God exists

On DeismThat is simply false. A desit god is a god who created the universe but does not intervene in THIS world. He could intervene in the next and judge us. Deism is an enlightenment and some deist philosophers in 1760's suggested that an afterlife is possible.Fine TuningOn the fine tuning proving GodI am not sure Con has read the argument with much thought. I disproved necessity by scientific evidence showing the constants could be different and showing that they are way too unlikely to happen. This inevitably proves that they were designed that way by a deliberate concious cosmic designer mind which we call God. Chance as I said before is less likely than blindfolding a man in a room with ALL the atoms in the ENTIRE universe but taking out one atom and painting green and the blindfolded man picks out the green atom out of ALL THE ATOMS IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. I am not sure Con understands the grand implications of this.On the MultiverseNo sophisticated person should take this seriously.A) It contradicts experimental science like the BGV theorem and the hawkings-penrose theorem which conclude that the universe has an absolute beginning. If the multiverse had a beginning, it is obviously not from nothing and had to come from somewhere outside of nature and supernatural (God)"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."- Stephen Hawkings(http://www.hawking.org.uk...)B) Violation of Occam's razor : To propose an infinite amount of entities to explain the fine tuning is perposterous when one entity (God) will do the trick. Occam's razor says entities should not be multiplied unneccessarily meaning the simpler one-entity answer (God) is more likely than an infinite amount of entities (multiverse). Multiverse is of infinite complexity too since it has an infinite amount of complex universes.C) Infinite regress : If the multiverse is past-eternal then it would have to spend an infinite amount of time in the past to get to the present meaning it would never get to the present due to literally being stuck in eternity forever (infinite regress).D) More questions than answers. Who created the complex machine or mechanism that shoots out the universes? Who fine tuned the infinite amount of universes? Remember if the cosmological constant is not fine tuned to within 1 in 10^120, there is no universe. So now to explain the fine tuning of the universe, you have to account for fine tuning an infinite more times and account for 1 in 10^120 for infinity? So in short, if this universe is fine tuned to even exist, who fine tuned the other universes for them to even exist?Anthropic principleJohn Leslie destroys this with the firing squad analogy. Suppose you commit a felony and sentenced to death by firing squad. The commander counts 3... 2... 1... the soldiers fire and you are still alive and breathing. You wonder why the soldiers missed and you say "well, of course all the soldiers missed because I am alive since I am here to observe it." Is this satisfying explanation? Even relevant? The anthropic principle saying "well of course all the soldiers missed because I am here now" or "of course the universe is fine tuned because I am here now does not answer the question but merely reaffirms that the unlikely event happened. It offers no explanation as to WHY the fine tuning happened and it merely reaffirms that we are here now to observe this unlikely phenomenon.IntrospectiveOn Mind's irreducibility to matterCon asks why is mind not irreducible to matter. Had con taken the time to actually read the argument and outlined evidence, this would not be the case.On the quoteCon goes on childishly making parodies of this quote into supposed other quotes. Con comparing it to healing stones. Except con, that no scientists reaffirms your concept, while all the scientists listed in my argument reaaffirm the argument. Nobody has made claims nor quotes about healing stones. How is it even relevant?I am very disappointed with con's "rebuttals" thus far since they are all red herrings or the result of him not even reading my argument.OntologicalOn Aquinas and KantBandwagon fallacy.On defining into existenceThis exact objection is debunked in my opening arguments which proves that Con did not even read but rather skimmed through my arguments. Con is gradually losing coherence and exposing the weak foundations of his debating style.On some prople proposing God is a contradictionCon commits another bandwagon fallacy. He states that some people think God is a self-contradiction and leaves it at that. Con should have provided evidence as to why the being is self-contradictory instead of just quoting anonymous people. And the evidence should not be childish and unsophisticated like the boulder's paradox because omnipotence means ability to do the logically possible since it is said in every religion that God is a rational being that can not deny himself therefore God can not do the illogical.Divine hidenessOn unfalsifiabilityCon claims that finding God is unfalsifiable but this is simply false and unevidenced. All you have to do is have an open mind and an open heart and ask him to have a relationship with you, and you will just become a happier person and you will just feel him in your heart and feel him changing your life. Just have an open mind and heart. On the nature of atheistsNot only is Con's claim that most atheists are former religious. I disagree with him in that most atheists are the stereotypical 13 -16 year olds who think they are cool, edgy and rebellious while in fact they are just disrespectful and cause misery in their families. They might think they are intellectuals because they are smart "atheist" but most of them have just been brain-washed by whatever they hear online. I dare Con to reveal his age. If his answer is somewhere roughly around the ballpark of 13-16, he was probably brain wahsed by what he heard online.All in all, con, the fact that some people treat their experience with God based on experiment and "prove to me you exist" rather than love and compassion should be evident as to why they never experience God.Poor designOn extraterrestial lifeCon seems to be implying that nobody else lives in this universe but he fails to realize that aliens are a possibility.On how much free space is in the universeJust because we occupy a small part of the uiverse does not eliminate the possibility that it was made for us. Cities and entire countries are designed to inhabit humans and most of their space is empty and unpopulated but if we were going for space efficiency then we should just all build one country inside Texas where All humans can fit in a skyrocketing population density. The universe is mostly empty for certain reasons but mainly to allow a diversity of temperatures throughout our solar system and allow the goldilock zone to exist so that the earth could exist. On Free willCon goes on to sight the beliefs of the Lutheran church but that is the fallacy of guilt by association.On Miracles destroying free willUnfortunately for the case of Jesus even doing miracles only made those who have seen it believe and those who have not seen it do not believe which proves that he did not really take away their freewill. Those who saw Jesus still had freewill to believe in him or not even though they saw him performing a miracle. But because they were rational, they figured out that the guy was who he claimed to be.On omnipotence and the lack of need to fine tuneYou are right God does not really need to fine tuned it. He does not care for himself because it is not like it will act as proof that he exists. It will act us as proof FOR US that he exists and the fine tuning argument is one of the two arguments for god made in the bible and one of the three in the Qu'ran.On Con's Nazis argumentCon provides an irrefutable argument that I simply can not form any rebuttals too. I will have to conceede. (I am joking for those who do not get satire).Problem of evilCon probably conceedes this argument, does not respond to any of my rebuttals and make the exact same arguments he made in the poor design argument. He asks what is the justification that an afterlife exists.(1) God obviously exists and I provided a tiny little bit of the mountains of evidence there is for him and therefore I trust God when he says that an afterlife exists.(2) This is a good series : ;(3) The soul exists because of NDE's having conciousness even though the brain is dead and some people without a brain had conciousness (Andrew Vandal) which proves that an immaterial soul exists.