Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

The caput was not a question about how the Universe evolved. The caput was a person demanding to know an explanation to where all the water in the Universe came from, to which you answer, "Nature made it." I demanded proof for you claim, and you sent a link explaining evolution. So did evolution made the water, or do you still owe me proof for your claims?He also asked where the trees came from: Evolution. The formation and evolution of the solar system link explains how the world got here, along with its water.Go back to College and study Logic all over again. You fail at it and you shame your teachers. God cannot be part of everything if He caused it. If the God was part of the everything, and He needs to exist to be able to cause the Universe, then everything needs to exist before it can be caused.What is everything? Everything is a word that is omni-inclusive. The notion that there can be everything and something apart from everything is contradictory.It's like the word universe. A universe implies everything. The concept of a multiverse is only a new idea that hasn't been empirically verified, it's theory without backing, but more importantly the idea to separate the universe into distinct layers is a new redefinition for convenience, before that the multiverse would have really been about discovering that our universe contains more than we thought.Now I'm not being facetious or mocking you when I ask this, I genuinely need to know, am I going too fast for you? Should I expand my paragraphs more so that you can understand my reasoning?Your logic is flawed and your premise that God is part of everything that has a cause doesn't hold. It generates a self-defeating argument.I think I already addressed your idea of everything being omni-inclusive. It leads to self-defeating conclusions so it must be wrong. No logically sound and correct statement can lead to self-defeating conclusions. Your claim that God must be a part of everything must still be met with proof that you succeedingly failed to provide so far.You're thinking backwards; your need to justify god means you have a conclusion that you're working back from to support."Everything has a cause" generates a self-defeating argument, so it cannot be used to premise god's existence.Your reasoning is "god exists; the universe must have had a cause because everything does." If you follow the premise to its conclusion, the proper way to reason, it cannot hold that god caused the universe, anymore than I caused the universe, because we're both part of 'everything.'I never stated that everything has a cause. I stated that everything in this Universe has a cause.Your strawman falls apart, not my argument. I stated that everything in this Universe must have a cause, since this is as far as we demonstrated Causality to apply. If you want it to be applied to supernatural beings, prove. Stating that it does is not proof that it does, no matter how many times you keep stating it.Which I already stated means "everything." There can be no "outside" of the universe, the universe is an all-inclusive term, if you tried to move beyond the speed of light, to the "edge" of the universe, you'd wrap around to where you started from, like traveling around the earth (unless the universe is flat, but that's a whole other discussion). The idea of a multiverse is conjecture at this point, it's based on theory and unsubstantiated, so the idea is used merely for convenience for describing what might be.Non sequitur.Everything is an omni-inclusive word for all that exists and even the ideas within that which exists. Saying god isn't a part of everything means he is not(exist).Alvin Plantinga, Anthony Flew, William Dembsky...Let's see, two philosophers who use the discredited teleological argument, and a Christian apologist...They don't meet my criteria for people who should be taken seriously on the topic, sorry. It's also a shame you include Flew, he must have been senile to argue from design.Ok, now we are cherry picking. So, do "timeless" only mean what you say it means? Or are you claiming yourself to be Humpty Dumpty again, and deciding what the words do mean and do not mean to try to make a point?Don't equivocate. Timeless can mean without the capacity to age, as in immortal, but you were using the definition that would imply not existing in time, without causality. Causality is necessary to do anything.