it is possible that god exists

Thank you for accepting :) Rebutals: My opponents big bang theory: It is pretty universal that the big bang happened, but how it happened is a mystery. The theory is that the universe had no matter before it started, another theory was it was only hydrogen and helium, so answer this, how did it start. How does an explosion just start, how does everything come from nothing. My opponets theory of did god exist: What happened is people felt that is was logical that there was a higher power. Which it is because so far your argument is the big bang theory happened, but you leave us with 1 question, how did it start. Now I will answer the question, who made god: No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7) notice this says before time began, so is this possible? let's use SCIENCE to prove me correct: One is that God exists outside of time. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence. [1] That means that with time non-existant when he was around he didn't need creation, plato the great philosopher agreed. So he didn't need to be created according to philosophy, and science as dimensions play into this. His jesus and caring remark: How is that not possible as anything is possible. I was planning to edit this but you accepted, since anythings possible god can exist. You have the BOP to prove no it is not possible. Also it is possible he cared about everyone. I care for people I do not even know because I am a nice person. Also why would he basically kill himself, further more he was predicted by the prophets. So that is entirely possible. The bible reference: The reason you used a christian reference so I used a christian one too. Even though I was hoping for this to be a generic god. According to the bible the person who wrote is got the information from god. His why doesn't he help: Have you ever heard the phrase god helps those who help themselves? Also he cannot directly intervene as he has left his kingdom when jesus left, and will only be able to directly intervene when his son returns. Here's an exaple: If I go to the east, God is not there; if I go to the west, I do not see Him. When He is at work in the north, I catch no sight of Him; when He turns to the south, I cannot see Him (Job 23:8-9). So it says you go to god, god doesn't come to you. Psalm 27:14, Wait for the Lord's help. Be strong and brave, and wait for the Lord's help So go find god, once you find him wait until he helps you. His prove it remark: I have to prove it is possible which I already have mostly, you have to prove it is not possible, hence the title. I was really going to change it to make it easier for you but it was to late. His big bang remark again: I agree the big bang happened but what started it. I am done refuting, my opponent hasn't even started refuting my arguments, so lets look over them again: C1: kalam cosmological argument The first premise expresses the metaphysical truth that something cannot come from nothing, the denial of which is absurd. If something could come into existence without a cause, then it's odd as to why we do not have any examples of this constantly happening. Why doesn't everything and anything pop into existence without a cause? Indeed, why doesn't a black hole suddenly appear and consume our solar system? It can't be because nothingness is constrained by physical laws, for there is nothing to constrain. To deny the first premise is to thus deny causal regularity. Moreover, philosopher David Oderberg has argued that the first premise is a necessary truth. [2] [3] C2: teneology The teleological argument suggests that, given this premise, the existence of a designer can be assumed, typically presented as God. According to Xenophon, Socrates (c. 469-399 B.C.) argued that the adaptation of human parts to one another, such as the eyelids protecting the eyeballs, could not have been due to chance and was a sign of wise planning in the universe. [4] So intelegent planning proving a higher power here. C3: laws of logic That if one sign denotes generally everything denoted by a second, and this second denotes generally everything denoted by a third, then the first denotes generally everything denoted by the third, is not doubted by anybody who distinctly apprehends the meaning of these words. The deduction of the general form of syllogism, therefore, will consist only of an explanation of the suppositio communis. Now, what the formal logician means by an expression of the form, "Every M is P," is that anything of which M is predicable is P; thus, if S is M, that S is P. The premiss that "Every M is P" may, therefore, be denied; but to admit it, unambiguously, in the sense intended, is to admit that the inference is good that S is P if S is M. He, therefore, who does not deny that S is P -- M, S, P, being any terms such that S is M and every M is P -- denies nothing that the formal logician maintains in reference to this matter; and he who does deny this, simply is deceived by an ambiguity of language. How we come to make any judgments in the sense of the above "Every M is P," may be understood from the theory of reality put forth in the article in the last number. It was there shown that real things are of a cognitive and therefore significative nature, so that the real is that which signifies something real. Consequently, to predicate anything of anything real is to predicate it of that of which that subject (the real) is itself predicated; for to predicate one thing of another is to state that the former is a sign of the latter [5] ==end== ==conclusion== It is possible that a creator exists, also my arguments are stronger and they rely on more then his does. I have refuted my opponents arguments and statements. He has not refuted my case but I hope he answers the questions. Thank you. sources: http://www.godandscience.org... [1] bible http://www.debate.org... [2] David S. Oderberg, ‘Traversal of the Infinite, the "Big Bang" and the Kalam Cosmological Argument', Philosophia Christi 4 (2002): 305-36 [3] Xenophon, Memorabilia I.4.6; Franklin, James (2001). The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 229 [4] http://www.peirce.org... [5]