I am your God

I am your god.

I thank my opponent for the debate and will now submit my argument.

This will be a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument

GIVEN:

Alk09
14-year old male in Bellevue, Washington, United States.
Religion: Atheist

1. ASSUME Alk09 is my god.
2. My god is a 14 year old male Atheist
3. An Atheist is one who does not believe in any gods
4. My god does not believe in himself
5. My god has stated that he is my god and thus, that he exists.

Contradiction: My god has contradicted himself in the claim that he both exists and does not exist.

Therefore, reject the assumption.

Thank you to my opponent and to the audience.

"Contradiction: My god has contradicted himself in the claim that he both exists and does not exist."

First off a god is a "supernatural creator and overseer of the universe"
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore I can create the laws of physics
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Because I am your God I can go beyond your primitive human conceptions of reason and logic
I can exist and not exist at the same time ( this is a fact )
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Conclusion: My opponent does not understand that because I am your God. I can go beyond his human misconception of logic.

I thank my opponent for his response and shall now offer my rebuttal:

First, I would like to point out that none of my opponent's sources are valid or relevant.

My opponent's definition of "God" is merely a definition and thus, not a source, but statement of debate parameters.

Furthermore, his links to "Physics", "Logic", "Reason", and "Contradiction" are just meaningless citations. Each of those terms involve a large field of study and his reference was brief. Thus, these do not count as sources for his argument because they in no way contribute to it.

Second, my opponent's argument is flawed. Essentially, my opponent counters my argument in that he is a god that defies logic and nature.

1. Even if that were the case, he would only prove that he is *a* god, not necessarily that he is *my* god. I comprehend and conceive of things through logic. If this god transcends that, he is then imperceptible and incomprehensible and thus, cannot be *my* god, as I will be unable to perceive or comprehend him.

2. As the instigator, my opponent has the burden of proof. He has not fulfilled that burden, only provided a possibility against my argument. However, his argument was an illogical one because it necessitates meta-physical realities. Thus, he has no good counterargument whereas I have one under the confines of logic.

3. I do not have a god. Possession is an attribute that follows existence, thus, my opponent must prove that he as a god exists before he can show that he is also my god. He has done neither.

Since my opponent has failed to meet his burden, I will await further arguments. Thank you.

1. Even if that were the case, he would only prove that he is *a* god, not necessarily that he is *my* god. I comprehend and conceive of things through logic. If this god transcends that, he is then imperceptible and incomprehensible and thus, cannot be *my* god, as I will be unable to perceive or comprehend him.

Even if you cant comprehend me that doesn't change the fact that Im your god.

2. As the instigator, my opponent has the burden of proof. He has not fulfilled that burden, only provided a possibility against my argument. However, his argument was an illogical one because it necessitates meta-physical realities. Thus, he has no good counterargument whereas I have one under the confines of logic.

Proof? I have all the proof in the world
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com...

I thank my opponent for his response.

1. "Even if you cant comprehend me that doesn't change the fact that Im your god."

Circular logic. My opponent must assume that he is, indeed, my god before his argument follows through.

In addition, I have already stated that I can comprehend my god. Since my opponent has stated that I cannot comprehend him, he cannot be my god. Furthermore, even if he states otherwise, he cannot prove that he is *my* god and not the god of someone else.

2. "Proof? I have all the proof in the world"

My opponent includes sources on shampoo, ducks, horses, and the zeitgeist movement, none of which are relevant. I will take this as a concession that he has no proof for his claim, but plenty of proof for other things involving shampoo, ducks, horses, and the zeitgeist movement.

CONCLUSION:

My opponent has effectively forfeited this debate. All of my points are left standing and thus, the resolution is negated.

I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.

"reason will be the death of us all"
-YARZACK BAKUNin
http://www.debate.org...

My opponent has given an irrelevant statement and an irrelevant post, and has again, essentially forfeited this round. All of my arguments extend.

I look forward to my opponent's concluding round. Thank you.

YOU SILARGS SHEEP RAT I AM YOUR GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"death is logic is reason"
-Igblarg soviet russia

YOUR HEAD VILL BE PUT IN BURNING HOT CHIKEN SOUP
YOU VILL RUN THROUGHT THE DESSERT LOOKING FOR VATER IN THE SAND
HOLY ANCIENT SHAMANS WEARING TIN BUCKETS ARE THERE HEADS VILL BEAT VOU WITH WHIPS!
DEAD PEOPLE WILL PULL YOU BACK UNDER THE WATER

I thank my opponent for his response and shall now conclude this debate.

My opponent has forfeited the debate by not responding to any of my points. All of my arguments stand and thus, everyone should vote CON as I was the only one to continue taking this debate seriously.