God Exists

I would like to apoligize for not posting my round two "rebuttals", and I'll try to include both defense and rebuttal into this postC1) Argument from Incoherence.TJ presents a very interesting and known argument that claims that God's greatness was, at some point in time, false, either because there was nothing there for Him to be compared to or because everything else is God as well. (Side question: What if God is everything, and everything is God?)I think that this debate kind of illusrtates my point well. Currently, I am trying to fit God into the label of God, which has it's own definition, and if God is defined by the definition, God is God. I don't see why this couldn't be different before. God is the being that is greatest, and when there was nothing, God was greatest. Because something is obviously much better and greater than nothing. Now, when there is something, God is still greatest, and therefore is still God. C2) Impossibility of a Caused UniverseMy partner here says that "prior to the origin of the universe, there were neither physical laws nor time". If this very assumed assumption is true, the the universe did not have an origin because there wasn't a point in time where the universe did not exist. So, my partner is basically pretending that we have an uncaused universe, that the universe always was. However, in the previous arguement, he assumes that God cannot be externally defined because God wouldn't be God before the universe began. And so, in the first argument he presumes that the universe wasn't always there!To TJ: Just pick a view and stick with it. I'm not going to deal with you dropping points and picking up their opposites, and since a majority of our audience believes that the big bang happened and that there is a time before the universe, I deem this argument invalid. It seems like you're third point follows this perfectly, but I'll just disprove that one conventionally.B) EnternalismJust to add on, my partner says "for something to come into being, there must be a state in time where it first doesn't exist". Since the universe is created, either by big bang or God, there was a time before it.In this statement, my partner argues that under Enternalism, God cannot have created the Universe. However, if enternalism was true, sentient beings would experience every moment of their lives at the same time, and continue doing so for no time at all (because time doesn't exist, according to enternalism). This gives us another problem. Let's say that you need to go to the dentist. You would feel jumpy, nervous, and possibly trying to catch a cold as quickly as possible. But the future iteration of you is already happy that it's over. Since time doesn't exist, you'd feel both emotions at the same time. Except, it doesn't work that way. C3) Occam's RazorThe basic statement made by my partner is: according to a theorem named Occam's Racor, the explanation with the least amount of assumptions is true. Since theists assume God as well as the physical universe and it's laws, and Atheists assume only the last two, Atheists are right.I laughed when I saw this one.Either my partner is a complete idiot, which we know he isn't, or he's pulling my leg. Theists only assume God, because God's omnipotence can create the rest. Atheists assume the universe and it's laws. Therefore, according to the Occam's Razor, Theists are right, and God exists. Resolution to Part IMy partner provided four different logical proofs that God doesn't exist, one and three contradicting number two, and the fourth an obvious mistake on my partner's part. Let's see his rebuttals!Part II (Defense)Ob1 - No, it doesn't. Think about it. If logic is an existant thing, the surely it cannot exist in the unexistant universe. This explains the paradox of the stone, or something named like that. God can create a rock he cannot pick up, and then pick it up, because he is not bound by logic.Ob2 - Let me rephrase myself then. This is my thought process:God doesn't exist.God is an unexstant being.There is an unexistant being, namely God.See? Not believing in God is contradictory. Obj3 - you don't need to accept. The rules state that "Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument" Notice that I have asked in the comments, and therefore I am entitled to change the definition. A) Omnipotence is incoherent.Doesn't have to be coherent. That's part of the omnipotence, and I explained this in my first point. I also debuffed the paradox of the stone above, and please don't post more logical paradoxes. B) A non-existant world is impossible, which is why it doesn't exist. I completely agree with all of your math, and all I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. Non-existant universes don't exist, it's in the name! Which doesn't mean that a certain omnipotent being can't get out... You said that the reverse statement gives the reverse conclusion. No, it doesn't. Thought process:God existsGod is an existant beingThere is an existant being, namely God.Therefore, God is placed in the existant universe, and...He can interact with objects in realityTherefore, He exists.Descaresian OntologyYou're analogy to the Flying Spaghetti Monster is invalid as well, since there is an official church of the FSM and a religion. Some truly think of him as God, and so you could easily just switch the "FSM" to "God", in which case we're back to the same problem. In order to actually use this metaphor, you'd have to first prove that the FSM doesn't exist. And, of course, you'd have to prove that the wildest products of my imagination don't exist, while I could easily get pictures...Infinite UniversesI'll give you this one. It was kind of slapped together in a moment anyway. Your welcome.Argument from Religious Experience#1. If 82% of the world suddenly decides that fairies are real, and if humanity had history based in and around the existance of fairies, we would have to presume that fairies are real. Unless you want to be a thorn in the side.http://www.washingtontimes.com...#2. Athiests believe that it's the envioronment that interacts with the mind. You don't just become religious out of the blue when your mind decides too, it's pushed in by past events and one's environment. For example, if you were born into an athiestic family, you are most likely to be athiest. If you were born into a religious family, you are most likely going to be a thiest. If, due to past experiences, you lose trust in God or discover him, you can switch between sides. Therefore, Occam's Razor proves nothing since both sides are equal.#3. All religions (well, majority) believe that there is only one God. All of these religions advocate the helping of one's neighbor, even if he doesn't believe in the same God. All of these religions are utterly compatible with each other, I see no reason why they shouldn't believe in the same God.#4. There is no background scientific knowledge that even hints and God's unexistance. I really have no clue where you got information from, but Quantum Superposition only speaks of relationships between states. This can neither prove nor disprove God. #5. Then a majority of the world comes into contact with a whole lot of psilobcybin every week. You know, because people just climb mountains and spray illegal drugs around into the air so that everybody in the area gets a high. And they smuggle tons of the stuff to Israel and places where mushrooms don't grow and do the same thing with helicopters. And nobody has caught onto it yet, because they are the Illuminati. YAh. And they did that 10,000 years ago too.Great conspiracy theory, but it's one giant hole.Belief in GodThis argument shows that God is reaching out and calling to athiests. Even if my partner doesn't admit and denies this being an argument, it's written right there. Athiests are discomforted by the thought of God, and think about him often. Theists probably think about him less, but believe in His existance. My partner hasn't provided an explanation, because doing so he would admit the existance of God and lose the debate.ResolutionMy partner managed to catch onto one of my points that I didn't put too much effort into, but the rest stand strong. My partner didn't understand my first point, and he blatantly ignored my last point. I am sort of dissapointed, but I keep my hopes that we can finally understand each other and our viewpoints.Thanks for reading!