Does God Exist

First of all, I have to be honest up-front, PRO: I am deeply disappointed in your deceptive tact for this debate.(1) Creationism isn't science - it's religion. This is where you're going to tell everyone how ID isn't creationism, in spite of legal precedents saying so (Kitzmiller vs. Dover, 2004, plus at least 6 other federal and state cases since then), clear evidence to the contrary (see the ID websites and read their mission statements, and then tell everyone how they're not religion again), not to mention the history of ID and how it's been around since the 19th century. Almost every single argument made in ID traces its origins back to before Darwin's theory of natural selection and common ancestry, and usually ends up in a word-for-word diatribe taken directly from the Judeo-Christian-Muslim bible (I have yet to find a single Hindu creationist, for example).(2) You clearly stated that you "put this topic in the "Science" category as opposed to "Religion", this is because no religious text or authority is going to be mentioned, only scientific, intellectual, and logical facts and reason". And then you pulled a "it's design, stupid!"Case in point regarding the dishonesty of my opponent: He mentioned that Paul Davies "does not believe in a personal god...". Untrue. Paul Davies wrote the following books, and I'll let the titles of the books tell you the truth: "The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World", 1993; "God and the New Physics", 1984; "The FIFTH MIRACLE: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life", 2000, and "The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life", 2008. Paul Davies is a full blown creationist, who somehow manages to be a professional physicist/cosmologist and yet write books about biology?! He has drawn the ire of several well known scientists and evolutionists in his unscientific statements and presuppositional logic. Don't take my word for it - look it up yourself!Anyway, let's continue on this track, then. But do remember, CON - you chose this debate and the direction it's about to take.-----------------------------------------------Intelligent design isn't science. It never was. It is clearly a religious concept and makes a mockery of the scientific process. I will show how intelligent design isn't science by the following set of questions:(1) Does it focus on the natural world?(2) Does it aim to explain the natural world?(3) Does it use testable ideas?(4) Does it rely on evidence?(5) Does it involve the scientific community?(6) Does it lead to ongoing research?(7) Have researchers in this "science" behaved scientifically?PRO, even ID organizations like the Discovery Institute will openly admit that 1-4 are a resounding "NO". Their wedge strategy paper openly implied that they lacked any kind of peer reviewed science that has made it past the type-writer stage (and yes, I'm talking about the mechanical type here). Every single assertion made by ID, including every aspect of irreducible complexity, has been thoroughly debunked. Irreducible complexity, in particular, was such a running joke in the scientific community because it was graduate students, and not full fledged professors in biology and evolution, that exposed every single argument as the fraud that it was. Some of them earned their PhD's in part because of this work, even!The next few question would require a bit more research on my part: It took me all of 5 minutes.#5 - Creationism/Intelligent design is advocated by a whopping 0.04% of scientists and engineers. Just in case someone has trouble with that math, let me restate this as follows: 99.96% of scientists and engineers don't believe in ID.#6 - There hasn't been any new research since Darwin. Even the nonsense of irreducible complexity goes back to Darwin; One of the first examples (the "irreducible complexity of compound eyes") began life as a creationist quote-mined article where they tried to make Darwin sound like a creationist. You know what I'm talking about, PRO: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Charles Darwin, Origin of Species. Unfortunately for all of creationism, Darwin then went on for five pages in that very same book, in that very same chapter, explaining how eyes did form naturally. Since then, we've found a single phylum of animals - invertebrea sea slugs - that fully explain the entire spectrum from complete blindness to compound eyes and every evolutionary step in between. And today, on college campuses across the country, they teach students how not to quote-mine using exactly this example. Apparently the Republican party and Sarah Palin never took that class...? I digress.#7 - My personal favorite question. Pray tell, PRO - how many ID scientists do you know? How many of them are actually experts in the field they choose to write about? How many of them converse with the scientific community and revise their positions when their assertions are found wanting? How many of those can stand up to peer review by graduate students, even? I can tell you the exact number: ZERO.Not one ID proponent fits the bill. Not one acts responsibly towards their own "science", but instead they all fervently stick their head in the sand and keep "believing" their own junk. Gee, where else does one find that kind of behaviour? O yes - that would be RELIGION.Look at your own list of sources PRO, listed at the bottom of your "scientific" answer: At least 3 of them are clearly religious texts.As to your "infitesimally small calculation", rather than just parrot some idiotic calculation that appears to land on a single digit significant figure of "1" in the 38th place after the decimal point (please show the math....if you can), why don't you actually do the calculation? Could it be because it would land squarely at a size much smaller than even the tiniest physical entity by a factor of several trillions, and consequently, even when multiplied by the ~20 billion years that the Universe existed, or the ~12 billion years that our solar system existed, or the ~8 billion years that our planet existed it would still do NOTHING other than shift the position of the moon by less then 1 inch from the current position it enjoys? Are you honestly going to suppose that we are all so intellectually deprived that we would all swing our arms up in the air in a wild and wanton fashion and decry our own existence because entire planets shifted by less than half the length of my middle finger?I have to laugh when I read diatribes like yours that try to use lousy math (look up significant figures, please) and completely arbitrary, made-up pseudo science that started with a false presupposition written by 3,500 year old desert people, and completely untrue statements like "everything is designed".Lastly, let me put this entire line of creationist reasoning to bed once and for all. You yourself stated that "everything is designed" (without offereing a single character as to how you arrived at this notion). It LOGICALLY follows then, that if this were true, that you still have to show how#1 Your creator wasn't designed by another designer (if EVERYTHING is designed, so is the designer, and his designer, and so on).#2 That your creator is GOD, and not some alien (naturalistic) entity. #3 How your GOD is a naturalistic force/thing/etc. After all, you supposed to use SCIENTIFIC REASONING in this debate, and not voodoo magic and hokus pokus.