God exists.

From my post in Round 1, my opponent has two obligations in this debate:1. Provide a coherent and reasonable definition of God2. Provide arguments or evidence for the existence of God. I'll consider each of these requirements in turn with regard to his Round 1 post.1. The Definition of GodMy opponent provided a definition with a genus and differentia. I will address the genus first, then point out two problems with the differentia.1a. The Genus: "Power or Entity""Power or entity" is the genus of my opponent's definition. However, the concept of power comes from physics, and refers to the ability of one physical entity to exert force on another physical entity. Again, the concept of an entity refers to a physical being, like a chair, not a supernatural and presumably non-physical being, which is a notion that cannot objectively be made sense of.1b. The DifferentiaThe differentia of my opponent's definition is "beyond nature (supernatural) that caused, ontologically, the existence of the multiverse or universe in so that something rather than nothing could come into existence. " There are two problems here. First, if this being is beyond nature, then we cannot know anything about it, as he admits: "as it is outside of the nature, I do not think anything can be said about the qualities of this power or entity. " Yet he has no problem ascribing any number of qualities to this being: He has said that it is a power or entity and that it created the universe or multiverse out of nothing. This is a direct contradiction. Second, it is a well known principle of philosophy that nothing can come out of nothing, which contradicts the second of the differentia my opponent ascribes to God. In addition, if my opponent holds that something can come out of nothing, then the universe or multiverse could have come out of nothing without God to cause it. I conclude that my opponent's definition contains multiple contradictions and unclear terms, and therefore that he has failed to meet requirement 1.2. The Case for God's ExistenceMy opponent doesn't really present an identifiable argument with premises and a conclusion, but he does make a handful of objections to the idea that the universe is eternal: (a) It "makes us concede to a causeless existence (that the universe or multiverse exists from no initial cause)," (b) most scientists agree with the Big Bang theory, which says that the universe had a beginning, and (c) the multiverse could be God. I will address each of these objections in turn.2a. CausalityDoes an eternal universe violate causality? There are two senses in which the universe could be eternal: either the universe "goes back forever," with an infinite number of years before the present; or the universe goes back some finite number of years, stopping at the "first point in time. " Neither of these senses violate causality. If the universe goes back forever, then the universe at each point in time was caused by the universe at a prior point in time, so causality is never violated. If the universe goes back some finite number of years, then it still does not violate causality. The causal principle does say that whatever begins to exist has a cause. However, the universe did not begin to exist on this account, because beginning to exist means that there was some prior point in time at which it did not exist, followed by a point in time at which it did exist. This is what beginning to exist always means in our experience. Since time is defined in terms of the universe, there could not be a point in time at which the universe did not exist, so it does not fall under the causal principle. It was just "always there. "2b. The Big Bang TheoryThe Big Bang theory is not a problem for the claim that the universe has always existed. It just says that there was a point in the distant past at which all matter was compressed to a small point, followed by a period over which this point rapidly expanded. It does not say that there was an absolute beginning in the theologian's sense. (I'm not sure that my opponent is really making this argument, since he concedes that most scientists think it was caused by a prior state of the universe, but I thought it was worth mentioning in case he intended it as an argument. )2c. The MultiverseMy opponent attempts to win the debate by flatly identifying God with the multiverse. This arguably violates the reasonableness requirement I mentioned in Round 1, but I'll leave it to the judges to decide that. More importantly, the multiverse does not meet my opponent's definition of God, since it is not supernatural. It is just a bunch of universes. What my opponent is saying, basically, is that atheism is true if there is one universe, but theism is true if there are two universes. Maybe what he means is that the other universe would be supernatural to us, because it's outside of our universe, but then wouldn't our own universe be supernatural from the perspective of someone in another universe? It's not a very plausible argument. "Supernatural" means ghosts, goblins, and God, not more of the same physical reality.3. ConclusionSince my opponent has not met either of the two requirements, I conclude that we must negate the resolution.