God exists.

My opponent is still trying to assign me the BOP. However as I stated before, regardless of what the resolution actually states or whether or not the instigator is Pro or Con does not decide who has the BOP. By instigated this debate my opponent has made an assertion that god does not exist. As it stands my opponent instigated this debate and thus has the BOP. A. //"Fine, your god doesn't have to be all seeing or all good, but your own definition provides him to be all powerful. Where's the warrant? Who said he's all powerful? The onus is on you, the defender of said Deistic god, to prove that he exists, and that he meets YOUR own definition of God, which is the supreme creator the universe and that he is omnipotent. It's your own definition, and you don't meet it. "// My opponent has conceded that the god I am defending does not have to be all knowing or all good. My opponent asks why is god omnipotent? That is like asking why a school bus is yellow. Regardless of if it is yellow or not has no bearing on it's existence. //"Also, in regards to "God is not bound by time," it begs the question, "Says who? Since when? Where's the argumentation? "// Because it is part of what I described god as. It is part of the definition that god is creator of the universe. From this we must ask why it is not bound by time. To create the universe a being would have to be outside of time. God's timelessness follows from it's very definition. My opponent then goes on to completely misrepresent my argument. I did not say "everything as we know it is bound by time. " I actually said, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause for it coming into being. " Everyting as we know it does not have a cause. I only said that if something ever began to exist, it had a cause for coming into existence. This follows logically. My opponent next makes the claim that: //"By our definition of exists, gotta be able to perceive him, meaning know what God is and observe it. "// Nothing in my definition of god says that it cannot be perceived. Just because we have not yet perceived it does not make it impossible. Your full definition was, "In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses and persists independently without them. " Nothing in the definition of god which I provided makes it impossible to perceive it or makes it's existence bound to our thoughts. My opponent tries to win the debate based off a semantics argument however he clearly claimed in the first round that neither of us were to use semantics in our debate. //"That's it. Lets not talk semantics, but actually just talk about the topic. "//[1] //"And even if you think that is semantics, it's really not. It's a unreliable and moving advocacy. Either everything is bound by time or he has to provide warranted exceptions. He makes the mere assertion that God isn't bound by time, but again. Says who. Why is he outside and above time? And what does it mean to be "outside and above time"? This is not answered by the Pro, which would be necessary to even understand his argument on a fundamental level. Does this mean that God can travel through time? Does this mean that God *is* time? Does this mean that God can manipulate time to His will? If it is any of these things, then it begs the question, "Why? "// I will repeat to my opponent, I at no point in this debate claimed that everything is bound by time. I would like my opponent to try and cite one time in this debate where I said that. I claimed that everything that eer began to exist had a cause. I have also answered the question as to why god is above time as it logically follows from the definition. My opponent by asking 'why? ' over and over is simply begging the question and is not at all refuting my arguments. B. Alright fine. So lets drop B. My opponent has conceded B. C. My opponent fundamentally misunderstands the argument made here. Additionally, his argument is nothing short of circular. My opponent seems to be refusing to understand the point I am trying to make. I am not simply describing a phenomenon. I am using a fact about the universe(everything which began to exist had a cause) and applying it to the definition I gave for god. I stated that god is the creator of the universe and so when it is shown that the universe needs a creator, that makes god a logical explanation. D. No, you haven't. Why does "God" get a cop out? My opponent is ismply begging the question here. I contended that everything which began to exist must have a cause. I have never said that god ever began to exist. Therefore form premise 1 it follows that god gets a 'cop out' on time and needing a cause. 1. Ultimate Boeing 747 Where's the warrant for anything existing outside of time? And why does God get that privilege? I get tired of repeating myself. God exists outside of time because in it's very definition god created the universe and thus time. In order to be able to create time, one cannot be bound by time. It logically follows from the definition of god which I provided, and my opponent agreed upon, that god would exist outside of time. //"And the argument isn't that the universe isn't too complex to have existed by chance. It's that anything as complex as the universe, if it wanted a cause, said cause would have to be even more complex. How did the complexity arise? "// You assume that I am claiming that the universe is complex and thus needs a cause. This is not my argument. The complexity of something doees not imply the need for a creator. It is the fact that if something began to exist there must logically have been a cause. //"Your argument may be that the universe needs a cause, but why does it need to exist outside of time? There are plenty of theories out there that say otherwise. "// Again, it follows logically that for something to create time, it must exist outside of it. Just like how a fetus cannot logically create it's mother. To my opponent's claim that there are other theories as to if the Big Bang was the cause of time, these are theories. And I know that scientists use a different definition of theory and that the word actually makes them credible. However, would the existence of other theories does not itself disprove my own. //"And so if not everything has a cause, what's to stop the Universe from not having a cause? Where's the warrant for that premise of yours? It's clearly not something that can just be accepted, seeing as there is a high amount of contention about it in the first place. "// I have already explained why the universe does need a cause. It began to exist as I stated earlier and logically for something to begin to exist it must exist in relation to time and thus needs a cause. God is immune from this premise in that it never began to exist as it is the creator of time and therefore is not held by it but exists outside of time. My opponent has repeadetly claimed that god needs a cause. This conclusion however is fallacious in that I have covered why god is immune from this premise in that it never began to exist. The universe needs a cause because it began to exist while god never did.