existence of god

Rebuttal of Origin of Existence: My opponent basically uses the Causation argument roughly saying that something can’t come out of nothing. Following this logic, it must be applied to all existing things, including God. When applied to God, what created God? According to the logic, it must have an origin, how can something come from nothing? If God was created by something, what created it? This argument does not work for proving God, it actually does quite the opposite, and proves God can’t exist because God can’t come from nothing. Rebuttal of Birth of Original Idea: This argument is not really an argument at all, or I did not see at all how it proved God all. Basically my opponent says that Christianity is very different from other religions, “Unlike the pagan religions of old, the Judaic God promotes forgiveness and peace, rather than justice and war. What is the major distinction? The Judaic God isn't simply an extension of human characteristics like the Greek and Roman Gods that came before it, the Judaic God is something entirely different. The ideas present in the Bible are radically different from what the ancient world has seen before. ” I’d like to focus on the underlined part. Judaic ideas are not radically different, the ideas of a heaven and a hell were already used in the Egyptian religion centuries before. Besides the fact that this argument is wrong, it does not prove God at all. Rebuttal of Ontological Argument: In this argument, my opponent attempts to define God into existence. The argument roughly follows, It is a conceptual truth that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined God exists as an idea in the mind. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine a being that is greater than God. But we cannot imagine a being that is greater than God. Therefore, a God exists. Yet if you substitute something else into the equation, you still get an answer. (This is an excerpt from Gaunilo’s argument, . http://www.iep.utm.edu... ) It is a conceptual truth that a piland is an island than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible island that can be imagined). A piland exists as an idea in the mind. A piland that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a piland that exists only as an idea in the mind. Thus, if a piland exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine an island that is greater than a piland (that is, a greatest possible island that does exist). But we cannot imagine an island that is greater than a piland. Therefore, a piland exists. You can substitute anything into this argument that your mind desires, be it a unicorn, pixies, fairies, goblins, trolls, time-traveling rubber bands, anything. This argument proves them all. If you are willing to accept that this argument proves God exists, then you must be willing to exist that unicorns, pixies, fairies, goblins, or anything else you can imagine exists. Obviously, no intelligent person would believe these things, this argument is a fallacy. Also, definitions only apply to things that exist, applying a definition to something that doesn’t exist, does not prove it exists. “God has to exist by the very definition of God” Let me give you this one. Imagine there is a word called Realicorn: a unicorn that really exists. It exists by definition. If you were to say, “A realicorn doesn’t exist. ” That statement is false, by definition. Therefore realicorns exist. (Realicorn taken from ) Any intelligent person obviously sees that this argument does not hold up after examination, you can simply not define something into existence. I hope my opponent does not hold these views either. My opponent goes onto say this, “Have fun with your rebuttal, Con :). ” as if I would have some kind of difficulty rebutting his arguments at all. I was actually really disappointed after my opponent bragged about how good he is in the beginning of his debate, “Beware of Malacoda: the debater who ruthlessly battled Liz (Now Madam Vice-President), had a debate rated by whiteflame as "good," and is the personal hero of Airmax who said "I [think that Luke needs to be made God of the world. ]” I actually thought that the arguments would be somewhat good, but whatever, next debate I guess. Conclusion: I have defeated each and every one of my opponent’s arguments with extreme fun.