Does god exist

a.) Defending Ontological ArgumentFirstly, if the definition of God were to be accepted, then it should be fairly clear that the argument presented is analytically sound: for the negation of the existence in essence would mean that since we exist in essence, we are greater than the defined God, which is, via definition, wholly absurd. Clearly, this argument goes on to claim that I use only a priori proofs to prove the existence of God: "we have no proof that God exists". Clearly, that is a fallacy of ignorance, and this argument is logically invalid. Apart from this, the commonly accepted definition of infinite, was already given: the quality of being unable to be limited by another thing consisting of the same attributes (for the definition of finite is given: "A thing is called finite after its kind, when it can be limited by another thing of the same nature; for instance, a body is called finite because we always conceive another greater body", hence infinite would be the complete opposite of this). The negation of God would henceforth prove that God is finite, for the following reason (which was wholly ignored when presented in R2): that since there are things which occupy essence, and the negation of the existence of God implies that God does not occupy essence, we are literally saying that things which occupy essence (this computer, this flute etc.) have greater values than that of God, which is wholly absurd because God is the most infinite, and hence cannot be limited by things that have essence within God.b.) Defending the Argument of ExistenceI am asked two questions: where is the empirical evidence that God exists, and why must it necessarily be God? Note that the opposition has said that in using these arguments, he is not ignoring the definition of God. THEN via virtue of this fact, he should note that God is defined as an omnipresent being. So why is it necessarily God? Because God was defined in that manner. Secondly, I am asked to provide empirical a posteriori evidence for the existence of God. Then that view needs defending, for as proven, it is argementum ad ignoratium and is by no essence valid, much less sound.c.) Defending Universe ArgumentLet us note here the contradictions of the opposition's arguments: he demands for a posteriori empirical proofs, yet gives none. He uses pure reason, based upon false premises, to refute the empirical arguments I have given. The style and methodology of this is no different from Berkeley's refutation of Newtonian principles, overlooked by scientists and not considered empirically valid, even though Berkeley was a empiricist. Perhaps it is also not much different from the various comments made on the comments section of this debate.Nevertheless, the opposition shows that, with methods of pure reason alone (not even built upon any axioms of nature), that the universe is not infinite. His proof goes along these lines: the Universe is not the only thing that exists, and in existence, another thing that combines essence exists extra-universally, and henceforth, our universe is going to be collide with this universe, causing the end of the universe as we know it today. What empirical basis does he have to show that something exists outside this universe? The multiverse theory, the only theory that asserts that something outside the universe exists, states that there is no way in which this universe could collide with the other universe, as it "exists" parallel to ours. But I challenge the opposition to show me proof that an extra-universal object that occupies matter exists: until he does this, this argumentation is wholly invalidated.The opposition then goes on to strawman my case: he says that I once stated that the "universe is expanding faster than ever". Never did I say that: all I said was the universe was expanding faster than it was before, not "faster than ever". This strawman is accompanied by a ignoratio elenchi of my proofs that the universe is flat, henceforth infinite. For the flat universe theories predict that the universe would slightly slow down due to the effects of gravity, then increase due to the effects of this "dark energy": so hence, the universe is infinite upon these grounds. Hence, I rearticulate my argument:P1. There exists something that is infinite essenceP2. God has infinite essenceP3. God existsd.) Defending the First Cause ArgumentWhat caused God? God is the cause of everything, inclusive of himself. That is what is said, analytically, from the definition of God. Again, the opposition raises no major contentions to my argument: I have proven that God and Universe are the same thing (this is proven via definition), and the opposition accepts my definitions, so henceforth, I do not think I have anything to refute here, except for some scattered remarks. This argument is filled with to be ad hominems: my faith does not make any relevance to this debate. I might as well by a Nobel Laureate Physicist, or a Christin theologian, or a Kindegarten School Teacher: makes no difference. The point is the contentions I raise: here the opposition says "what caused God?" I say he has always been there: then he says "isn't the universe eternal?" I have said the "universe is God": hence, what difference does it make? He attempts to refute my statement, but at the same time, he asserts it. The resolution remains affirmed. My religion makes no revelance to this debate. kthnxbai