God more likely than not exists

"your's has been one of the most block headed, idiotic posts i have ever seen. a big wall of text with no substance." That's fine. As long as it wasn't illogical, it's valid. "you first say that miracle looking things occur, but that science has other explanations. then you ask for me to show them. do you accept the premise or don't you?" You're mistaken. I never asked you to show anything. I asked you to offer evidence that the miracles you cited were definite miracles as opposed to phenomena that the scientific community could explain, as well as show why these miracles show that your God exists. And there is no premise to accept, please don't throw around terms of debate incorrectly. What you are offering are thesis statements and points of argument. "look at the congregation of hte doctrine of the saints. i have a story that is pretty compelling of a healing at a church. that miracle looking things occur or not is not a debate i'm going to have. even richard dawkins would admit they occur. he's never given an adequate response, so that's why i'm here." He doesn't have to deny that improbable things occur, all he has to do is show that they don't prove a God, which is why *I'm* here. "basically, since theists have well documented miracle looking things, that occur in religous situations... it'd seem they are a special group of people. control group, etc, scientific theory that any third grader would know." Of course, the problem here is that you have no control group. Your emphasis is purely on the variable group, making your experiment biased and therefore invalid. Also scientific theory that any third grader would know. "but of which you are incapable of understanding." What a keen and original insult to my intelligence. Would you care to elaborate on how this proves a God? "so, where's the well documented miracle looking things with theists? the flaw with athestis and agnostics is hat they assume they occur, simply assume it. you'd think they'd be wondering if they're left out in the cold." No, they understand that these improbable events occur. They just don't see any evidence that correlates these events with a God. You also don't propose an argument as to why this is so. So no, they aren't wondering if they're left out in the cold. They're inside wanting to hear a good reason to go out. "the definition of proof can simply mean evidence." It can, but not in terms of debate. Proof is conclusive. Evidence merely supports. Ostriches walk on two feet, and so do you. This piece of evidence suggests that you are an ostrich. By your definition, I have just offered a proof that you are an ostrich. Of course, you are not an ostrich. This is because the evidence is not conclusive. And thus, not the same as proof. "this is common knowledge. something i realize you are lacking." What a witty turn around. I like how you spoke about common knowledge, then redirected it as an insult to me. How unpredictable and novel. Now again, would you care to explain how this shows that God exists? "if you don't accept my premise for how i define proof, then you should not hav taken my debate. we'd just be talking past each other and the only way you'd win is to attack something i didn't agree to from the beginning." Oh, so this entire debate is rigged. You define proof down to something minimal in order to argue that you can prove god exists. "you sure are a fool." Excellent thesis. I would enjoy debating that point with you at some later interval. Right now, I would like to talk about how you have no argument for the existence of God. ********** My opponent concedes all the points I have made about God being a human construct. She decided to spend most of her time to hurl childish insults at me instead of offering a logical proof as to why she believes, as the title suggests, that God more likely than not exists. My opponent has given but a single argument: that miracles occur. However, she herself acknowledges that people have different angles in viewing these events. However, she deceptively spins a fallacious argument around justifying the theists' positions based on their beliefs. And in some sort of logical leap I can't quite grasp, believes she has proven that God exists on the basis that theists believe miracles to be caused by God. Since I have already shown that point to be invalid, and since my opponent has not yet responded to my argument that God is more likely than not a human construct, I shall await, again, the logical proof that God more likely than not exists.