God exists

Thank you for accepting my challenge!=Rebuttals=R1) Something existsPro didn't mind to finish his argument with relevant conclusion. His argument is simply off the point or at best non sequitur. He said that nothing cannot create something. I can agree that absolute nothing that is devoid of any content or potentiality will remain in this state forever and since there is something it means that there was always something in one form of another. But what it has to do with god?R2) The mathematical proof for godMy opponents says that (a+b^n)/n=x somehow proves god. I don't see how it logically follows. I think that by this standard 2+2=4 is sound proof too.Then he claims that "This equation combines some of the most important numbers in mathematics, while at the same time still holding to be true." I don't see any important number here (a? b? n?...?), nor I see how this equation in this general form is either false or true. If a=1, b=1, n=1, and x=1 our formula takes form of 2=1, therefore being false. He claims that alleged formula "technically is mathematically impossible". I don't see anything extraordinary or impossible in equation written by Pro. It's most ordinary equation you can get in math. He says "the only explanation is God numerated the constants so we can become aware that he exists." I don't see how this line logically follows. Existence of constants and their values may be very well explained by simply referring to axioms on which we based field of mathematics in which they appear plus number base we use.Then he refers to an article which turns out to have nothing to do with formula he presents. The article tries to find patterns in decimal expansions of number Pi or square root of 2 and that obviously can't lead us to god. All it takes to destroy every "pattern" we found is to simply switch to different number base. Let alone that it is not argument Pro tries to make so I didn't even have to respond to it.Going back to original formula, it's very funny but it looks like Pro fell victim of urban legend. Euler was supposed to give the same formula as an answer to Denis Diderot's when he asked him for mathematical proof for god. [1]R3) Gödel's ontological argumentOnce again my opponent fail to finish his arguments with relevant conclusion. He ends up on axiom which states that necessary existence is positive. Does Pro expects me to finish off his argument and then rebut it? I hope it's not the case. If my opponent wants to use formalized mathematical proof he ought to rise to the challenge and make his proof respecting mathematical rules and notations and what's most important he should finish his argument with necessary conclusion. The article he linked to does not contains this proof either. R4) Watchmaker argumentMy opponents begs the question here. He basically says that because we recognize watch to be creation, thus we expect it to have creator, we should act similarly with respect to universe, namely since we recognize universe to be creation it's logical to postulate a creator. I want to remind that whether universe is someone's creation is a very topic of this debate. My opponent should prove in one way or another that universe indeed is creation. As for now he merely asserts it.He says that because universe is much more complex than watch, it must follows that universe has a creator. May opponent seems to believe that complexity is what determines whether something came into being naturally or as a result of design. That's completely wrong. We recognize design not be complexity but rather by asking ourselves whether thing that we observe is usually associated with intelligence or not. We associate watches with intelligence, hence when we find one we know there must have been creator. When we see simple wooden furniture we also recognize it as creation even though it's nothing complex. Other life forms are infinitely more complex than watches, yet we have perfect naturalistic explanation for how they could come into being without intelligent designer. It proves that level of complexity can't be use as indicator of design. R5) Pascal's WagerI'm surprised Pro uses word "argument" here. It's not. We're not debating here, whether one would be better of believing or disbelieving in god. We're debating whether god actually exists. Pascal's wager tells us nothing on this topic.But since Pro brought it up let me comment on that.Pascal's wager is false dichotomy. It assumes that only two cases are possible:A) Only OUR god exists and he sends atheists to hellB) There is no god, no afterlife, no soul, etc.What about other options? What if Allah is true god? What if there is heaven but no god at all? What if there is god who awards people who don't believe in him? Pascal's Wager is probably the worst yet still well known argument for god, that was ever created. It proves that even great minds can sometimes fail in their train of thought.=Arguments against god=A1) Problem of informationIf omnibenevolent, omnipotent god who cares about us existed I'd expect there to be clear instructions on how to live. I'd expect one perfect , always up-to-date book or other guide devoid of contradictions, immune to misinterpretation (after all god is omnipotent), which would prove beyond any shadow of doubt that god exists. For example why Bible does not contain any physical constant? Why it doesn't contain any scientific knowledge otherwise unavailable to humans back then? Such information would strongly support the idea of Bible being god-inspired book and therefore make it much easier and natural to believe in christian god.What we have instead is exactly what we would expect if religions were man made - many books, which are riddled with contradictions and/or scientific nonsense, many different stories, incompatible with each other, lack of any revealed truth in neither of those books, etc.A2) Problem of evil and gratuitous suffer-humansMy opponent believes that omnipotent and omnibenevolent (though he didn't argue for this property yet) god exists. How can he then account for all suffering in the world? How does he account for small children dying every minute out of easily avoidable causes like dehydration? God either can't or doesn't want to intervene. So he is either impotent or indifferent. Pro may argue that humans have free will and god respects it, therefore evil and suffering exists. That's not too good explanation. It's common knowledge that on multiple occasions god was intervening in course of events, thus violating humans' free will. Jesus is known for healing and resurrecting other people. Why we don't observe it anymore on any discernible scale?Pro also have to believe that at some point during human evolution, there was a point in which soulless parents gave birth to kid possessing soul. It means, that at some point in the past, there were two generations, one soulless, therefore condemned to annihilation, and second soulful, therefore redeemed by Christ. It means that even though member of that older generation were no less human than their offspring (every human ever born had human parents) they didn't even have a chance to be redeemed. To me it decisively disproves christian god. -animalsWhat about animals? We know that animals are capable of suffering [2][3]. Yet they don't have a souls, therefore their suffering will be never gratified. Existence of gratuitous evil and omnibenevolent, omnipotent god are mutually exclusive, therefore omnibenevolent god can't exist.=Conclusions=Not a single argument presented by Pro is soundA1 - non sequiturA2 - non sequitur, Pro himself seems to not know what he is really driving atA3 - clearly incomplete argumentA4 - question beggingA5 - not argument at all by any conceivable standardsHowever we have good arguments against god. Vote Con! =Sources=[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...