God Exists

Defense of Contentions C1) Cosmological Argument CIA. Defense of P1 “That can be deemed incorrect, for there is no use of the universe theoretically. Suppose if there was no universe, then what? We won't exist. But then we only we have need for the universe, and if the universe weren't there, then we won't exist. What other use does the universe has, for we are the products of universe, and if there were no humans, what is the reason of the universe?” This is irrelevant to refuting P1. I did not say everything that exists has a reason, I said it has a cause. This whole refutation is based on a misinterpretation of P1. Everything that exists has a *cause* - this is defended by the statement of Parmenidean ontology, Ex nihilo nihil fit, as stated before. I extend the defense of P1, and conclude that this misinterpretation leads to the irrelevant “refutation”. CIB. Defense of P4 P4 is primarily defended by P2 and P3, which are dropped by Con. I shall address Con’s questions here. “... but he creates all this with the universe.” God is an external, transcendent cause and, therefore, *does not* create “all this” with the universe. He creates the universe *external* to it, using his *own* powers. As P2 and P3 both lead to a conclusion of P4, P4 is necessary, and God is transcendent, allowing us to conclude that he must have immense power. Thus, the God of this definition is also met. C2) Teleological Argument Con has *dropped* the premises and directly questioned the conclusion. But to question a contention, one has to question the premises. I shall, nonetheless, address this examination. “The universe is finely tuned, but so is this computer according to human terms. This was most likely made in a factory. How are we sure that a sentient, intelligent being created the universe? Although *machinery was invented by us*, since you define God is in astral form, how do we know it is just a powerful force that created the universe, an energy of some sort, and not by a sentient being?” Con answers his own question. God in astral form is a *sentient* force, as it envisioned the universe. The computer is created as it was first *envisioned* by a sentient mind; similarly, God may have had machinery, but was a *sentient astral force* that envisioned and created the teleology of the fine-tuned universe. [1] Con has *dropped* the likelihood of intelligent design. C3) Contingency Con has *dropped* this *entire contention* on the accounts that he does not understand the meaning of “contingent”. If the existence of the universe is contingent, that means it *may* or *may not* actually exist. It is subject to chance, and “occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.” [2] The *circumstance* here, the necessary non-contingent object, is God. Refutation of Con’s case R1) Withdrawal The reason for withdrawal is *irrelevant* to this debate, as it is to show that God likely *exists*, i.e. has physical reality or is real. I have shown 3 valid arguments to think that God most likely exists. As these still stand, this refutation remains irrelevant. R2) Location “Then what do you say God is living in?” God does not need to “live” *somewhere*. God exists outside of spacetime itself and transcendent. Science does not know where that is, but the point is, it does not *need* to. God is transcendent by nature and, therefore, it is impossible to say *where* he “lives”, and it is irrelevant. It does not, in any way, attack the existence of God. Maybe God lives outside the spacial and temporal dimensions. == Summary and Conclusion == Con misinterpreted P1 of the KCA and failed to refute the Cosmological Argument in any way. Con has yet to provide a valid refutation of teleology and has dropped the very low probability of chance and the high probability of intelligent design. Con has *dropped* their earlier contentions and the Argument from Contingency completely. As this is my last round, Con should not, by standard norms of conduct, rebut the *dropped* arguments and can only defend the case as presented so far. I have shown how intelligent design is mathematically probable, I have shown that teleology exists and an ordering intellect must exist, I have shown that God is the *ONLY* possible cause of the universe, and that a non-contingent entity *must* exist. Con has not defended their assertions in *any way possible*, and has not used *any sources whatsoever*, instead playing a game of *bare* assertions. I have used credible philosophical and scientific sources to support my claims, and have *resoundingly* affirmed the resolution, while Con has *ONLY* presented questions without *any* arguments to show that *atheism is true*. For these reasons, award sources and arguments to Pro. The resolution is resoundingly affirmed. Vote Pro. Sources 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com...