Does god exist

Ok let's jump into your arguments. the negation of the existence of god in essence would mean that since we exist in essence, we are greater than the defined God, which is, via definition, wholly absurd. I've explained 3 or 4 times now if we negated god's existence we wouldn't say we are greater then him, we don't believe in god. We also aren't greater then unicorns, because they don't exist. Your argument only makes sense if you have proved god exists but you have failed to do so your argument makes no sense. Next you say because I've said you have provided no proof for god that is a fallacy from ignorance. Saying that is intellectually dishonest because you have provide no proof except for bad arguments that have been debunk not just by me, but by hundreds of people. You're next argument The negation of God would henceforth prove that God is finite, for the following reason (which was wholly ignored when presented in R2): that since there are things which occupy essence, and the negation of the existence of God implies that God does not occupy essence, we are literally saying that things which occupy essence (this computer, this flute etc.) have greater values than that of God, which is wholly absurd because God is the most infinite, and hence cannot be limited by things that have essence within God. I already went over the first part about 5 times now. You're argument is that it's stupid to say that your computer and flute are greater then god. Which they wouldn't be if he was real, but again you haven't proved that and as specified in the first round you have the burden of proof to prove that god exists. A burden which you have failed to meet. All your arguments so far start with the assumption god exists, which if you seek to prove god you can't do. It's like me arguing that unicorns are the most powerful thing ever and it's stupid to believe anything else. Replace unicorns with god and we have a good summary of your argument. Ok going into your second paragraph your defense as to why a omnipresent being would have to be god is defined that way. Ok so I will define unicorns as omnipresent and now it must be a unicorn. You would say that's stupid, but replace god and that's your argument. That's assuming anything is omnipresent which nothing is. Your second statement that me asking for proof of god is a appeal to ignorance makes no sense. If I said unicorns exist and you asked for proof would that be a appeal to ignorance? No but once again replace god and that's your argument. Your next argument is that I'm using false premises to avoid your empirical arguments. First my premises aren't false and you have proved they are. Plus your Empirical arguments suck and have been debunked hundreds of times before. your next argument was. Nevertheless, the opposition shows that, with methods of pure reason alone (not even built upon any axioms of nature), that the universe is not infinite. His proof goes along these lines: the Universe is not the only thing that exists, and in existence, another thing that combines essence exists extra-universally, and henceforth, our universe is going to be collide with this universe, causing the end of the universe as we know it today. What empirical basis does he have to show that something exists outside this universe? The multiverse theory, the only theory that asserts that something outside the universe exists, states that there is no way in which this universe could collide with the other universe, as it "exists" parallel to ours. But I challenge the opposition to show me proof that an extra-universal object that occupies matter exists: until he does this, this argumentation is wholly invalidated. Wow can anyone say straw man. I said the universe is expanding and therefore not infinite. If the universe is infinite it couldn't expand. I can forgive this one though because pretty much no one understands this fully so I can forgive you missing this. Next you say I straw maned you by saying you said the universe is expanding faster then ever. you did say that. "We now know that this theory is indeed true, for the universe seems to be expanding faster than it was. It's between to of your diagrams in the last round. Once again I will debunk this argument P1. There exists something that is infinite essence P2. God has infinite essence P3. God exists P1. You haven't proven that. p2. If he exists, but you haven't proven he does P3. Invalid conclusion Your final argument is that god caused himself. How? How did he do that. Again you say it's in the definition of god. This is irrelevant unless you can prove he exists which you haven't done. If you say god could cause it self, why couldn't the universe do that instead of god. The last thing you say is that I agreed with you that god and the universe are the same thing. I didn't say that and I don't agree with you. I asked if you believed that which you clearly do. In your next argument please stop bring up the definition of god because that's irrelevant unless you prove him which you haven't.