God(s) existence

FRAMEWORK:We have seen two contradictions of terms here. The opposition states that he "will be referring to the Christian God", but says later that "this thoery was first suggested by Einstein, who ironically believed in the same God as me". Einstein was most definitely hostile of religion, and did not believe in the Christian God. He believed in Spinoza's God-one and the same with nature. For the sake of this debate, I shall define God as the typical Christian God, the "perfect omnipotent, extra-universal benevolent deity who knows all and cares about us". This is a common sensical definition. We shall then define existence (in order to stay away from the metaphysical blabber of ontology) as "having an objective reality".The BoP lies on the opposition solely. The negation of all of his arguments would easily mean a Con-ballot. REFUTATIONS:1. John 1:5, Time Dilation I shall refute the opposition's position on this on three grounds: one on merely logical grounds, another on theological basis, and the last on the mere content of his argument. On a merely logical grounds, "God exists because "light is "outside" of time. God is outside of time. God is light." Anyone with any inkling in Aristotelian logic will tell you that this is wholly false upon a logical analysis of the three premises. For we are saying: "All unicorns are white, all Causcasian men are white, henceforth all Causcasian men are unicorns". The first two premises are true, but the conclusion is clearly false. "I refute it thus" (as Samuel Johnson used to say). Upon this, there is no grounds on the opposition's John 1:5 arguments being proven sound. [1]But even if the opposition's premises were valid, the interpretation of John 1:5 is wholly absurd and inaccurate. Commentaries on this passage have shown that it is supposed to be intepreted in a more metaphorical and ethical sense. The commentaries of Matthew Henry states that "the great God should be represented to this dark world, as pure and perfect light.... as his doctrines and precepts must be such". P05;τι P01; ΘεP56;ς φQ82;ς O52;στ^3;] φQ82;ς (the passage in Greek) clearly shows that "God’s nature is light = absolute holiness and truth". Even through the context of the message, "God is light" was never supposed to be taken literally. For John 1:6 states that "if we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth". Henceforth, light here is supposed to be an allusion to the enlightening values of God and how he represents the "truth". (Genesis should also be taken into consideration. It is said that God created light-hence, light is an attribute of God) [2,3] On a side note, this is a normal "God of the Gaps" situation. We have no obligation, no sufficient reason (in Leibnizean terms) to say that because God is light (and the reverse) that God actually cares about us. If God is light, he is omnipresent-which makes God present when universes die, or when Freud healed Anna O. However, that gives us no justification for us to believe that God cares about what we do.Nevertheless, on to time dilation. Time dilation is a much more complicated theory and has much more complicated philosophical implications that what anyone might think. Upon the postulate that "light is attracted to heavier objects", time can be slown down by being next to heavy objects. This postulates indeed that light is beyond time (light is not matter). However, this proves nothing-for even if light is beyond time, then where does God enter the picture? Why do we have to attribute anything beyond space and time to this thing called God? It is neither analytical nor synthetical. But let us postulate, with the help of Kantian terminology, that God exists outside space and time. Then doesn't that make God "noumena" (thing-in-itself)? We can never perceive "noumena" so to say-hence, how do we perceive God? Our perception of God says that God must be within "space and time". Light can be outside space and time, but light we know is in space-time. Why can we not say the same thing about God? If He is outside space and time, then we cannot conceive of him. [4]2. MiraclesI will not refute the individual examples of miracles, but refute the methodological usage of them to prove the existence of God. If the Christian God truly does exist, then why did he cause miracles in the "pagan" temples of India (where there are numerous instances of statues of pagan Gods "drinking" milk)? Why was Pythagoras seen in two different places at one time in Ancient Greece? What basis is their for an objective existence of the Christian God when miracles happens everywhere? [5,6]And even if miracles did happen, why are they so rare? Why is the omnipotent God unable to feed millions of kids in Africa? What did the "Lord Almighty" do to prevent the citizens of Mosul (Christians) who were killed when ISIS captured the city? Some might say "it was because of sin" and all, but why were those affiliated with pedophilia given miracles, and not those who sincerely pray in Iraqi Christian cities, who were massacred by IS?These honest question begs the point-the expectations of the Lord Almighty would be much more grand than healing a single kid. Why can He not give us a cure for cancer, or at least, the perfect form of governance? Why can God not provide us with a better world-why are his miracles singular cases of healings? This either shows that God is wholly limited in his power, or that he doesn't care about the evil in this world-both contradicts the definition of God. For the sake of my own satisfaction, I shall produce one positive argument in the negation of God's existence.ARGUMENT FROM IMPERFECTIONP1. The world is imperfectP2. God is perfectP3. Existence pertains to the existence in this world P4. If God exists, then it denies his perfection, which via P2 is absurdC. Henceforth, God does not existThe defense of P1 is simple-we can imagine a better world. This world is definitely not perfect. P2 is analytical from the definition of God. P3 is also anlaytical from the definition of exsitence. P4 needs defending-if God exists, then, He would necessarily exist in a world with huge suffering-with cancer, Huntington's Disease, heart diseases, self-destructing planets etc. If God is a wholly perfect creature, God's existence in this world would ultimately mean that He is imperfect, for it would mean that through His omnipotence, He is still unable to stop the planets from exploding. The conclusion neccesarily follows. I consider the resolution negatedCITATION[1] http://faculty.bsc.edu...[2] http://biblehub.com...[3] http://biblehub.com...[4] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[5] [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...