God Does Exist

Before I begin my rebuttal, I would like to remind Pro (and the readers) what is happening in this debate: 1) Pro has challenged me and made the assertion that God does exist. This is a knowledge claim; that is, a claim based on knowledge and not just beliefs. In other words, neither faith nor uncertainty (i.e. the "It's a mystery" card) can play a factor in proving his case. He has the burden of proof (as the instigator, and as Pro, the affirmative - the one making a claim) to prove using EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that God (a deity) does, in fact, exist. He has not done so. 2) A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers [1]. I offered a similar definition in R1. Pro wishes to expand this definition to include "the one who is responsible for the Cosmos." I'm going to have to respectfully decline this inclusion in the definition, as it limits the debate in terms of which deities we can and cannot talk about. This definition also begs the question ; my opponent must prove that a deity has created the universe in order to give a deity such a definitive trait. Additionally, the Buddhist Madhyamaka argue strongly against the existence of a universal creator or essential being (such as Brahman). Pantheism considers the universe itself to be a deity. Etc. As you can see, there are various interpretations of deities although all deities fall into the realm of my presented definition. Since Pro said that he was not arguing for a specific deity, all examples of deities must be considered. If Pro wishes to argue specifically for a deity that created the universe, than he must specify which deity is up for discussion, i.e. the monotheistic Abrahamic God. Since he has not done so, any deity is up for discussion in this debate. 3) Pro has put forth no arguments for the existence of a deity and instead stated, "I have no opening arguments, as to me nature itself should be evidence enough to show that Intelligence created it." However just because there is intelligence behind nature does not prove in any way whatsoever that a deity is responsible. To automatically dismiss alternative possibilities would be to succumb to Anthropocentrism, which is the belief that humans must be considered at the center of and/or above any other aspect of reality. In other words, there are dimensions of reality which humans do not experience, and these dimensions could have played a hand in the universe creating itself. Just because we don't understand how this could have happened (yet) doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened. Maybe we don't have any examples of this happening in nature because it only happened once at the beginning, or happens in different dimensions or planes all the time that we just can't see. Remember that my suggestions are mere theories the same way that Pro's suggestion of a deity being responsible is a mere theory. The difference is that Pro has the burden of PROOF (not superior suggestion). 4) Pro insists that if "He" created the cosmos, He would exist outside of a natural realm and in turn be supernatural. If God is infinite, i.e. 'extending indefinitely,' then God would not only be the Maker but actually MAKE UP the very realms that my opponent is talking about - the Cosmos and the Universe. In that case, my argument from R1 that the universe could have created itself stands. God would be the cosmos and the universe - which would affirm the resolution - however it does not fit into the parameters of the debate that my opponent has put forth. Pro asserts that there is a specific Maker who designed these things. He must prove that a deity outside of the universe itself (God) exists and is responsible for creating said universe and cosmos. So far all my opponent has done is say that God must exist because the universe does. I don't see how he has linked one or the other. His argument: "If a Deity created the cosmos (all matter, space, and time), this would mean that He (for brevity I will use this pronoun) would have existed outside of this natural realm. He would be, in effect, SUPERnatural. As a supernatural Being, He would be able to create, manipulate, and even fully destroy within this realm, as He is the Maker." Note the very first key word of his explanation: IF. His entire argument rests on "if" God created the cosmos; however, there is no proof that God has, nor has Pro provided any empirical knowledge that suggests that this theory is correct. Again, simply because we don't have the answers yet does not mean that the answer is necessarily God. 5) Pro uses the analogy of video game users being able to manipulate the video game. What he fails to realize is that these video game users are in the same reality as the video game (using atoms, electricity, etc. that is in our reality to create this game), and therefore his analogy fails. We are not outside of the reality of the video game just like we are not outside of the reality of a play or movie; they are made in the same reality we are. Pro has yet to provide information on how something that is outside of reality can touch and or create reality. 6) My opponent states, " This does not explain how that other dimension started..." about my Big Bang explanation. He is using my Big Bang explanation to infer that I do not know where matter came from. All existence being created and the Big Bang's creation could be two completely different things. Again, matter could have always been in that other dimension. 7) When presented with the question of "If God created everything, what created God," my opponent dismisses the inquisition entirely yet that notes it is a logical one. For instance, he concludes his round by saying that he would like to see a definite theory on how something can create itself. When it comes to God, however, he says that knowing who/what created God is not important, because: "I can state that this Deity created time, space and matter, so He must exist outside of them and is then not affected by them (especially time). He has always existed outside of nature. This supernatural realm, one can only conclude, has its own laws." Again, note that he can STATE that this deity created time and space; however, just because he can state it doesn't mean that he has proven it or that it is true. Additionally, he hasn't argued against the notion that something like "time" wasn't created and instead just IS. For instance, one theory of time suggests that time is merely a bending of space (Einstein's theory of relativity). We can also take into account Time Theory B (Einstein again) which suggests that everything is happening at the same time, therefore bringing the cosmos into a non-linear existence. It just is, and logically it could never not exist. 8) Finally Pro avoids answering to any type of logic or reason by asserting that God exists outside of the natural realm and thus different laws apply to God. This is similar to how the Church insisted that the moon stayed in the sky (and didn't fall to Earth via gravity) because it obeyed heavenly laws that were beyond the reach of earthly laws. It wasn't until Isaac Newton extended the laws of gravity to the moon by implying that it was a mere satellite of the earth (heresy, indeed!) that we gained new insight that finally united science and the heavens. Science is progressive and surely similar revelations are to occur in the future. In conclusion, Pro is asserting that something exists, but does not know what that something is, where that something is from, nor the laws that govern or apply to that something. Let me ask you this: If no knowledge is presented or even KNOWN about that something, then how can you make a knowledge claim asserting that this something exists? Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... -- For the expanded definition of a Deity