Resolved: God Exists

You are merely stating that a "creative force" exists. Why does this creative force have to be sentient and omnipotent? The creative force can merely be a force that entangles the universe. Your arguments have supported a "God" that acts as a creative force; you have not given me a REASON for that God being the source of all MORAL authority. By my definition, God has to INVOLVE himself/herself in the universe. All morality and moral judgement is defined by this God. Despite this, you are completely discrediting moral judgement. Why SHOULD the creative force be a source of moral judgement? Your rebuttals have no answers to these questions and so I request Pro to strengthen his rebuttals in the next round. Rebuttals: 1. The Big BangWhat is the proof that God caused the Big Bang? The Big Bang could have merely been caused by the singularity itself; perhaps the ancients referred to "God" as the singularity. But an omnipotent, benevolent (by "benevolent" I refer to God being the source of ALL moral authority) envisioning of God needn't have caused the Big Bang. [1] What is the proof that God caused the Big Bang? Pro has not fulfilled their BoP. I will expand on your points of the String Theory in the next rebuttal.2. The String TheoryThe String Theory is a theoretical framework of cosmic particles that states that these particles, as envisioned by various scientists, actually act as one-dimensional structures called "strings". [2] This "resonating" aspect refers to the supersymmetric interaction between string-particles such as the interaction between bosons and fermions. [3] I presume Pro is stating that this quantum entanglement-like form of supersymmetric resonation between string-particles is what Pro is stating is the connective force of God. My rebuttal is that this interaction between string particles may be omnipresent, but it is not a sentient force, nor is it caused by a sentient force. Pro has not provided logical arguments pertaining to the definition of God as given in Round 1. 3. Moral AuthorityMy next rebuttal concerns moral authority. While the universe may have been created by a force of particles (perhaps strings) causing the Big Bang, these particles need not hold MORAL AUTHORITY. Moral authority refers to the creation of all human psychological moral judgement in the universe, i.e. the root cause of human perception of righteousness, virtue, and morality. What does morality have to do with the scientific creation of the universe? And a source of moral authority has to intervene in the universe to create MORAL JUDGEMENT. As an adjective, moral means "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour" or "holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct." [4] Pro has neither explained nor given proof of how this creative force provides principles for proper conduct. 4. The Grand Design QuestionBefore I reach the paradoxes, let me cover the Grand Design Question. By the definitions of the debate, "God acts as the creator and ruler of the universe". This is in extension from the Big Bang argument. My argument is that the Big Bang created the universe without the intervention of a supreme being. As stated, this was not a rebuttal directly to you, but merely a rebuttal against a common question posed by theists. But yes, since you did not pose any similar argument, the Grand Design Question is irrelevant, so it is disregarded for the rest of the debate. 5. AgnosticismIn citing the existence of God, Pro must prove the existence of a God in accordance with the definitions. (Rule 3) By the definition of "God", there are certain ascribed properties. You claim that the properties of God cannot be known, but my point is you must prove the existence of God in accordance with the properties of OMNIPOTENCE, OMNISCIENCE, BEING THE SOURCE OF ALL MORAL AUTHORITY, ACTING AS THE RULER OF THE UNIVERSE, and ACTING AS THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE. Therefore, an agnostic argument such as yours is not able to prove these properties. Please do so in the next round. If it is not done in the next round, I request the voters to penalize the violation of Rule 3 by invoking Rule 7. 6. The Omnipotence ParadoxAs mentioned in the previous round, here I am merely stating that an essential property by the definition of the existence of God is impossible, thereby disproving the existence of an omnipotent God. The definition of omnipotence is not by Aquinas' understanding according to the rules of this debate. Omnipotence, according to the rules of this debate, is "the ability to perform any action whatsoever". The definition of whatsoever is "at all". [5] This means that omnipotence, by the definition of this debate, is the ability to perform any action regardless of any barriers or conditions. Even an impossible action or a nonexistent action is a conceivable action and, therefore, applies to this definition. Impossibility does not apply to absolute omnipotence. Thomas Aquinas spoke of basic omnipotence [6][7], but the definition of the debate, including the essential word whatsoever, refers to absolute omnipotence, which Aquinas himself argued was impossible by the omnipotence paradox. [8] By Rule 6, as all properties are restricted by logic, the omnipotence paradox still stands. 7. The Omniscience Paradox"Know" is defined as to "be absolutely certain or sure of something" in this context. [9] "Omniscience", by this debate, is "knowledge of everything". If a being E knows absolutely everything, then E is absolutely certain of everything, including future actions. As omniscience implies definitiveness of future, it means everything is predetermined. Reproduced from the previous arguments, "If one already knows that something will happen, then that action is definite. 'Knowing' is the act of having knowledgeability of a certainty. If something is a certainty, it is already predetermined. And a predetermined action lacks possibilities. There is no chance that no event is contingent. Definitiveness completely violates disorder in this universe." [10] Thus, the omniscience paradox still stands. 8. Pro's Proof:The explanations for these three arguments are simple: randomness. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe was created because of the existence of disorder. Disorder keeps growing in the universe. This randomness fuels the universe and destroys it. [11] The human mind is hardwired to believe that there is a source for everything, but new scientific evidence has come to light that says that some things exist without a cause. [12][13] This also renders the first point of the Kalam Cosmological Argument baseless (the first point is called the causal premise or CP).Pro's primary argument is the causal premise, but modern quantum physics renders the causal premise baseless, effectively crippling the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Arguments:As all my arguments still stand, I extend all my arguments from Round 2, strengthened with these rebuttals.Notes:[1] Pro has violated Rule 3 of the debate. Any further violation of Rule 3 will result in enforcement of Rule 7 that guarantees my immediate 7-point victory.[2] Pro's arguments have been amazing. I'm seriously looking forward to your arguments. Thanks a lot to @Durrandon. Also, thanks for accepting my friend request.Sources:[1] http://gotejas.com...: posts "God Does Not Play Dice With The Universe", "What Is Nothing?", and "E Pluribus Unum."[2] Sean Carroll, Ph.D., Caltech, 2007, The Teaching Company, Dark Matter, Dark Energy: The Dark Side of the Universe, Guidebook Part 2 page 59[3] Klebanov, Igor and Maldacena, Juan (2009)."Solving Quantum Field Theories via Curved Spacetimes" (PDF). Physics Today 62: 28. (http://www.sns.ias.edu...) [4] The New Oxford Dictionary of English (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) [5] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [6] Aquinas, Thomas; Summa Theologica Book 1, Question 25, article 3 [7] Ross, James F., "Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae (ca. 1273), Christian Wisdom Explained Philosophically", in The Classics of Western Philosophy: A Reader's Guide, (eds.) Jorge J. E. Gracia, Gregory M. Reichberg, Bernard N. Schumacher (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003) [8] Geach, P. T. "Omnipotence" 1973 in Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 63–75 [9] New Oxford Dictionary of English [10] "Purtill on Fatalism and Truth". Faith and Philosophy: 229–234. 1990. [11] Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA[12] Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Grand Design, Bantam Books, New York. ISBN 0-553-80537-1.[13] http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.in...