God Does NOT Exist, God is NOT Great, and Makes Life Worthless

. . . ====> G O D S - E X I S T E N C E <==== :::Argument from the Universe::: My opponent calls my argument a strawman because it only works if God created himself. However, if my opponent asserts an infinite God, he indeed, must have created himself. Let me note that my prior argument assumed a finite God (God being only a part of existence.) So, finite creator God has been refuted. Acknowledging this nuance, I will reconstruct the argument to refute an infinite God as well. If God is infinite, he created himself because: P1: God is infinite. (As my opponent claims, as do most Theists.) P2: If God is infinite, he cannot be separate from creation. He is all encompassing, including creation. :. If God created creation, he created himself. **Argument from the Universe (When Infinite God is postulated.)** P1: The whole of existence is everything that exists. P2: If God is infinite, he is the whole of existence. P3: If God is all that exists, he could not have created existence itself. :. Therefore, an infinite creator God is not possible. Thus, it has been affirmed once again. He's infinite, he is everything. What is there to create? If there's things missing not yet created, he's not everything and not infinite. :::Kalam's Cosmological Argument FAILS::: P1: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause. I have already refuted this in prior rounds. I know the argument asserts that everything we observe began to exist. But the fact is, we have not observed anything that began to exist. Everything that we have observed, is made up of the same atoms that have always existed. Matter transforms, it fluctuates, and can even transform into a laptop if manipulated properly. But the matter has always existed (Law of Conservation of Matter). KRF asserts that Premise 1 only pertains to phenomena that we currently observe in the Universe. That is to say, things as we observe them today, begin to exist. He then asserts that Premise 2 deals with something different. It deals with the origin of all matter and all energy, and the entire Universe itself. Well, doesn't this make Premise 1 irrelevant then? Because obviously the conditions after the Big Bang are different before the Big Bang. If my opponent wants to assert that assertions of Premise 1 and Premise 2 have the same grounds, then he would also have to concede that the Law of Conservation of Matter applies to both our current Universe after the Big Bang, and applies to existence before the Big Bang. If the Law applies before the Big Bang, the Universe could not have begun to exist. See the problem here? (My opponent also falely accuses me of committing a composition fallacy by claiming that I said that, because matter never began, therefore my laptop never began. That wasn't my argument. I said that because matter never began, the matter in my laptop never began either.) P2: The universe began to exist. {KRFournier: For example, if matter and energy always existed, something would have to cause that matter and energy to expand into 4 dimensions.} That makes no difference. The matter and energy of the singularity point never began to exist. It was always there. You asked what caused the expansion (which would actually pertain to P3, not this), however, expansions don't require a cause, especially if you concede that it never began to exist. We already know that matter exists, and is perfectly capable of expanding, morphing, and doing all kinds of things on it's own (without a cause per se). P3: The universe has a cause. It almost seems as if my opponent is willing to grant me that matter and energy always existed. That means nothing began to exist, so there goes P1 and P2. And granted that's not the case, my opponent has still failed to meet his burden. ***KRF must unequivocally show that space, time, matter, and energy began to exist. He has not.*** As you can see from Round 1, I was more than happy to acknowledge and postulate expanding universes that began as singularity points. However, as already demonstrated, my position is that we don't know that the matter and energy of the singularities actually "began to exist." :::Ambiguity of the Uncaused Cause::: My opponent concedes this point once again, yet criticizes that this fact doesn't prove the non-existence of God. While I agree with this point, he forgets that my arguments affirming that God doesn't exist are complimentary, and not affirmative based on the merit of this argument alone. Remember, arguments against God can include positive arguments against and negative arguments against arguments for God. I have both. ====> G O D - I S - N O T - G R E A T <==== :::God Can't Be Great::: My opponent contents that my arguments that God is finite don't hold up. However, I have constructed an agument that affirms this. God is finite. P1: God exists outside of time-space and is separate from creation. P2: If the above is true, God doesn't exist everywhere, only some places. :. God is not infinite. :::God is a Tyrannical Dictator::: My opponent believes I have not upheld the assertion that if God is evil, finite, and tyrannical, and therefore, not warranted to claim he is NOT 'superior in quality of character,' he is NOT 'noble,' and he is NOT 'remarkable or significant.' However, I have explained that God is evil because he invented an infernal concentration camp for those who don't believe just in him. He is finite as demonstrated above. And God is tyrannical by definition. Tyranny: absolute ruler; arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power. [1] So God is NOT great, whatsoever! ====> G O D - D E G R A D E S - L I F E S - S I G N I F I C A N C E <==== KRF asserts that my argument for this is groundless, however, this is not the case. My argument was simply that the existence of God degrades the significance of life. Degrade simply means "to lower in character or quality; to reduce in amount; to reduce in worth or value." [2] The existence of a God who hands you a predefined meaning to life, already is an example of life being "reduced in amount." It eliminates all other possible meanings of life, it stops one from creating his or her own meaning, and reduces the multitude of opportunities and potential of life. ====> T A G <==== KRF asserts that: P1: "Objective truth is obtained via reliable principles such as logic, science, and morality." P2: These three principles must be abstract and absolute. P3: "For [the three principles] to be universal and independently verifiable, these are the necessary preconditions." :. "The Christian Worldview is the only worldview that accounts for the aforementioned preconditions." This is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS! He justifies his conclusion by saying "Naturalism cannot account for abstract entities. Idealism cannot account for absolute entities." I ask, what is the reasoning behind this? What proof? He doesn't even attempt to make an argument as to why God or the Christian worldview can only account for absolutes and universals as opposed to other world views! His conclusion is a complete and utter non-sequitur with no justification! As I stated before, this is akin to saying that "Math can only be valid and absolute... if God exists!" What is this? The only thing that can be affirmed by this argument is that objective truth relies on principles like logic, and in order to be valid, they must be absolute and have a basis for being absolute. There's no reason to posit God as the only possible explanation for absolutes. Might as well say, "Goddidit." This does not hold up. ====> C O N C L U S I O N <==== Resolution affirmed. Thank you to my opponent and thanks for taking the time to read this. Sources: In comments section.