God Exists

Rebuttals:1. Argument for a personal causeWhy do you directly come to the conclusion that there needs to be a freewill agent? Existence need not be the result of will [1]; existence can be a result of randomness. There is randomness in the universe. God is merely an explanation by philosophers dissatisfied with randomness, in the firm belief that there MUST be order. But any thermodynamic system, including the universe, is created based on disorder [2]. Disorder is the basis of existence. The universe exists because of entropy. And yes, we are arguing about a "custom-defined God".2. Argument for a designerThe concept of "arrangement" and "complexity" is a human concept, built by the presumptions that humans have of the universe. DNA appears as a code solely to the psychology of a human. Chemical structures considered "complex" may also be a result of disorder. The creation of the universe was because of the emergence of chaos [3][4][5].3. The Omnipotence ParadoxAn omnipotent being cannot "do all things"; such a being, by the definitions of this debate, can perform all ACTIONS. And you don't seem to have understood the paradox; instead of arguing against the paradox itself, you are arguing against the very concept of paradoxes (no offences intended; I apologize if I seem to be rude). So let me rephrase it and make it simpler. Now, an omnipotent being ("X") can perform ANY action whatsoever, even if that action, hypothetically, does not exist [yet]. Now let us say X creates a yet non-existent action Y that it cannot perform. [X has the ability to create even that action by the definition of omnipotence] As Y is conceivable by X, X cannot perform Y, even if the action Y does not exist. "All" encompasses the action Y. Therefore, as X cannot perform Y (which X creates only later), X is not omnipotent. Once X creates Y, Y becomes an existent action that X cannot do. To make this argument more concise, for the sake of the argument, let us take an action. (Disclaimer: This is NOT an action that the Supreme Being according to the definitions given in this debate cannot perform; it has been selected randomly) Now, let X be called "Superman" (just for ease of understanding) and Y be the act of making a dog's curved tail straight. (this is taken from a famous folktale of Aladdin) Now, let us say that all dog's tails are straight. (only for the purposes of explanation) Therefore, dogs cannot have curved tails, so the act of making curved tails straight does not exist. One day, Superman decides to make some dog's tails curved and then uses his powers to ensure that the act of making a dog's tail straight is impossible even for him. Since this action is conceived of, it is a hypothetical action that acts as an idea. This action could not be performed by Superman even before it was created, as it existed as an idea, with the square ground rule that Superman could not perform it. Therefore, Superman is not omnipotent. [7]4. The Omniscience ParadoxIf you already know how everything will act, then you already foreknow it without deducting it by logic. If one already knows that something will happen, then that action is definite. "Knowing" is the act of having knowledgeability of a certainty [8]. If something is a certainty, it is already predetermined. And a predetermined action lacks possibilities. There is no chance that no event is contingent. Definitiveness completely violates disorder in this universe. If there is definitiveness and God exists, then God is the only free will agent and we are unknowingly being influenced by God. But as there is absolutely no evidence for that, I will discredit this notion. If even one contingency exists, then God cannot be omniscient because no being can have certainty that a contingency can occur. As the existence of disorder is effectively proven by the laws of thermodynamics [4][9], lack of contingencies is impossible. The Bible is used as your only source in a rebuttal of yours, so I will use it as a source. The Bible says people must direct their actions on the basis of appropriate moral judgement and describes some as immoral. But if everything is predetermined, then moral judgement and immorality do not exist. Most other religions also believe that morality must be followed by God's law. [Note 1] Thus, the omniscience paradox is valid.5. MiraclesYou seem to be implying that rationalism and atheism are the same, which means you are essentially accepting my arguments. Rationalism is actually "the state of something being based on or according to logic." [8] "Logical" and "rational" are synonymous by this definition. A miracle is an act inexplicable by the laws of nature. You have not provided anything to show that miracles are not possible. That is how you have not fulfilled your BoP here.6. The SingularityWhy is imagining a human-like figure at the center of the universe easier than imagining an object, like, by your example, a teapot, at the center of the universe? It is merely due to widespread acceptance of the idea. And widespread acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity. Nevertheless, I shall provide proof of the existence of singularities. The proof is simple: singularities still exist today in the centers of black holes. [10][11] B-mode polarization is a polarization signal that acts as a cosmic microwave background, a form of thermal radiation from the Big Bang itself. The polarization signal, when analyzed, showed that gravitational forces before the existence of matter did hold energy, and maximum energy was held at a point of immense energy: a singularity. According to Albert Einstein, these CMBs (cosmic microwave backgrounds) act as "ripples" in gravitational spacetime. This is virtual proof of sudden cosmic inflation, rapid expansion of the universe from a singularity, basically proving the Big Bang. [12][13][14]7. The Grand Design QuestionThe point of this debate is evidence. If you believe God can self-create, then why can't any other object?Response to note rebuttal:What makes you conclude that God can self-create? What if what created the world wasn't an omniscient, omnipotent God, but a God that acted as a force? That is a much more logical belief, similar to the Taoist belief of Tao, or the Hindu belief of "Brahman". Arguments:These rebuttals serve to prove that my previous arguments were valid. Pro did not rebut the arguments of the Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradox validly, as (no offence to Pro) Pro did not completely understand these arguments. Therefore, I extend all my arguments from above and the previous rounds.Sources:[1] Hawking, S.; Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Grand Design, Bantam Books, New York. ISBN 0-553-80537-1[2] Frank L. Lambert, A Student’s Approach to the Second Law and Entropy (http://entropysite.oxy.edu......) [3] Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia - Entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org...) [4] Münster, A. (1970), Classical Thermodynamics, translated by E.S. Halberstadt, Wiley–Interscience, London, ISBN 0-471-62430-6, pp. 49, 69. [5] Landsberg, P.T. (1984), "Is Equilibrium always an Entropy Maximum?" J. Stat. Physics 35, pp. 159–169[6] Landsberg, P.T. (1984). "Can Entropy and "Order" Increase Together?" Physics Letters 102A, pp. 171–173[7] Savage, C. Wade. "The Paradox of the Stone" Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74–79 [8] The New Oxford Dictionary of American English, Edition 3[9] Hawking, S. (1996). A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Bantam Dell Publishing Group, New York, ISBN 978-0-553-10953-5, Edition 2, based on 1988 edition. [10] Carroll, Sean M. (2004). Spacetime and Geometry (pp. 205 to 266). Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-8053-8732-3. [11] Lewis, G. F.; Kwan, J. (2007). "No Way Back: Maximizing Survival Time Below the Schwarzschild Event Horizon". Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 24 (2): 46–52[12] Einstein, A (June 1916). "Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation".Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Berlin. part 1: 688–696.[13] Einstein, A (1918). "Über Gravitationswellen".Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Berlin. part 1: 154–167[14] http://gizmodo.com...;Notes:[1] If you wish to discredit morality COMPLETELY, then please take that stance in the next round itself.