God Does NOT Exist, God is NOT Great, and Makes Life Worthless

Let's cut straight to the chase. . . ====> G O D S - E X I S T E N C E <==== :::Argument from the Universe::: My opponent plays semantics (as the majority of critics here have done as well) and attacks my use of the word Universe to denote the whole of existence. Since no such word that I'm aware of, literally means the whole of existence, the term "Universe" had to suffice and which I thought I made clear the intended use. In fact, according to various definitions on Wikipedia (which references ancient philosophers and the early use of the word), "the Universe is defined as everything that exists, has existed, and will exist. " [1] As such, my opponent is FALSE when he proclaims a redefinition fallacy. However, this is all useless semantics and is unfortunate because it misses the point of the very essence of my argument. Admittedly, my opponent was able to get past the semantics and somewhat understood my argument by acknowledging that I'm referring to the "Complete Universe. " My Original P3: If God is part of the Universe, he could not have created it. KRF's Strawman P3: If God is part of the Created Universe, he could not have created it. As you can see, KRF has constructed a blatant strawman and attacked it by saying that the Universe of P3 is inconsistent with P1 and P2. Allow me to clarify the argument to escape any sort of semantics about Universe/Created Universe/etc. P1: The whole of existence is everything that exists. (A = A) P2: If God exists, he is part of the entirety of existence. P3: If God is part of existence, he could not have created existence itself. :. Therefore, a creator God is impossible. Note: Any mention of "outside of space-time" is irrelevant. If something exists outside of space-time, it is still part of existence. I stand in affirmation that this argument, when fully understood stands unrefuted. :::Kalam's Cosmological Argument FAILS::: P1: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause. {KRFournier: it speaks about time and space. Everything we've ever observed has begun at a point in time. While the matter in Geo's laptop has always existed, his laptop began to exist at a point in time and space. } Unproven bare assertion. He says that the premise is about the beginning of time and space, not the beginning of "objects" that we know of. This is correct, and I knew that. However, this premise acts as if we know that whatever begins to exist, has a cause, because everything we see today "began to exist" (Lane Craig himself said it and he's wrong). However, nothing we know of and observed, has "begun to exist. " And thus, my opponents argument is a circular bare assertion that because time and space had a beginning, therefore, the matter that made my laptop began to exist. Invalid. The fact is, we DON'T know that time and space began to exist and he has no basis whatsoever for claiming as such. P2: The universe began to exist. My opponent provided an argument I already refuted in the 1st round. I had already noted that our "corner of existence" (properly termed "the Hubblesphere) began as a singularity point. I further refuted his point that our singularity point "began to exist. " Quote: "even if we were to assume that our singularity was the only one, there's no reason to assume that the matter of the singularity didn't always exist. " So of course the Big Bang was the beginning of our expanded singularity point, but that doesn't mean the matter and energy of the singularity point couldn't have always existed. Let me note that "beginning" =/= "begin to exist. " For example, I began to be me at birth, but the matter my body is made up of is merely matter that has always existed, just merely transformed. :::Ambiguity of the Uncaused Cause::: My opponent concedes the ineffectiveness of Kalam's Cosmological for proving God and instead get's only as far as an unknowable uncaused cause. However, he notes that it fails to prove the non-existence of God and fails to satisfy the resolution. This is only partially true as this is only one facet of my case against God. Remember, I have provided both a positive argument against God's existence and a negation of one of the stronger arguments for God. ====> G O D - I S - N O T - G R E A T <==== :::God Can't Be Great::: My opponent boldly claims that I didn't explain WHY God must be finite. This is false. Quote: "God is not Satan, God is not demons, God is not my opponent, God is not evil, God is not dirt, etc. Unless a Theist is willing to accept that God is a Satanic, evil piece of dirt, then God must be finite. " :::God is a Tyrannical Dictator::: I find it humorous that my opponent has gone semantical on the word "great. " However, he kindly lists all the definitions of "great. " I think it's obvious what I mean by the word, but from his list, this is what I refer to: "Of outstanding significance or importance; remarkable or outstanding in magnitude; superior in quality or character; noble. " He says that no definition provided speaks of benevolence, however, if God were shown to be evil, finite, and tyrannical, he would NOT be "superior in quality of character," he would NOT be "noble," and he would NOT be "remarkable or significant. " ====> G O D - D E G R A D E S - L I F E S - S I G N I F I C A N C E <==== KRF claims that life's significance cannot be objectively measured, but on the contrary, my argument demonstrates this precisely. Degrade: to lower in character or quality; to reduce in amount; to reduce in worth or value [2] If God exists and this being imposes a single meaning to life, life and existence become limited and confined, thus degrading the significance of life. Life that is boundless, unrestricted, free to explore, free to give multiple meanings, free to create, life's significance is once again restored. ====> T A G <==== This argument is very simple to refute. It simply begs the question as demonstrated by my opponent: "Geo's attempts to disprove God's existence, among other things, ultimately relies on principles that can only be justified if his position is wrong. " The Transcendental Argument affirms that logic can only be valid and absolute if God exists as the "necessary precondition. " My opponent's justification for this statement is "[TAG] is proved via the impossibility of the contrary. " Well isn't that great? Where's the proof or logical reasoning behind that statement? TAG falsely assumes that the only way for universals and absolutes to exist is if God exists. That's like saying "Math is only valid if God exists. " Ridiculous! And blatantly fallacious! ====> C O N C L U S I O N <==== "God is DEAD, hence man is FREE! " - Nietzsche Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...