The God of Christianity is probably real.

Thank you, Freeman, for your response. 1. The premises of my cosmological argument. My opponent argues that common sense might not be applicable to certain areas of cosmology and particle physics. However, the key here is that common sense "might" not be applicable. Common sense usually is correct. Therefore, because the resolution is "probably" and not "definitely," I can assume that common sense probably is correct. Additionally, in my opponent's examples, there is nothing that says that a particle can't exist in two places at once, or that a particle can't also be a wave. He also thinks that we will eventually link three different aspects of science in one grand theory. However, if we haven't done it yet, we can't say for certain that is inevitable. Additionally, he asks how my proof will look to physicists. I did not write this proof for physicists. As a non-physicist myself, I wouldn't know how. I wrote it for users of Debate.org. He argues that step 8 might not be true. However, it is probably true, as we have never had a natural event not directly caused by a preceding event, as outlined by determinism [1]. He gives no other comment, so I use the fact that I only have to show that the God of Christianity is "probably" real. He seems to have some problem with step 9. However, complaining about the addition of "magical" forces is by no means a rebuttal to the step. As for step 10, he ignores the first half of the proof, which showed that the universe and time had a definite starting point. A starting point is the first point. If there was an event before the starting point, that event would be the starting point. In order to show step 10 to be fallible, he would have to step 6 to be fallible, and he did not show step 6 to be fallible. He then points to step 11, although it directly follows from step 10 and the very definition of determinism. As he did not show step 6 to be fallible, he did not show step 10 to be fallible, and he apparently does not disagree with the definition of determinism that I cited from the Wiki, so step 11 logically follows. And then we come to steps 15-17. However, I never actually did have to prove God to be perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient. Here is the established definition from Round 1: "God - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions." He only had to be conceived to be perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient, which I showed to be true. He is conceived as perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient, as outlined in my source, the Wiki page for God, which affirms the definition. 2. The first cause and God. My opponent talks about a supercomputer with no physical parts (requiring it to be supernatural) that created the universe. However, this supercomputer would no doubt exist if it did exist, making it a "being" by definition [2]. Additionally, allow me to point to Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question" [3]. In it, a supercomputer did indeed create the universe as we know it. However, that supercomputer is at the same time worshipped as God, because in the story, God is a supercomputer. Even with my opponent's scenario, the supercomputer fits the definition of God, and therefore is God. He then claims that the Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics, and the universe may be compatible without God, although he doesn't explain how, especially when given the problems of the First Cause as outlined in my proof. 3. Deism vs. Theism My opponent claims that I need to bridge the gap between a deist God and the God described by the Bible. However, a deist God would STILL be the God described by the Bible; however, the Bible would just have gotten a few facts wrong. Even if God were not exactly how Christian theism described Him, he would still exist all the same, and he'd still be the center of worship for Christian theism. 4. Yahweh is God. My opponent makes the claim that not all gods are the same. However, given one deistic God, that God would be the main God of every single religion on Earth. "Indeed, if evidence were to turn up for such a God every theistic religion would claim that this was their God." And they'd all be right. Go back to the Wiki page for God [4]. "God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism." Every religion has one god that would be labeled as God. That God would be God. Let's replace my opponent's Poseidon with Zeus, the principle deity of Greek polytheism. In this case, Zeus would be the link between the Greeks and the real God. In the same light, An would be the link between the Sumerians and the real God, and so on. And then we come to Allah. Now, back when Muhammad accidentally founded Islam [5], he didn't create a new God. "Allah" is just "God" in Arabic. Muslims and Christians worship the exact same God. The God of Christianity is also the God of Islam and the God of Judaism. And by the paragraph above, He is also the God of Greek mythology, the God of Sumerian mythology, the God of Hinduism, and so on. Just because the people call God different names and conceive Him of having different characteristics does not mean that they're worshipping different Gods. Take this scenario. A Christian and a Hindu are in an argument. This is what you're not going to hear: "My God is real." "No, my God is real! Your God is a lie!" No, you're going to hear this: "Vishnu has multiple different personalities." "No, his name is God, and he has three components!" They don't argue about which God is real. They argue about what God is. So, in conclusion, all religions are worshipping the same God in different ways. But that one God is the God of all religions. That God, therefore, is the God of Christianity. See the proof in Round 1 for why He is real. The resolution is affirmed. Vote PRO. Well, thank you for this debate, Freeman. Maybe you'll see my side of things, maybe not. Good luck. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...