The existance of God (philsophical debate)

Hello again! You begin round 2 by stating that the problem of "reaching the current universe" is still prevalent. I disagree. We do not have to pass an infinite amount of universes (or loops), to get to the current one. The length of the loop is finite; i.e. the amount of possible states of all that exists is finite. Therefore, there is no problem to complete the loop. You seem to think that it matters how many times the loop has been completed. Again, you are mistaken. If you are familiar with the unit circle, I can give an analogy: The angle pi, is exactly similar to the angle 3pi. The only difference is that in the second instance you have gone around the circle one more time. It's completely irrelevant if you can not know your angle is in fact 35pi, or 19pi, because the angles are similar. It is also irrelevant that no matter how many times you go around the circle, you will always be able to complete more rounds. The simple fact of going around the circle x amount of times, does not change anything about the angle. Going around the loop of circular time, changes nothing about the current universe. The current state is the same as it was in the last loop, and the same as it will be in the next. It is no problem if the loop continues forever. In paragraph two, you're arguing against a strawman (at least to a certain degree). I did not at any point state that one can only be omnipotent if one can perform tasks that lead to logical contradictions. I simply stated that not even an omnipotent being could do that. The being would still be omnipotent though. I'm in complete agreement with you when you say: "it just means he [god] cant break logic and contradict him self". What I actually was arguing in round one, is that creatio ex nihilo in fact is a task that leads to logical contradictions. You even stated in round one: "Out of nothing, nothing comes". You didn't even say anything more about it, because it is so obvious. If something came out of nothing, that of which it came from could not have been nothing. God does not get a free pass on this matter. At the end of paragraph two you say: "God has not created everything from nothing but from his infinite power." Ok, so you are trying to escape the problem I presented. Good, it means you realize that it, in fact, is a problem. However, your solution is not one I'm satisfied with. What are you really saying here... That God created the universe... from himself? A spaceless, timeless being, created space and time? Seems like you are heading back to the proposition of creatio ex nihilo. Also, I'll quote you a couple times more: "God has not created everything from nothing but from his infinite power." "We all know it is impossible pass infinite." I find it amusing that you are perfectly fine by ascribing characteristics of infinite nature to God. Correct me if I'm wrong, but exchange a couple of words, and the following sentence quickly becomes one that could come out of your mouth: "In order to get to omnipotence, we would have to pass and infinite amount of levels of power and abilities". As for your clarification about the cause of the universe being personal, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. If your argument were sound, all we could conclude is, namely, that the universe had a cause. Of course, the cause is clearly capable of being the cause; else it would not be the cause. However, you can't say that the cause is one that must be able to make choices. You realize that things don't have to be static, just because noone can make choices, right? In fact, that might very well be what's going on in reality, as well. Clearly not static, but quite unclear that anyone actually makes choices. The last part of round two, you first quote me saying that you "need more than the Kalam cosmological argument to make a case for Christianity". You then go to say my wish is your command, before writing several paragraphs that are completely irrelevant to Christianity. You could write the exact same paragraphs in defense of almost any other religion. Nothing about it makes a case for Christianity specifically. (which is what you began by telling me you would provide) I'm well aware of the problems of inductive reasoning, and I do not deny that it is a problem. I'm in agreement with Hume on that matter. The argument you seem to make is that since our inductive reasoning is working out (or has so far, that is), god must exist. However, I don't see the correlation. There could be plenty other explanations of why it works. We just don't know it yet. Unless you are aware, there are plenty of things we don't know. As an atheist, I prefer to tell it like it is ("I don't know"). I don't go around firmly believing in explanations that I cannot prove are correct. Only if you could show that God is a necessity for the validity of inductive reasoning, you would have a strong case. As for the way you choose to end round 2, I will say this: It's great that you take interest in philosophy at such a young age. However, a true philosopher is one that realizes that it's the arguments that matters, not the characteristics of the debaters. Also, debates are search for truth, not a competition. While it certainly is a win if you manage to stick to sound and valid arguments, it is almost even more of a win if you figure out that you are wrong. Being able to change your mind, even though you may dislike the new viewpoint, is a fantastic virtue.