God Exists

Alright. I am amazed at the work put into this, And appreciate that you would do it. I am honored to debate with you and value this debate as a learning experience. A few things before I get into the debate: Define some of the things that you say, And make things clear. For example, You bring up the word "worlds" throughout your essay. I do not know what you mean by it as given the context of which it is in. Since I understand you are a religious person, And I am not, I am not fully sure of what "worlds" means. Does it mean the scientific term "planet" or something more superstitious? You also bring up things like: "P2 is. . . " or "S5". I do not know what you mean by "P2". Keep in mind that you don't really know who you are talking to, So really make clear what these terms mean. Maybe it may be a debate thing, But then it would be completely unfair. I have informed you already that I am a complete noob in debating, And so using these terms to confuse me wouldn't be a very sensible thing to do. Even though I have never debated, I know that you should state and make clear the terms you use. However, I did my best to understand your arguments, So inform me of my mis-interpretations within your essay. I will first refute your Ontological Argument. You begin off by stating that a maximally great being could exist, And I agree with you. The only question is if it does exist. However, You then follow up with quote: "If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, Then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. ". Now that's what occured to me as odd. First you told us that a maximally great being could be out there, And then you say that since there is a possibility that it could be out there, Then there is a maximally great being. That is not true, At all. Just because there is a probability that it is possible, Doesn't mean you can assume that it is. It's like saying: "Oh, There's some chance that the rocket would successfully blast off. " and then assume that it would. Do you see your flaw? They just don't really add up. I mean, Yes, I am not denying the fact that such a great being could exist, But what if it doesn't? The fact that we don't know for sure if it exists or not means that we cannot conclude anything from it. We can't conclude it exists and we can't conclude that it doesn't exist. All we can conclude is really, That it is inconclusive. I don't need to see the rest of your "Ontological Argument" because you already messed up. Then you start with this whole "entity thing" which I have no idea what you really mean. You gave an example about some invisible pink unicorn, And how being pink and being invisible contridict each other, Therefore such a being cannot exist. But how the hell do they contridict each other? What if the unicorn does have pink skin, And somehow his body and the pink reacts a certain way to make the unicorn invisible? What if the unicorn could be pink and has the ability to turn invisible when endangered? Yes, It might then be pointless to have pink skin, But it doesn't nessesarily contridict each other. After those false statements, You talk about the three worlds. This is where I don't understand your definition of "world". Do you mean a planet that is scientifically impossible and shouldn't be able to sustain itself due to the laws of physics and such, Or are you saying like, Some religious definition? Please tell me in Round 3. You end off the the: "If there was nothing then why is there now something" argument. This strikes me as a bit of a stumper, I admit. However, The Bible is full of inconsistancies that don't add up to each other. So I mean, It might just be a matter of time when scientists find out what happened before the Big Bang. But the inconsistancies in the Bible cannot be changed, So that is something we can really debate about. Just because we don't know something right now doesn't mean we won't know it in the future. So, I've refuted literally all your arguments and points except the "world" one, Which I would need a bit more clarification to. Now I go onto my own points. First, There are a lot of inconsistancies and mysteries within the Bible. Even on the freaking first page! According to the Bible, God says "Let there be light" and light appears. But God hasn't created stars or anything that makes light yet! How could God create light without creating a lightsource? This defies physics and basic common sense. However, Not only does the Bible contain inconsistancies, But it also contridicts reality. I trust tht you know kind of what is in the Bible, So you probably know about The Great Flood, Even I know it. According to most bible scholars, The flood came around 2300 BCE. The Bible also tells us that all being were exterminated. Everything, From civilizations to animals were exterminated except Noah, Noah's family, And some animals with him. So then why didn't civilizations just dissapear? For example, We are finding Egyptian artifacts before and after The supposedly "Great Flood". Even if such a flood took place, Why are the Egypts before and after the flood literally the same? Where is the evidence, From fossils to geographical differences, That such a flood took place 4000 years ago? But the biggest hitter, I think, Is the fact that The Bible claims that the world is less than 10 thousand years old, Even though we find fossils dated millions of years. My second argument is about all the horrible things that happened to mankind. Why did World War 1 and 2 happen? Couldn't God stop such a massive loss of life and suffering? If he is so powerful and omnipotent, Then why do we need to pray for God? Doesn't God already know what we want? Why is he making us waste our time telling him what we want when he already knows what we want? Why are there Christians that suffer all the time? Shouldn't they be well off? In the end, Your arguments were a bit weird and weak and you can't really refute the inconsistancies of the Bible.