God is a logical concept

I think it is an interesting topic as an atheist, for the simple reason that the God concept to me is completely illogical. As such I always am interested to find out how others deem it logical. Logic is important Clearly, as my opponent has pointed out, I believe logic is very important. However, in the opening statement that my opponent gives about the importance of logic I think it is necessary to point out that in fact something can come from nothing and not as my opponent says “Ever since Plato in his cosmological book called the Timaeus, the vast majority of people who have thought (and wrote) carefully about ultimate origin questions and the nature of reality have agreed with Plato that “something can’t come from nothing. ” Something coming from nothing, is known as the Casmir effect. In essence in the Casmir effect you have particles (something) coming into existence from the quantum fluctuation (nothing). (1) To rebut an argument that may arise to this Casmir effect, which effectively shows that something can come from nothing. I will jump straight into what surely is philosophical rigmarole with no logical basis. My opponent may disagree that this nothing (quantum fluctuation) is not nothing, however let me be very clear this nothing is described, it has meaning, it is logical. In contrast the nothing my opponent may propose in fact has no logical basis. As such my opponent first needs to demonstrate that their nothing is actually factual and hence logical. The First Cause Argument My opponent used the first cause argument, which relies on the idea that something cannot come from nothing. As I pointed out above my opponent has yet to prove this nothing concept using logic. As such this argument has been effectively rebutted until my opponent can present evidence which shows both that the Casmir Effect is not real and logical, i. e. the quantum fluctuation is not nothing ,as well as further logical proof that the nothing presented as an alternative is in fact nothing. My opponent then bashes Stephen Hawking, I must say I find this weird as again I will restate the same line of reasoning again. My opponent has presented zero evidence for nothing. Physicists (Stephen Hawkings included) have presented evidence for the only nothing which follows logically. As such everything my opponent throws at the debate at this moment does not stick as it is illogical, in fact we can say that it does not follow my opponents definition of logic. That is, it is not “science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. ”(2) it is rather just what my opponent asserts with no scientific investigations. The Meaning of Life The meaning of life is not a logical argument. As this can clearly be subjective and logic is not meant to be subjective, it is meant to be objective or true, i. e. facts. To demonstrate this, let me give definitions of the words objective and subjective. Objective: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings (3) Subjective: relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind(4) Now my opponents meaning of life is based on the argument that a god exists, or the supernatural. This is subjective as my opponent has not shown any proof that a god exists and this world view is based on emotion until it can be shown to be true. “If evolution had happened, why are humans teh way we are now: feelings, emotions, and wisdom beyond any ape's comprehension? ” On the other hand, my meaning of life is based on the reality of nature. This is objective, as it is what I can observe and it is not based on my emotions. So, yes, I have not answered my opponents question about the meaning of life. However, it is not necessary as my opponent is presenting a argument for the meaning of life which is not grounded in logic. This debate is meant to be about God being a logical concept. God from the Christian Bible is a likely Creator My opponent now makes that massive jump of assertion that the unproven creator is the Christian God. Yet, at this point my opponent has proved nothing! My opponent also assaults our sense with verses from the Bible, a book which needs to be demonstrated as accurate and the true word of God before it can be considered logical and relevant to the debate. However, before this can be done my opponent needs to logically demonstrate that God exists which has not been done. Please see the previous arguments if you do not believe me. As such bold statements like “But if we study the nature of God and the Bible which is His Word” and “Because there now is existence (and we do not intend to debate this point), then something has always existed. Either God always existed or matter has always existed. ” should not be taken as fact. As these bold statements are based on nothing, zero, nada, zip, zilch. They need to be proved! Conclusion My opponent has made baseless assertions after in building their case for a logical God concept. What makes it worse is that some of these assertions are demonstrably false, i. e. the Casmir Effect. In effect my opponent needs to try again. Start from the beginning and build an argument that is logical. Build an argument that is based on fact. Don't build an argument based on emotional pleas. I know hand the debate back to my opponent. You have some hard work ahead off you so good luck. (1) . http://www.scientificamerican.com... (2) . http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (4) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...