God exists.

Alright, lets talk about a deistic god. So we're good on what kind of God we're talking about. We can use my opponent's chosen definition, but he still fails to win this debate. He concedes the definition, and that's going to be important, later on. I've won this debate on the burden. It's as simple as that. I have not made a positive statement that "God" exists. I am the Con to the statement that "God Exists." The resolution, simply put, is "God exists." As the Pro, it is his job to prove that it does. My job is to prove him wrong. That's why in my opening statement, I allow the Pro to make his advocacy first. I'm not making any positive claim that God doesn't exist. Also, he concedes my Russel evidence. Russel clearly states that if you have a dogma that you want others to believe, it is your job to prove it right. Technical rules aside, it just makes sense. There is no reason to presume that my opponent is right. Russel's teapot is a elegant example of this. If I say there is a teapot in between Earth and Mars, and the resolution posed was, "The Celestial Teapot exists," it would not be my job to prove that it doesn't. It would be anyone who believes in said teapot to prove that it does. If I say I can fly, it is not your job to prove that I cannot, it is my job to show that I can. Anyone defending a dogma has the burden of proving the dogma true. I win the burden right there. ~~~~~ Contention levels 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. Also, in regards to "God is not bound by time," it begs the question, "Says who? Since when? Where's the argumentation?" Answer to that question is: There is none. The only advocacy my opponent provides is enclosed within the Kalam argument, which does not provide any warrant as to why God is above time. There's also an intrinsic contradiction in my opponent's words. 1. He says, "everything as we know it is bound by time." 2. He then goes to use that "fact" to prove that God exists. 3. By our definition of exists, gotta be able to perceive him, meaning know what God is and observe it. 4. Wait so since everything is bound by time, God therefore is also bound by time, since He is certainly part of "everything" 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?" B. Alright fine. So lets drop B. C. My opponent fundamentally misunderstands the argument made here. Additionally, his argument is nothing short of circular. He is using the word "God" to describe a phenomenon. If I use the word "hot" to describe that same phenomenon, does that mean that "hot" exists? Clearly not. Or how about pink invisible unicorn? Or flying spaghetti monster? Or any other word you choose. Just by labelling it does not prove existence, especially because we have a very clear definition of what it means to exist. Secondly, lets say he wins that he can call the cause of the universe God. Does that mean he "exists"? No. He may have existed at that point in time, but the resolution is "exists." The "god" that my opponent has so fallaciously labelled no longer exists, so even if he wins that point there's no reason for you to vote Pro. D. No, you haven't. Why does "God" get a cop out? _______________________________________________ 1. Ultimate Boeing 747 Where's the warrant for anything existing outside of time? And why does God get that privilege? 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? 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. Speaking of which, why did the universe need a cause? the God that you say that I call the Big Bang has been only theorized. Not to mention, there is a huge debate between astronomers that the Big Bang wasn't even the start of time, space, matter, but really just one Bang in a whole series of Big Bangs in an infinite loop, that time and space were always there. [1] That takes out your argument on a very fundamental level, as you have yet to prove that the universe truly needed a cause in the first place. 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. And I've already covered the Burden of proof stuff. And the burden of proof on my side has indeed been fulfilled. There is absolutely no reason to believe why a "God" necessarily created the universe, and in fact, if we use the logic of my opponent, God needs a cause, whether he likes it or not. [1]http://www.dailygalaxy.com...