Does God Exist

I was hoping that Con will provide some good rebuttals making this debate more interesting. . but unfortunately I was disappointed by their forfeiture. . I hope they will come back in last round to defend their arguments. INTRODUCTION The resolution was a question and BoP was equally shared, which means that Con had to prove that God doesn’t exist and the only round they had to provide evidence to meet their BoP was R2. . They provided two arguments, namely “1. Burden of proof” and “2. Representation”. When you read them you realize that none of them can show in any way that there is no God. . Let’s start now with Con’s first argument. REBUTTALS 1. Burden of proof Con starts as follows: “Let's start with the obvious argument my opponent will have to address. [1] Where is God? [2] Why can't we see God? [3] Why does he not reveal himself in the age of cameras? [4] What does the Christian God have against gays? [5] Alright, now I know what my opponent might say to counter these assertions, but I will leave my counter argument hear. [6]” First of all, none of these show that God doesn’t exist. Let’s now go a little into details. . And please keep in mind that the resolution is about God defined as being the creator and the ruler of the universe and then think about Con’s arguments to see if they are related to this definition of God. . [1]: And what is it? I think they mean that no matter what argument I provide I will have to answer the questions they presented. . Let them correct me if I am wrong. . [2]: I demonstrated that God is the creator of space-time universe. That means that it is nonsensical to ask “where” God is when He is the creator of space since there is no reason to think that God is bound to space He himself has created. . Since God is not bound to space, then the question of “where” is nonsensical. [3]: Maybe because we are not able to see Him. . OR maybe He doesn’t yet want us to see Him. . By the way, is there a rule that anything that exists needs to be seen by humans? What about 95% of the universe (dark matter + dark energy)? [4]: He doesn’t have to. . as many other things haven’t yet revealed themselves in the age of cameras and continue to exist (e. g. , dark matter and dark energy). [5]: It would be better if Con asked a Christian. . And it is still unclear to me what this have to do with existence/non-existence of God as defined. . [6]: So it was a counter argument? But we were not supposed to provide counter arguments in round 2, according to structure Con provided in round 1. . Con continues as follows: “ If my opponent tries to claim that there is intelligent design, and the universe originated from a designer; who created the designer. Who created God? [1] My opponent can say that God had no creator, but this would be false, because there is already a logic here that one must follow. [2] The logic is that everything created must have a designer. [3] Than the designer must have been created? [4] The logic would have to stay consistent. [5]” [1]: He is uncreated, as I demonstrated in round 2 under II.1: Uncaused. [2]: The logic I followed was deduction and a deductive answer is true as far as the premises are true and the rules are clearly followed. . no matter how strange it seems. . [3]: The logic is that everything created (i. e. , began to exist) must have a creator, not necessarily a designer. However, as I demonstrated in previous round, God is uncreated creator. If the thing that is created is designed, then it must have a designer. [4]: I think Con is a little confused here (refer to number 3 above). . [5]: I agree. Here Con’s first so-called argument ends. Let’s now analyze their second argument. 2. Representation We agreed under comments that for the sake of discussion we will only argue for/against God who is the creator and the ruler of the universe. . nothing else. . But anyways. . Con wrote: “For an intelligent designer, he is quite pathetic at getting the message across that he himself is the all powerful God. ” Considering the definition provided, the God that we are discussing can be either a theistic God or a deistic God, but (as we agreed under comments) whether He is a theistic or a deistic God is out of our discussion. . Therefore, if this God was a deistic God, then Con’s second argument is completely pointless. In order to be able to discuss Con’s argument we have first to discuss if this God is a theistic God or a deistic God. . I didn’t make any claim about either case (as we agreed under comments that we won’t). . After listing some religions and how many people affiliates to each of them, Con wrote: “My opponent could say that this links to an intelligent designer. It doesn't. Many of these religions listed are polytheistic. ” But I won’t say that, instead I will say that this topic links to something out of the scope of our discussion. CONCLUSION As you can see, none of Con’s arguments can show that God, defined as the creator and the ruler of the universe, doesn’t exist, hence none of Con’s arguments meets their BoP. They look more like counter arguments to some other arguments which were not yet provided. I would like to remind them that they can only defend their arguments they provided in round 2. .