Existence of God

on his point of the five senses, I believe this, because even though it may not be true, it is the most reliable source we use. But epistemology can exist, because it is an idea, god was never purposed as an idea, rather a being of ultimate power, therefore all sources that point to god that are outside of the human mind are unreliable I'll agree that the problem of evil is dropped Cosmological The title of the debate has nothing to do with your burden of proof, you still have to prove there is a god, and if you cannot, we must assume that there is no god. I don't have to make a case, because I don't have any burden of proof, if you wanted that, you should have established that as a clause in the first round. >>>I do not have to prove that everything that has ever existed has had a cause. The reason being is that by DEFINITION a cause must be antecedent or simultaneous with it's effect. ^1 By definition as well an effect must have a cause. ^2 Based on Big Bang cosmology the universe must have had a beginning. ^3 It appears my opponent must not be up to date with with the latest scientific knowledge -first, that's an ad hominem, secondly it is impossible to prove that everything needs a cause, but you still need to prove it, you were doomed from the start, because you cannot prove that everything in the universe needs a cause, who's to say that there isn't one little speck of dust that has no cause whatsoever. Also, isn't this just a hasty generalization? because you use such a small group (earth) to represent a composite of billions of stars and planets. >>> I am not trying to determine the rules of the universe, merely listing the basic principles of philosophy and the world itself. -ok, with this subject, you can't use philosophy, you're trying to prove the existence of a deity, you cannot use a philosophy to prove that. You must determine rules of the universe, where your rules are faulted (I'll extend in the overview) Teleological ok, so he does drop my points. Also, he concedes that you cannot calculate the universe because it is infinite Objective morality There were no real refutations in the last speech, so you must drop this argument Alright, he basically drops my answer to his deductive reasoning- when talking about something as infinite as the universe, you can't just eliminate 2 choices and have your answer, the universe has infinite possibilities. therefore, all arguments above are invalid, and there is no proof of a god. Vote Con- he only asks me to explain it, so my opponent basically eliminates fifty choices and then chooses one, that would be good if we were talking about earthbound problems, but we aren't were talking about a body that is so infinite, it is mathematically impossible to eliminate all but one possibility, you cannot deduce that there is a god, only prove there is one. Just a note, I did read his evidence, but the remarks made in them had no studies, data, statistics, through investigation, or in a sense, observation. All it was is that I guy just sat down and thought, he only thought, he didn't test, he merely purposed a philosophical hypothesis and then people agreed, no tests no data, nothing. He has no VALID source.