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

To clear up any confusion, my opponent is apparently arguing for the existence of the Muslim conception of God - commonly known as Allah (I will refer to his god by this name from here on). The stated definition and characteristic (99 of them! ) are listed on the bottom of my opponent's 1st Round. Refer there for a reminder on the meticulously long definition. Secondly, my opponent attempts to rewire the meaning of existence. I agree that the definition I have given is somewhat tricky and circular. However, I don't want to delve into such a discussion, it is a topic for another time (defining existence is a debate in itself, just like the problem of defining time). My opponent suggests that we agree that "we exist", and I am compliant. Let's avoid petty semantics and get into the actual of the argument, which I'm sure both I and my opponent desire. So now I will refute his argument for the existence of God in a linear fashion: ==================== Argument #1: If nothing exists - then nothing exists ==================== My opponent is wrong in saying that something will never emerge out of nothing via quantum physics. Phenomena such as virtual particles[1][2], are direct evidence to the contrary. Thus, a simple empirical example shows that this entire argument is wrong. It should also be noted that in quantum physics, there is no such thing as "nothing". A perfect vacuum is a conceptual exercise found only in philosophy - the theories of quantum physics state that no volume of space can be perfectly empty[3]. Even here, "fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence. " Again, disproving my opponent's argument. ==================== Argument #2: For anything to exist, there has to be a self-existing entity (God) - who can create things out of nothings ==================== Wait, my opponent contradicts himself. In his previous argument, he stated that something can't come out of nothing. But now he said that some mysterious entity called God can? I ask of him, and the burden is his: how exactly is an entity "self-existing"? Exactly what is this mysteriously vague philosophical, if you can call it that, term? If you do not expound on this unbacked claim, then there is no reason for me to refute it. ==================== Argument #3: We are not God ==================== Well, of course I agree with this statement. This isn't so much an argument, but a small subpoint in my opponent's previous argument. So let's ignore this point,as it is of little use. ==================== Argument #4: God is All Powerful ==================== This is an a mere assertion on my opponent's part. WHY must God be all-powerful? Why can't an entity who is only shy of being omnipotent be self-existing as well, or create the universe? If there is another entity that can do the same, then my opponent's argument doesn't do much. I will explain this more in my following argument: ==================== Counterargument #1 - None-unique proof ==================== My opponent's entire argument -- which can be stated as being the First Cause argument -- falls prey to the flaw of being non-unique. Because even if we are to assume it is correct, he STILL hasn't proven his burden. Simply put, we can ask him: why must your conception of God be the one who created the universe? Why Allah, instead of Jesus Christ? Or Zeus? Or Ra? Or an INFINITE AMOUNT OF POSSIBLE GODS? This is the problem with the first cause argument -- and many others -- when trying to argue for the existence of a specific god. =================== Conclusion =================== My opponent's argument fails in two major aspects: it's empirically outdated, and it's non-unique. I await your response. ---References--- 1. . http://www.infidels.org... 2. . http://science.jrank.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...