God Exists

Prophecy Pro says all prophecy is basically self fulfilling. However, he says it couldn't have been stopped. I don't see how this refutes the naturalistic explanation, unless he's saying the event was too improbable. However, he has given no reason to think it was so. The entire world was practically against Hitler, even if the Jewish race was wiped out, Jewish converts would strive to take Israel. For the second time, I'm not trying to invalidate the source of Newton, I just wanted a reliable accurate validation of it. This has not been done, all I got was Pro saying I haven't shown the quote to be false. My claim of the fallacy stands. Pro said I never showed where his argument was wrong. However, I did. Pro is saying because they claimed it was from God, it must be. As I've been saying throughout the debate, this is still compatible with psychic fits, in fact one would expect them to claim it was God because they wouldn't know any better. Pro never showed God was preferred. Ultimately, Pro misunderstand my objections and ignores others. The argument is refuted. Wave functions Pro says human consciousness alone can break the wave function. In order to say this, Pro must ignore almost all of my round 2. Pro never defended this claim in round 2, he just tried to claim the apparatus validates the claim. So, his claim is refuted and has been from round 2. I'm sorry if I didn't make my answer clear in the last round. There's no need for every wave function in the universe to be collapsed. Only the things we observed, thus there is no problem. Pro makes already refuted claims, his argument doesn't show an ultimate consciousnesses exists, thus the argument is refuted. Eclipses His entire response here is based on a straw man. I'm not trying to come up with another explanation, nor trying to prove the moon wasn't designed. All I'm doing is showing Pro"s argument isn't sufficient evidence. What Pro misunderstands is what I'm saying by "no one knows the odds". This is not an alternative explanation, or claiming the moon wasn't designed. This is an attack on the assumption that it's too improbable for the said placement to exist. Since, we don't know, I'm saying just that. Claiming it's God is to commit a fallacy. I've been stressing this point since the start, but Pro continues to straw man to the end. There was nothing but straw men from Pro here. The argument is refuted. Problem of Evil Pro ignores my response to his analogy. It's irrelevant that a name for God is father. He then goes onto restate the free will defense. Pro says since we live in a society with laws, it's best to assume free will until proven otherwise. When does society determine what's philosophically true? If the entire world was a theocracy, it wouldn't mean we should assume God"s existence until shown otherwise. He then gives a link about quantum mechanics and free will. However, quantum mechanics only proves the free will of particles. It doesn't show humans have conscious choice over their actions. Nor does the source show this. The source only talked about scientific determinism. The view that all physical things can be predicted. Even if quantum mechanics affected our actions, this doesn't mean we have control over them. If I get another cup of coke because an atom randomly moved from one point to the other, this doesn't mean I had a choice in the matter. The random quantum effects would cause my actions, this isn't free will, but the exact opposite. Pro must show we are in control of our actions. This hasn't been done, thus the base of his rebuttal have not been built. The free will defense is unproven, now let's go to my arguments claiming it fails. Pro says there was evil under heaven. However, it's irrelevant of what was in heaven before humans. All that matters is how heaven is now. Indeed in round 2 Pro said ...and that his utopia of a world that he argues should exist if a God exists is what we Christians look forward to on the Last Day. Pro says there is no evil in heaven today and he said free will exists there. This means Pro agrees, free will and no evil can coexist. Pro ignores this point, instead he committed a red herring fallacy talking about how there was war in heaven. I'm not sure Pro understood this argument, because Pro said Obviously freewill exists in heaven, which refutes his unwarranted assertion. However, this agrees with my supposed "assertion". How is Pro refuting it by agreeing with it? Pro ignores my other argument for the compatibility of free will and no evil. He says you can't have free will without the ability to commit evil. However, this ignores my argument against this. We are still restricted, Pro said himself a blind man isn't free to see, but still free. Restriction and free will are compatible. This also undermines God"s omnipotence. Pro talks about my A+E paradox. However, his first objection was anticipated and already answered in my last round. He asks me about the definition of perfect. Perfect is free from faults. We can in fact forget the word perfect. Either they were made with, or without fault. If with, then God created a fault, if without, then we would still be without faults. The objection is unrefuted. Pro was full of evasion and misunderstanding in this section. The base is unproven and no evil can exist with free will. This argument stands strong. Temporal minds The argument isn"t about us not experiencing atemporal things. Either a mind is successive or not. Both are problematic for Pro. This is the law of excluded middle. Pro says atemporal doesn"t mean a lack of time. However, Pro"s definition doesn"t disagree with me. Something timeless isn"t affected or limited to time. This doesn"t mean it is, or can be in time. The very word "atemporal" means "not time" (a-not, tempus-time)[ http://en.wiktionary.org...]. For example, something spaceless, isn"t limited or affected by space, but this doesn"t mean it can be in space. The claim of equivocation is groundless. Pro straw mans my argument from Gen 1:1. I was using it to show the Bible accepts a beginning of the universe, but this can only happen with the A theory of time. Not the B theory. It wasn"t an argument from the beginning of time. Pro also ignores 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2 which speak of beginning of the ages, some even translate it to "beginning of time". [http://biblehub.com...] [http://biblehub.com...] Pro also ignores my strongest argument. The argument from John 1:3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made Obviously, this means time was made too. The argument stands. Conclusion Pro never tries to address the claim of self fulfilling prophecy until his last round. Even then, he didn"t refute it. He never proved God did reveal the revelations. His only argument was that it must be because they claimed it to be. This doesn"t show why we should prefer God. I refuted the claim of quantum consciousness and even if it was true, we can still have a possible explanation. Pro dropped this argument and said there must be a break for the entire universe, but this means wouldn"t be problematic. Pro never responded to that, he just repeated his arguments, ignoring my refutations. Pro straw manned my objections with the solar eclipse argument. He thought I was using the unknowable odds as an alternative explanation, but that wasn"t so. He also never responded to the claim that this argument is one from ignorance. The problem of evil is still standing. Pro argued from free will, but never proved we have it. He ignored my objections to free will being incompatible with no evil. The Temporal minds argument still stands, Pro"s God must be outside of time, but this means he can"t be a mind. Pro tried to make God compatible with time, but the attempts failed. My arguments stands Thanks