The Existence of God

The resolution to which Pro agreed is "There must be a god that created the universe." That God "must be" implies there is no alternative. Pro in this round states, "Of course there is a possible alternative. I will argue why mine is the best theory, but not that there are no possible alternatives." The concedes that the resolution is negated, which concedes the debate. We are now chatting for Pro's amusement, not for mine. "Quantum fluctuations are dependent on space and time to occur. I do not believe that space and time have always existed." Upon what authority do you base your belief? If quantum fluctuation in space and time is conceivable, then some other spontaneous fluctuation may have caused space and time. "Gravity does not distort space." According to General Relativity, the gravitational field distorts space: "General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916. It is the current description of gravity in modern physics. It unifies special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, and describes gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and radiation are present. " http://en.wikipedia.org... My point was that many things are true that defy everyday experience. General relativity is one of them. Quantum fluctuation, multiple dimensions, and other explanations may similarly be true, even though not able to be related to our everyday experience. "Yet again you make a stupid statement. First of all you can not explain the origins of God because God is eternal." So if there is no problem with God being eternal, there is also no problem with the universe being eternal. The universe being eternal is a better explanation than God being eternal, because the universe is much simpler. Pro says, "The big bang theory shows that the universe did arise spontaneously if you ask me" this again concedes the debate, by acknowledging that God need not have created the universe. Pro states beliefs without giving any reason why the beliefs are true. He asserts that "1. That nothing is infinite. 2. That everything has a cause." but gives no reason why either is true. In fact, he previously acknowledged that quantum fluctuation exists provided there is space and time, but quantum fluctuation has no cause. therefore even his beliefs are inconsistent with his assertions. Finally, Pro claims "God would not be God if he had an explanation." If Pro is justified in defining God as not having an explanation, then it is equally valid to define the universe as having come into existence without having an explanation. Since the universe is simpler, an unexplained universe if preferable to an unexplained God. Less is thereby left unexplained. Pro explicitly conceded the debate. Pro gave no reasons why what he believes is true, and since he bears the burden of proof, he fails to establish any point in the debate. Whatever Pro claimed without proof, i.e., that God is an uncaused cause, is eternal, and needs no explanation, can similarly be said directly of the universe and thereby removes the unnecessary complexity of adding in a God. Pro violated conduct and the conditions of site use. I thank Pro for teaching me patience. The resolution is negated.