The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1H

My opponent believes that I have failed to understand his arguments completely. While part of the reason is my opponent's muddled description of god (as an example), I admit part of it was my error. But it's only a slight one, because my opponent's arguments are nothing more than just pushing the problem back further. He simply moves the focus from a scientific one to a philosophical one, and concludes god exists while never filling in the many gaps he has created. I will expose those gaps of error. First, we need to make clear what the definition of God is in this debate. My opponent stated three qualities that defines this god: that he is "self-existing", omnipotent, and the creator of reality/existence. I was somewhat confused, as he threw in a list of Allah's name and his details. Nonetheless, I'm sure we both are clear on god's definition, as it is necessary in determining if he exists or not. Since we are arguing about the existence of this supreme metaphysical being, and not a specific god of a religion today, I will now refer to it as simply 'god', for this is most befitting. My opponent "expects at least a part of the debate to center on the definition" of existence, but I implore him to go further. Does he really want to delve into the issue of defining existence? It's a complicated matter, and it can easily take up this entire debate, which makes the topic quite irrelevant. He can attempt so, but until then I'll simply state that something exists if it is part of objective reality. ==================== Argument #1: If nothing exists - then nothing exists ==================== So my opponent simply, as he puts it, pushes back the problem one step. He focuses his argument not on acausality, but the situation in which a spacetime framework is absent. He states that something must have "allowed" for the phenomenon of the existence of spacetime, and here is where he inserts god. There are many flaws with this kind of thinking: 1. What reason does he have to believe that something came before the Big Bang? If we are to believe the the Big Bang is an expansion of spacetime, then time was part of the Big Bang. Therefore, one could argue that NOTHING was before the Big Bang since it wouldn't make logical sense. It would be akin to saying that something is north of the North Pole. 2. If God is outside of spacetime, then how can he make decisions? How can he create things? If there isn't time, then events can't logically follow after another. 3. If God is acasual, why can't the universe be as well? ==================== Argument #2: For anything to exist, there has to be a self-existing entity (God) - who can create things out of nothings ==================== >>>"No. God has to exist by himself. God has to be self-existing...There has to be a self-existing entity, existing in the same sense that we exist."<<< My opponent not only begs the question, but once again makes fuzzy philosophical claim. As stated before, if God can be self-existing, why can't the universe? Why couldn't the framework of spacetime have existed forever? My opponent believes God has no creator, but there must be something about God that allows for this. Otherwise, it is a double standard to say that the universe is incapable of the same feat. ==================== Argument #3: We are not God ==================== We both accept this point, no further discussion is needed. I will simply include this point to avoid confusion about the numbering of arguments. ==================== Argument #4: God is All Powerful ==================== >>>"If we accept that God is the entity which defines everything's existence, God is going to have full control over everything. He has to be All Powerful."<<< Again, my opponent makes several hidden leaps of reasoning: 1. When did we accept that God 'defines' everything's existence? In fact, saying that an entity X defines entity Y's existence is absurd, let alone to say it defines the existence of everything. If my opponent wants to get away with saying such flimsy phrases, then he needs expand on this. 2. Even if we are to grant the idea that God created everything, does this make him omnipotent? So far, my opponent has yet to connect this point. What logical or rational reason do we have to believe that creating everything means you are omnipotent? Why can't an entity who isn't omnipotent create everything? When we are dealing with such subjective words like "all-powerful", it really brings the issue into the spotlight. ==================== Counterargument #1 - None-unique proof ==================== >>>"This logic is based on wrong assumption that I am defending just the Islamic concept of God."<<< True, and I concede this point due to the fact that I misinterpreted your definition of God in the beginning (hopefully I got it right this time). My apologies. As a helpful hint, I implore of my opponent that perhaps next time he point out the definition clearly, as a misstep in communication can be disastrous when considering how rounds are limited. ==================== Conclusion ==================== As I said before, I apologize for my mistake in perceiving my opponent's definition of god. However, there isn't so much as to say about this argument. It is filled with bouts of jumps of logic. He has to explain many fuzzy philosophical terms, for clarity is of utmost importance. He has to fill the jumps of reason for why an omnipotent god must be the creator of the universe. He has to reason why the supposed self-existence of god can't be attributed to nature as well. I am waiting for REAL rebuttals as well.