Tejretics v. Lannan13, Resolved: God Exists

RebuttalsOA1. Pro asserts that existence and having the properties of God (as asserted in the debate: "the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority") are necessarily positive. Pro has not shown how necessary existence is a positive property; thus, Pro has not fulfilled his full BoP.2. How is the existence of God necessary?3. Pro has not proven Definition 1. Why is it necessarily positive for x to be God-like? X can be God-like with negative properties. Pro defines positive as "good". While God may be benevolent by this debate's definition, any being x need not be good to be God-like (if and only if the properties ascribed to God in this debate are plausible). This is an essentialist argument by morality, but that morality is definite cannot be proven; morality may be definite, variable, or even nonexistent (by nihilist philosophy). [1]4. If necessary existence is always positive, then existence must be relative; if existence is certain, then the existence of perceived negativity is impossible viz. everything in definite existence is positive. 5. Pro states that he proved the Christian God's existence; this assumption is that the God of this definition's sole property is omnibenevolence. If there is negativity in the universe, then God (being positive by Pro's own theorems) is not the ruler of the universe nor is he the source of all moral authority. [2]6. Here, Pro's assumption is that existence is greater than non-existence. Pro has not fulfilled his BoP and has not proven existence is greater thus. 7. Existence is not an attribute. Since God has objective reality, then unreality does not have impact on objective agencies or even subjective agencies. [3] 8. My point is that if you can argue something incorrect with ontology, then it is not valid proof of anything. KCA1. Here, I said that quantum fluctuations show that the creator of the universe does not need to be "spaceless, timeless, immaterial, etc." Since they can be caused by gravity, the properties ascribed by KCA is not necessary. If the universe had a finite beginning, why does it have to be a source of moral authority or the supreme being? This merely proves the existence of a Deistic God. 2. The finite beginning of the universe is irrelevant to the existence of God. The finite being could still be uncaused quantum fluctuations; as mentioned, the singularity-expansion of the Big Bang (my image also showed expansion) was probably not caused by a cause external to gravitational spacetime (the space-time continuum was created by the Big Bang as time is the rate of entropic graduation, but the gravitational continuum of gravitational time was uncaused and a force of negative energy from the quantum vacuum). [4] 3. Here, too, the necessity of a ruler of the universe is not seen; thus, this is unchallenged. TA1. "Optimal" is defined as "most favorable." Once more, this brings the Problem of Evil into consideration; if God was a benevolent designer, then he would not have created negativity (in the moral sense, which Pro implies exists by ontology). Thus, this design is not optimal. [2]2. Pro's TA relies on the existence of teleology, which has not been proven. Thus, the dysteleological argument still stands. 3. I did rebut the Hugh Ross argument's P4, "the only thing that could have caused the universe is God." Pro has not refuted this, so I extend the rebuttal. 4. As already described, Hugh Ross' definition of time is fairly inaccurate. Gravitational time is the dimension which implies permanent non-universal "cosmic passage", viz. the rate of gravitational existence at its very base. [5] Ordinary time is the rate of entropic graduation. This has not been rebutted nor refuted. [6]5. The Thomistic TA does not imply the existence of God by the definition. ORI have rebutted all your proof with regards to the existence of God. Now, once more, the non-existence of God is unchallenged. Pro has full BoP. As proof has not been provided for the existence of God and all God's purported tasks can be explained via. science, the likelihood of the existence of God has fallen; thus, Aquinas' interpretation of Occam's Razor is incorrect [i.e. higher agent simplicity is disproven, hence this conclusion - C1 from previous arguments in extension].ConclusionAs all my arguments still stand, my case remains unrefuted. References[1] Cartwright, R. L. (1968). "Some remarks on essentialism". The Journal of Philosophy 65 (20): 615–626. [2] Kekes, John (1990). Facing Evil. Princeton: Princeton UP. ISBN 0-691-07370-8.[3] "Ontological Arguments." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [http://plato.stanford.edu...][4] Hawking, Stephen. “The Beginning of Time”. Stephen Hawking: The Official Website. Cambridge University. [http://www.hawking.org.uk...] [5] Hawking, S. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Dell Publishing Group, New York. (1988) ISBN-978-0-553-10953-5. [6] Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 47,57.