God Exists

Thank you for your response! "My thanks to my opponent for his quick response." Sorry this one wasn't so quick. I won't try to provide an excuse. I was just slow. "Information exists, the passage of information exists, and so to the extent that I refer to the passage of information as the divine/primordial force, it exists." I don't quite see the passage of information as a force, though. Perhaps the reception is a driving force, but the actual exchange, I'm not so sure. If you don't mind, I'd like to skip ahead and then return to where I was. ""1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : life 2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality 3 : a living thing; especially : person"" So if we toss out definition 3, as it shows it as a person then we are left with the multiple definition 1's and definition 2. Because all of those refer to existence, they get you exactly nowhere, as that's where you're trying to go in the first place. Unfortunately, our agreed definition of "exist" isn't much help. However, the most appropriate definition of "existence," brought to us from Merriam-Webster is an "actual or present occurrence." I think you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that a metaphor or abstract idea is an "actual or present occurrence." "If God is the expression of the passage of information necessary to form the processes necessary to form DNA (or RNA, which preceded it) then God must exist of necessity." But God is not the expression of the passage of information. "If I am correct in assuming that information is the expression of data, and that data, when possessed, informs action, then it would seem to make little sense to differentiate the information exchanging processes in life with those found in non-living nature, except, perhaps, that being living creatures we are inclined to differentiate such processes for our own purposes." How does that have anything to do with there being a God? "That version of God arguably still exists, though only if you accept that the concept of spirit is a metaphor for information." But under the definition of God, you can't do that. It isn't a "Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness." "Think of it this way: what makes you, you? If, for example..." Yes, but it is not making me believe in a "Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness" who is the "ruler of the universe." "Therefore, nothing acts without God. God is omnipotent. Nothing is known that is not God. God is omniscient. No good thought occurs free from God. God is omnibenevolent. God is in all things. God is omnipresent." That is a very good argument, but it isn't arguing for a being. "If spirit is a metaphor for information, then God is spirit." Wow! You have a lot of faith in an argument which I made clear last argument that I did not accept! "Therefore, God is a being that is ruler of all things." I can see your reasoning for a ruler, but it seems like the being came in in hopes that I wouldn't notice. I noticed. I would like to thank my opponent for an extremely challenging debate, and I would like to apologize once again for the horrible delay in my argument. Once again, the definition of God is "The supreme or ultimate reality as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe." Because my opponent did not describe a being, he has failed to prove the resolution; therefore, vote con. Looking forward to your argument to finish it off!