Resolved: God exists

I will now begin my argument for the Affirmative. I will start out with two contentions and will present more in later rounds if need be. C1: Argument from Change I will now present the argument from change: The world we live in is a world of constant change. This teenaged boy grew to be 6'3, but he wasn't always that tall. There was a oak tree that grew from a tiny acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. Until it comes to be in existence , it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything. As for the things that change, although it can be what it will eventually become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right then in this state (such as a seed or acorn); it will actually exist in that state (oak tree). But it is not actually in that state. It only has the potentiality to be out in that state. Now with this said, I will ask my opponent and the people following this debate a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved so that the change can occur? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have in the first place and the thing that changes can't have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change can't actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it can't change. Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like the animals bodies , are moved by desire or will something other than molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it from place to place. Now that that has also been said I will ask a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers also moving? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they can't change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to bring it's potentiality for change into existence. The universe is the sum total of all moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in a constant process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there has to be some force in addition to the universe, areal being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by the word "God. " Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change. C2: The Design Argument This next argument is based of you guessed it: The perfection of the design of well. .. everything. Consider this syllogism: P1: The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility P2: Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design. P3: It wasn't chance. P4: Therefore, the universe is the product of intelligent design. P5: Intelligent design comes only from a mind or a intelligent designer. C: Therefore, the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer. P1: Obviously my first premise is easy to prove all my opponnent has and the voters has to do is either look at the sky or even look at themselves in the mirror and they will see how complex everything is. P2: If all this order is not in some way the product of intelligent design—then what? Obviously, it "just happened. " Things just fell out that way "by chance. " Alternatively, if all this order is not the product of blind, purposeless forces, then it has resulted from some kind of purpose. That purpose can only be intelligent design. So my second premise stands. P3: It is up to my opponent to give a credible alternative to intelligent design. And "chance" simply is not a credible cause. For we can understand chance only against a background of order. To say that something happened "by chance" is to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected it to turn out, or that it did turn out in a way we would not have expected it to be. But expectation is truly impossible without order. If you take away order and speak only of chance as a kind of ultimate source of everything, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of the word chance at all. Instead of thinking of the word chance against a background of order, we are invited to think of order-overwhelmingly intricate order-against a random, purposeless background of chance. That is incredible. Therefore, it is eminently reasonable to affirm the third premise, 'not chance', and therefore to affirm the conclusion, that this universe is the product of intelligent design. Conclusion In conclusion I would like to recap my preceeding arguments. I basically proved: 1. Everything must have something outside it acting on it so that it may go through change. This requires a beginningless creator to act upon the Universe. 2. That based on the sheer awsomeness and complexity of the world around us that is simpally illogical and unreasonable to say that everything was a result of meer change. So, now I will await my opponnents response.