Resolved: God Exists

I'm afraid that you've not coined onto the idea presented in my intial arguement, Tejretics. From my point of view, you have chosen to overlook any of the points I have put forward in Round 1 of my argument, arbitrarily stating them as "Merely stated that God does not play an active role in the universe. .. you have randomly stated a property that is completely irrelevant. " Instead, you have gone onto to post your arguments, to which two have no revelence to any stated point I have brought up, without effectively rebuttaling any of my initial points. Furthermore, you have also failed the understand the evidence of proof an existance of god in my first arguement, in the following points I will expand on this statement and offer rebuttals toward the ones you have arbitarily presented: 1) "Your claims have absolutely NO PROOF. .. merely directly stating claims. .. Your BOP is not to prove any properities of god. .. [only] to show the exisence of god. .. THE PRIMARY GOAL OF THIS DEBATE. .. IS TO SHOW THE EXISTANCE OF GOD" Above is a series of statements made by Con during his initial statement, to which I will aim my first rebuttal. To Con: The claims I have stated are to be used as evidence / proof for the existance of god. I am arguing that the constraits put upon us by God (The Laws of Physics) is exactly proof for the existance of an enforcing agent (God). That the Life-Death cycle is an factor of God that it has constrained all existing things to follow. Furthermore, I argue that through my presenting of claims for the existance of God, the statement of his properities play a huge must and will have to be mentioned and rebuttalled by you (if it can be done), that these properities stated in Round 1 are the proof of this envisoned god of mine. In my Round 1 statement, I have attempted to show and or prove the existance of god, you have just decided not to take my points into consideration. 2) You are right in thinking that a scienttific force created the universe, and that scientific force is a force that we have not discovered yet, we have only uncovered some of the constraints it has put upon us; this scientific force we have given a name: God. This God is the source of all moral authority, a type of moral authoirty that does not necessarily have to be attributed to this force, but it highy likely that it is. That this moral authoirties view on morality is not black and white, but rather, this god judges individuals after their death upon the sense of morality that they themselves attribute to, though these individuals might not not agee to these morals and openly defy them, in doing so they are agreeing to these morals. For example, If a serial killer murders his / her victims, he / she knows what they are doing is wrong, but they choose to do it anyway. Furthermore, yes the source of this universe does not have to be omnipotent, omniscient and the source of moral authority but it is most likely that it is, to a point, that this source or god can be taken as fact. 3) I would like to elaborate on my definition of a god for this argument, in case that my intial definition was not clear. If it was not clear, I apoligise if it was, but at any rate. My envisoned God is not one of any main religion: i. e. Christainity, Muslim. But rather an agnostic version of God, a God whose reasonings can not be known, only that some of his properities / charactersitics can be uncovered. God is genderless, emotionless and to an extreme extent opinionless, and of his / her opinions, nothing can be known. 4) The Big Bang. Though I have to presented the point of the Big Band in my argument, I accept the statement of the Big Bang. There is unique evidence to which proves the Big Bang, and further evidence to prove String Theory. And it is true that all mass and particles in the existance of the world, and in-turn biological beings, are a direct consequence of the Big Bang. Yes the entirity of the statement entitled under "Proof of the Big Bang" is all true, beside one point. The Big Bang was signalled by God. The intense singularity of mass was created by God, and it's subsequent explosion was an action by God. In this envisoned religion, this is how the universe was created. The Big Bang Theory is correct, and that the Big Bang itself was cauased by God. Through this, all biological beings that came into existance were allowed to exist by God. Through the String Theory, everything that came into existance is a direct cause by God; and the life that came into being, was allowed to be God. 5) The Omnopotence Paradox. . This Paradox is indeed a thorn in the side of my arguement, so is the Paradox of Omniscience. My answer to this paradox is as follows: Although this simple argument may appear compelling at first glance, there are some fundamental problems with it. Before identifying these problems, however, it is necessary to make clear what is meant by "omnipotence". Great minds like Rene Descartes and Thomas Aquinas have created large and complex definitions of a paradox . Out of these two minds, I agree with Aquinas' theory of omnipotence. God is able to do anything possible; he can part the red sea, and he can restore the dead to life, but he cannot violate the laws of logic and mathematics in the way that Descartes states. So, if God exists then he is a being that can lift all stones. A stone that is so heavy that God cannot lift it is therefore an impossible object. According to Aquinas" understanding of omnipotence, remember, God is able to do anything possible, but not anything impossible, and creating a stone that God cannot lift is something impossible. And therefore,he paradox of the stone, and the omnipotence paradox, can be resolved. It fails to show that there is an incoherence in the theistic conception of God, and so fails to demonstrate that God does not exist. LINK - . http://www.existence-of-god.com... 6) The answer to the Omniscience Paradox is simple. God has the knowledge of everything, this includes all possibilities. There is no one possibility for any action, but rather, billions and bilions of them. There is no deterministic view of the universe, no action is predetermined, only that God has knowledge of all possible outcomes of every problem. The idea of free will can be rebuked by many scientific theories, but for the reasonings of this argument, humans have free will to do what they wish; and God knows all possibilities of this free will. There is an unlimited amount of choices humans make, and in turn, there is an unlimited amount of possibilities that God knows of. And I would like to point out that your sending statement of this point is completly false. You state that I referred to the Bible as a source, when in fact I did not. I stated that my argument for a god has no relevance to any major religion, the only refercing of the word 'bible' on this page, are two made by you. I have never used the bible as a source, nor will I; the ending to your statement is FALSE and as of such is void. 7) The Grand Design Question. Agnosticism works on the fact that there is a god, but nothing can be known about him; only properities of his / her influence on the world can be known. As of such, the knowledge of his origins cannot be known. And futhermore, this statement has no relevance on the topic of the debate. The topic is DOES GOD EXIST, the relevance of his / her creation has ZERO bareing on the question. 8) A expansion of my points. My proof of gods existance is the constraints he / she has placed upon us. Such as: - The Life / Death - The Laws of Physics, such as Thermodynamics, Speed of Light, etx - The established Laws of Nature, siuch as gravity, evolution, etc These constrains are proof of God due to the fact that they are being constantly enforced upon us, a highly likely explanation for such, is the exinstance of an deity.