God Exists

Thank you, Crede, for being such a great opponent. I am sorry I did not respond to all of your objections and should note that I did not drop the incoherent attribtues argument. I wanted to spend more time refuting your argument than backing up my own arguments.To answer my questions, PRO admits that God is not the only thing that does not begin to exist. I think you have misunderstood my question: Is God the only possible cause of the unniverse? If not, why not.I stated that it is a quantum leap from saying, "the universe has a cause" and then to say "that cause is the God of classic Theism." Even if I were to accept these claims (which I do not), then one must answer the question how the God of classic theism is the only God that could have caused the universe to exist.I failed to point out that an actual infinity does exist in the form of a singularity. Let us look at the definitions for "singularity.": 1: "A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter."[1]2: "A point at which a function takes an infinite value, esp. in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, asat the center of a black hole"[2]Hence, if an actual infinity cannot exist, how can God possibly exist if he is supposedly an actual infinity? (Try not to use special pleading). With your definition, in full, completely destroys your arguments utilizing omniscience. Your quoted definition also says experiential knowledge is not needed for God to have complete understanding.To quote Ryan Stringer on this issue: Another possible place of contention is P3—perhaps experiential knowledge (knowing what it is like to experience something) is not included in omniscience. For instance, perhaps omniscience only entails having all propositional knowledge. In that case omniscience only entails that a being knows all true propositions and believes no false ones—not that it has all experiential knowledge. However, this objection questionably assumes that experiential knowledge does not count as a genuine kind of knowledge, contrary to our common linguistic practices. For instance, assertions like "I know what it is like to lose someone close to me," "I know what it is like to be nauseous," or "I know what it is like to be an atheist" seem unproblematic. We also quite frequently talk about learning what something is like, which implies acquiring information or knowledge about the world. Moreover, people can sometimes participate in discussions based on similarities in experience, while those lacking the relevant experiences cannot participate in the same way. This suggests that the "experienced" individuals possess genuine information (or knowledge) about the world that the "nonexperienced" individuals do not possess.Thus there is a strong presumption that experiential knowledge counts as genuine knowledge, and this should be taken for granted until good epistemological grounds for rejecting it are provided. Until then, the claim that omniscience can only involve propositional knowledge is unjustified. [3] Thank you for a fun debate. Please do not vote on your presupposition. _________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.).Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 18, 2011, from <http://en.wikipedia.org......> [2] http://tinyurl.com...... [3] http://www.infidels.org...;