The existence of God.

Despite me being Pro for God's existence, Punk must, to have any chance of winning in this debate FAIRLY, give sufficient reasons to BELIEVE that there is no God. '"One option left, I have given sufficient reasons to believe in God and that God created the universe." Incorrect. See above."' I clearly stated that I gave sufficient evidence to BELIEVE that God exists and that He created the universe, clearly Punk is getting muddled up with sufficient knowledge. I went onto say that the universe cannot come from nothing as I don't believe nothing exists, while at the same time I believe God exists, Punk is really debating for the existence of nothing like I am concluding that God exists. "we do actually have a physical model where this shows that the Universe not only can but actually should be expected to arrive from nothingness)." Punk assumes widely that the universe should come from nothingness, when indeed we all know that if the universe came from nothingness, making this nothingness something, the universe as we know it wouldn't be the entire universe therefore extending my claim that either the universe is eternal or it was created by God. I am not being ignorant but rather reasonable. It seems that Punk chooses to decide when the universe begins when really logic tells another story. "...we arrive at the conclusion that all the Universe requires to start is a tiny amount of energy..." This has to be the largest contradiction I have seen from Punk. He assumes, again, that the universe started with something far smaller than a spark, he also calls it a conclusion which of course is absurd, as he does not even question where the energy comes from. But instead, misusing the word universe, he tries to persuade that the universe was created by a tiny piece of energy. Con does not distinguish the differences between the word nothing and vacuum. Open space is a vacuum as no sound vibrations cannot be carried in space, and there is no gravity yet it is vital for there to be open space so that planets, stars and galaxies can exist in a ordered fashion. Nothingness on the other hand brings no order or chaos to anything, since it does not exist. If it did exist, it would be something. Open space is a vacuum, open space exists therefore so do vacuums. Therefore, where did the universe come from? "via quantum fluxuations without violating the law of conservation of energy." Perfect example of sophistry. Could you explain this so that it does not contradict the rules of a debate? "The Universe is the 'set of all things'. Time included." Contradiction again, in the last round this was said..."...we arrive at the conclusion that all the Universe requires to start is a tiny amount of energy..." Motion or movement inherits time, but Punk loosely stated that the universe was caused by energy (movement) and energy inherits time yet here he says that time is included with the 'set of all things' which make up the universe. See the problem? Light Switch: I don't disagree with your first point, neither was I implying that it was incorrect but rather correct. If I asked you to flick the light switch forever, if you had sense you would say, "There would be no point, because I wouldn't be able to flick it forever." Why? Because you would have to be flicking it forever already. Because of the past time of me suggesting that you should flick it forever would be unfair given that time has passed where you haven't flicked the light switch. So my point is if the universe has been in existence forever then we wouldn't exist because there would have to be a infinite amount of events prior to our existence or in the universe's as a whole. But the fact that we do exist, there hasn't been an infinite amount of events. The chances that the universe would produce us is impossible, either we would have been produced an infinite amount of times or that everything else have been produced an infinite amount of times. We can only perceive the universe through our own senses. Either us or everthing else. Solipsism? Conversation: Utilitarianism is one of few variations of consequentialism, yes I agree, but that just proves my point. The fact that there are variations gives the implication that people strive to know what really is evil and good without involving God, give me good reasons to think otherwise? Why can't people settle for one version of consequentialism if neither versions involve God but instead the individual? Again I don't understand the last part of Punk's last round? Given that Punk is Con, he has not given any reason to believe there is no such thing as God or that He (if exists at all) didn't create the universe. When atheists try to disprove God at the same time they are trying to disprove their own problem with evil by saying if there is a God, why is there evil. Again how do you know what evil is if at the same time you try and disprove God?