Resolved: God Exists

Con goes onto state I have no fulfilled by Burden of Proof. This fact cannot be done, due to the following: - In Round 2, Con took up the Burden of Proof by presenting points for me to rebuttal, and has continued to do so, therefore, the rule of Pro having the Burden of Proof has been contradicted and is therefore flawed. I request that the BOP section of the debate rules be declared void and be stricken of the record. - You cannot prove a negative. As many have tried before, you can never present any solid evidence for the existence of God, this is because that God is a hypothesis, an idea, to which no solid evidence can be attributed to. The only thing I can present that is closest to this proof is the possibility of evidence presented, to which is the Constraints enforced upon the Universe. 1) Moral Authority I have already efficiently debated Moral Authority on God's side. Not only have I identified his role as the source for this authority, but I have also outlined where morality comes from, which is cultural and religious values, to which cultural values can always be linked back to religious values; though the two may contradict. (For example, in the Christian belief system, it states that no one should commit murder, however, it does state that good christians should kill heretics. Another example is that a man should not judge another man, but yet goes onto that we should prosecute those who commit crime." Furthermore, you have stated that does this creative force have to be the source, or why should it be, etc. These questions cannot be answered in anyway that is relevant to the core topic of this debate. 2) Both paradoxes I have answered, you continuing to state these paradoxes does nothing to further the debate. I am not randomly defining my arguments, I am working off your definitions. Omnipotence: "The power to do anything". This definition is accurate, and we already know that the expanded definition of Omnipotence is "The power to do anything POSSIBLE'. Creating an impossible object is not possible. So the omnipotence paradox is FLAWED at it's core, and I have answered and successfully rebutteled this paradox. The Omniscience Paradox has also been answered. God knows everything, it matters not if we have free will or no, nor is it relevance if everything is pre-determined. I have presented an accurate and reliable answer to this paradox, that God knows of all possibilities that exist. There are infinite possibilities, infinite choices to every action; in retrospect, we have free will. And God knows of all these possibilities. Furthermore, you go onto attempt to rebuttle the stability of the universe with Thermodynamics. Stating that the universe exists in disorder at it's core. What you fail to see is that the Laws of Thermodynamics is part of the Laws of Physics and Nature, to which is enforced upon us by God. The fact that the universe exists in disorder is apart of God's plan, it is mean't to be that way, disorder ensures stability in the universe. Your argument is INVALID in concern to this point. The definition of Stability is: The State of being Stable. And the universe IS stable in it's own way, and way we have not yet to comprehend. I have presented by points and my evidence, you have failed to rebuttle any of them. Furthermore, I have rebuttled all of your arguments, you just fail to recognise them. I request to the voters to see this and identify this. To ignore Con's calls for confusion and to vote according to this argument. Vote not to your personal beliefs nor to whether you agree with me or my point. Vote for whose argument was more stable, whose argument was more coherent, whose argument made more sense out of the points presented on both sides.