples demonstrating this fact and what's doubly amazing is that I didn't even cherry pick. "Ok, well, as I can see it, the litany of examples that Pro provides of "inappropriate" superhuman existences are all great points for my side. Here's Pro's litany of examples:"A lighter would be superhuman because it can quickly produce fire by itself, whereas humans cannot. A car would be superhuman because it can move faster than humans. Tungsten would be considered superhuman because it can withstand greater temperatures than humans. "My response:I agree Pro, and thanks for pointing out EXACTLY what I was going to point out. Pro tried to make the claim that applying "superhuman" to anything non-intelligent is nonsensical and inappropriate however, in this list of examples, everything he listed were in fact superhuman non-intelligent beings that all made sense and both Pro and I understood. So, even if Pro thinks that superhuman isn't used in this manner, he just did it, again, thrice. He's now defined god to be a "superhuman ANY existence" and has given three examples of things that can be both non-intelligent and superhuman at the same time. Bravo. *Abilities =/= Intelligent*Superhuman, in popular usage, typically refers to superhuman abilities or features. Well, neither features nor abilities themselves are intelligent beings, so it is perfectly appropriate to modify these nouns with the adjective superhuman, and Pro would have to agree. P1 Abilities are not intelligent beings themselves. P2 Abilities can be appropriately described as superhuman. C1 Non-intelligent beings can be appropriately described as superhuman. *Intelligence is Contingent on God*Being that Pro is so hell bent on showing that only an intelligent being can be superhuman, Pro has ignored the actual reasons that god, the sun, is superhuman. The origin of intelligence itself is contingent on god being that UV rays played a crucial role in abiogenesis on earth. Without god, there are no brains (or at least neuronal substrates) on earth and therefore no intelligence. Therefore, because intelligence itself (the very quality that Pro thinks is so crucial for something to be called superhuman) is contingent on the god of Heliolatry, the god of Heliolatry is superior to even intelligence itself. If the god of Heliolatry is superior to intelligence itself, then the god of Heliolatry is most certainly superior to human intelligence. The god of Heliolatry is superhuman, because of the many superhuman qualities it has. It also objective exists.