Resolved: God exists.

My opponent seems to mistake my syllogism for singular points, no in fact, points one through 9 all back up the conclusion: God exists. Now the crux of the argument in my opponent's introduction is "what made God? " Their answer is the universe. And the universe must have then created itself. But, they never provided any proof of the universe creating itself thus, creating god. My opponent basically goes on to say I committed an ad infinitum fallacy. Now, I will show with the first below syllogism, that God was never created because a "first mover" is necessary. I will use an adapted version of Thomas Aquinas's first mover argument. Then I will move on to defend my case. 1) Nothing can move itself It is necessary for object "a" to be moved by object "b. " One thing moves another thing. This is simply logic. 2) Some outside force must set another object in motion Object "a" is moved by object "b" which is moved by object "c" etc. 3) There cannot be an infinite regress There must be some starting point. The path shown above cannot go on forever else nothing would exist as there could be no beginning. Without a beginning you cannot have the middle nor can you have an end. Nothing would exist. 4) The universe exists thus, there must be a starting point 5) This starting point must be an outside force (outside of the universe) 6) This outside force could not be set into motion itself There must be a first as an infinite regression is impossible. C. This outside force must be the greatest possible being, also known as, God. We have now, once again, established there must be a first cause or mover. The defense of my own case. Points 1 and 2, of my syllogism (all used to uphold the conclusion detonated by "C. "), have been conceded by my opponent. I will start at point 3. 3. Rational person cannot accept 2a. I am not saying there is no explanation. I am saying the universe must have an explanation even if we do not know it, the explanation still exists. Further down, my philosophical path, the explanation will become evident. 4. Rational person must accept 2b… Conceded. I am not jumping to god; this is simply another "link in the fence. " 5. There are 3 types of explanations: The personal explanation simply means something (not necessarily a person) wanted the universe to be created. 6. The explanation for the Universes entire existence cannot be scientific. My opponent states, "saying the big bag has to have come from somewhere also contradicts the idea of a deity, if you can explain where it came from, then I accept your point". As I showed above, the deity is the first mover, it came from nowhere. My opponent goes on saying, "as for the Archimedean point, for this to be true we would have to assume the universe has boundaries and a shape such as a sphere. " My opponent misunderstands what an Archimedean point is, by definition, "an Archimedean point … is a hypothetical vantage point from which an observer can objectively perceive the subject of inquiry, with a view of totality. " (1) There would have to be something which can scientifically be explained "outside" of the conception of the universe. Science can only explain what happens within the universe. There are no physical or metaphysical sciences dealing with what is not in the universe. I believe the rest of the argument made by my opponent is explained by my above argument formulated originally by Thomas Aquinas. 7. The Universes existence is not essential. My opponent's objection has already been dealt with. 8. A rational person therefore, must believe the Universe has a personal explanation. Considering, for the purposes of this debate, I have disproven the first two (scientific and necessity) this is the only logical way left. Since, it is not scientific nor is it essential it must be personal. My opponent has provided no substantiated alternative to their being a personal creator. They say I am "taking the phenomena of the universe and placing a very illogical 'creator' into the mix just to make it intelligible" without providing any factual basis that is a scientific phenomena. They simply assert it. The universe is what it is because a deity wanted it to be this way. I have seen no scientific data proving the universe's creation was scientific. Logically there are 3 options, 2 have been shown to be incorrect. That leaves the last option. What "we know" is there can be no scientific explanation of the universe being set in motion from within the universe. Something outside the universe must have set the universe in motion. 9. No personal agent but, a deity could have created the entire universe. This entire objection has already been dealt with. C. A rational person must believe a deity exists. This is my conclusion stemming from points 1 – 9. They all work together to show this to be correct. Since, points 1 through 9 have been upheld the conclusion is upheld. To finish up, I would like to point out that the BOP is shared meaning I have to show why I believe a deity exists, which I have done with the above syllogism, and my opponent had to show why they believe a deity does not exist, which they have not done. Simply attacking my case is not enough. Thus, my opponent's burden has not been fulfilled. Source: 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...