God Exists.

I appreciate Barcafan99 for his response. I agree, this debate is the most fun I've had in some time on this issue. Anyways, I first would like to begin by refuting his rebuttals. 1) The Ontological Argument - Perfection: the condition, state, or quality of being free from all flaws or defects. Because this is what perfection is, therefore it is more perfect for something to exist than to not exist. Not everything we imagine exists in reality yes, but if God is without all flaws, namely he is perfect, he must by definition exist. 2) Argument from Contingency - My opponent is correct that in this argument we assume that the universe cannot be an infinite regression. But this is for a reason. Infinite regression of something made of substance, matter, energy, etc. cannot be an infinite regression. Anything that has physical or material substance cannot have infinite regression because it itself is not infinite. The universe's cause cannot have an infinite regression because then there would be no universe. For example, if time was infinite then there would be an infinite past and therefore there could be no present or future because there was no start to time, no beginning. But because there is a present, a now, there must have been a beginning. The universe cannot have caused itself because it is contingent, it changes. God is the only explanation for contingent things because he is not contingent, he is eternal, he never changes. God does not exist in an infinite regress. God cannot exist "in" anything. He is existence itself. The universe cannot come from an infinite number of universes for the reasons above. There cannot be an infinite regress of universes because then there would not be this current universe. 3) Argument from CatholicAnswers.com 1)The points I provided were only the topic points, I understand that one can deny one's own existence, that doesn't mean they are correct in that belief. 2) I don't understand where this is a problem. If something exists, it exists. That's all the argument is saying here. If something exists in objective reality, it exists. 3) My opponent is correct in saying that some things that exist are both actual and potential. For example, I exist as I do now, but there is the "potential" for me to fall and cut myself. I would then exist with that scar, which was once potential, has now become actual and is continuing to change as my body repairs itself. All this argument is saying is that the nature of "existence" is the becoming of one thing to another, the actuality of something changing(potentiality) and becoming actualized again. 4) See above 8) My opponent misinterprets what the nature of existence is. Esse is distinct from everything else because esse is actual. We, as beings who change are both potential and actual, whereas existence itself is only actual. We participate in existence, we go from one thing to a next. We are actual, we have potential to change, we change and become actualized. This process repeats over and over every moment of our lives. That is what it means to exist. But existence itself is only actual. There is no such thing as existences, there is only one "existence" which we participate in. Just because I exist as something other than you does not mean we participate in different existences, it only means we are different as we participate in one existence. 9) See 3 and 8 10) My opponent makes the mistake of assuming that existence is a thing, a tangible object. Existence is eternal because "it is". Things that exist participate in existence. Just because something doesn't exist anymore does not mean existence doesn't exist anymore. 11) This is not true. There are some things that are infinite. My opponent makes the mistake of assuming that everything is physical and therefore cannot be infinite. While my opponent is correct in saying that physical things cannot be infinite, he fails to recognize that there are non physical things that are infinite. Ex. Numbers, immaterial beings, Logical concepts, existence... 12) Once again my opponent confuses existence with things that exist as things. Just because something exists that is not personal, does not mean that existence is not personal. 13) The article explains why. 14) The article explains why. Now to my opponents counter arguments - 1) The Immutability vs. Creation Argument My opponent confuses the idea of time and God. If God is immutable, he exists outside of time. Therefore God created the universe because he always had the intention to create the universe and he continues to have that intention. My opponent believes that for God to create the universe he must have had the intention prior to creating it and then not have the intention after creating it. This is misunderstanding how God creates and thinks. God is eternal and unchanging. He is timeless. He cannot have intentions that he has not had before. Therefore, God has always had the intention to create the universe and always will, this is not a problem for God because God is outside of time. 2) Omnipotence vs Omnipresence Argument Before I even respond to this I'd like to address something brought up after this argument. My opponent says that it is possible for logic to be an illusion or for God to work outside the laws of logic. This is a misunderstanding of God and truth. How did my opponent come to this conclusion... by using logic. Though that logic may be flawed, he nevertheless used it. Also, God cannot do what is logically impossible, for something logically impossible is just nonsense, and therefore just because you put an all powerful God before nonsense does not stop making it nonsense. Anyways on to my rebuttal of his argument My opponent's argument against God's existence is flawed because my opponent does not understand what omnipotent means. Omnipotent means - able to do all things that are logically possible This means that because God knows all, he doesn't need to learn anything, he already knows everything. This does not make him not all powerful, rather, God is constrained by his own omnipotence, which really isn't constraining at all. God cannot learn because he has no need to. He already knows everything. For an all powerful God, learning is an imperfection. This means that if God learns, he would no longer be God, because to be God you must know all, therefore you have no need of learning. I await my opponent's response. Sources: https://www.catholic.com...