God does not exist.

P1: An omnipotent God, who created the first state of time, can't existI saw Pro's opinion of what omnipotence was. However, our opinions do not redefine words. I have provided an actual definition for the term "omnipotence" that can be found in the Merriam Webster online dictionary. His definition should be disregarded, seeing as it's his opinion. He seeks to provide a definition that God is bound by logic, but the same God made logic? This is illogical in itself. For God to have made logic, he would have to have the ability to live outside of logic. He couldn't have created logic while He was inside of it. I understand that my opponent didn't get this. It can be a tricky concept. After all, things such as logic, time, and matter are all we know. But we can't limit an omnipotent God to what we know, now can we? No. In order for Him to have created everything that makes up our universe, then we must assume He had once lived outside of things such as time, logic, and matter. My opponent suggested a change to the definition of omnipotence under the warrant that God would otherwise be contradicted by the stone paradox. This is false. He tries to use logic to contradict a God outside of logic. God can do anything logical inside of logic. If He so chooses, He can operate inside of logic, thereby negating the stone paradox as Pro pointed out. However, if He's outside of logic, God can both create a stone so big He couldn't lift it, but then He'd have no trouble lifting it. "Whaaaaaaaat? " - Said some of you. Why not? Because doing such a thing would be. .. . illogical? Exactly. It would be. But we're talking about the God who created logic. But either way, God's ability to create rocks is of no great concern. I've just shown how God can both do anything logically possible, and illogically possible. If God can do anything illogical, then He could have created the first state of time. I would go into the other arguments under this point, but I don't think they bear any weight. Whether or not a first state of time had to have existed is irrelevant. If it did, God could've created it. If it didn't, God could have created it. But again, if you're still not convinced that God could've possibly created the first state of time, then remember that the A theory of time is not fact, but merely a theory. (Which. .. kind of ruins this whole point for Pro, so I've been trying to argue as if the A theory was true for better clash. )P2: (The argument I just now understood) Essentially, another reason God can't exist. This argument is rather silly to me, in the way I see it now (hopefully the correct way). Basically, if God created the universe then there's a 100% chance of it coming into being (seeing as He's God. .. .). But there's only a 95% chance of it coming into being. Therefore, God does not exist. Otherwise He'd violate scientific law. .. Which He created. .. .However, there are some issues with this. First, the 95% probability is based solely off of the WFU theory being true. The WFU theory has no proof obviously, seeing as it can't be tested and verified. It has been supported by observational data, but such data only supports the other predictions of such a theory (such as our universe's rapid expansion rate). IT does not provide any data to support that this was what actuall caused the universe. Another flaw is that this theory violates logic. It states that everything came from one timeless space, smaller than a 10^-33 cm in radius. It claims this doesn't need a cause because it was before time (since time started with the big bang). However, without something that is outside of logic, it would still require a cause. Would it not? Time is not what tells us that everything is caused by something, logic is. And besides, how would time be confirmed to have started at the Big Bang? It wouldn't have. So, in the end, this theory is far too new, rough, and frankly, illogical. If the theory isn't true (which it isn't, as I've shown), then there is no such 95% chance of the universe coming into existence. P3: Simultaneous causation can account for the origin of matterThe KCA doesn't need simultanous causation to be correct. My opponent has shown that the William Craig himself thought that simultaneous causation was involved in creation. However, seeing as it's not mentioned in the logical syllogism, we don't need it for the logic itself. We simply see that the universe needs a cause. Simultaneous causation exists. Again, I conceded this in the previous round. However, it does not explain the origin of matter. My opponent states that there is no evidence that God created matter, and therefore we must assume that anything natural is more likely. But again, it relies on matter having already existed. In order for A to exist, B must exist. In order for B to exist, C must exist. In order for C to exist, A must exist. This doesn't mean they all just randomly come into being. This means that none of them can exist until one does! It may be able to explain how more matter formed, but it can't explain the origin of matter. Pro has not shown how this is the case. In fact, as far as I've found, such an event has never happened. If it can't explain the origin of matter, then we are back to God being the more likely choice. This is not illogical, just probability. If there's mud on the carpet, and I state my buddye Joe (whom you've never met) came in and caused it, and you can't find any other explanation, then it is more logical to assume that I'm correct in my statement than it would be to assume that one day we'll find an answer that doesn't involve Joe. Again, it doesn't mean there's no other explanation out there, but in our current state, with current knowledge, God probably exists. C1: God is omnipotentC2: The KCAIt stands. The only argument my opponent had against this was that the man who popularized it believed in simultaneous causation. This is irrelevant. It is three simple sentences that stand, simultaneous causation or no. C3: My opponent's arguments do not account for life/the compexity of lifeConceded by Pro. I've shown that this does increase the probability of God existing. Is it proof? No. But if it's our only option as of right now, then it is more probable. My opponent didn't even respond to this. Seeing as this was probably the most important point as far as probability goes, I believe this is the nail in Pro's coffin. At the end of this debate, we have this stance:The God we're debating, due to the official definition of omnipotence, and the fact that He would have to be able to exist outside of logic, AND due to the A theory of time not being fact, could have created the first state of time. The WFU is a theory that is illogical and needs more work, and cannot disprove God. Simultaneous causation can not account for matter, and naver has caused matter, as conceded by Pro. Therefore, we're left without another alternative (aside from God) for the origin of matter. The KCA shows the need for a creator of the universe. The lack of ability to explain such things as life, and the complexity of life, show that (as of right now) God's probability is much higher than a none-divine explanation for creation. My opponent claims that everything I've said was either wrong or misconcieved. However, I fail to see how this is the case. My opponent has failed to show how God can't exist. My opponent failed to show how matter can originate without God. I've merely pointed these things out, as well as shown that, though the lack of explanation by science isn't proof of God's existence, it does raise the current ID theory's probability exponentially. We have no other alternative but to beleive that Joe tracked the mud ont he carpet! It would be foolish of us to choose to assume that science will be answer all these questions, rather than accept, by Occam's Razor, the one simple answer:God probably exists.