Resolution : God does exist

1. You start off by saying “…that we are an inconsequential part of an uncreated universe ?”, you have destroyed your own argument. If the universe is uncreated then there is no “creator and ruler of the universe” thus, no god. Unless the universe is yet to be made, but then where are we? “Science can show us the Universe's dimensions but it cannot reveal any meaning or lack of meaning inherent in those dimensions.” Why would there have to be meaning? Why does there have to be god to be meaning? Why does god give it meaning? What determines if it has meaning? Why does science not show there is meaning or lack of meaning? Because there is no to suggest such a claim evidence. So, what is your point? That does not spell out G-O-D- -E-X-I-S-T-S! "Why can"t God choose to create a magnificent and grand universe like ours?" He could, like I said “I am more than happy to change my beliefs as long as I have evidence for god”. God could do such a thing, just there is no evidence to say it would, let alone even exists. Now can you get back to my question of “why create a universe?” instead of answering my question with a question? “ the human brain is the most complex thing in the universe” Prove it. I think that things like the big bang, pre-big bang, nothing, black holes and quantum mechanics are the most complex thing in the universe. What does it matter, I did not give any evidence, just like you, you need evidence! All the organs of a dog are more complex as it is a brain + all other organs. “why not think that God made a grand universe for such brains to explore?” Because there is no proof of god creating the universe, creating us or existing. Did god create it for dogs or black holes to explore? “how does the critic know with confidence that God would not create a world like ours?” He could, like I said “I am more than happy to change my beliefs as long as I have evidence for god”. God could do such a thing, just there is no evidence to say it would, let alone even exists. “Suppose God made a very tiny universe with just our solar system in it. Would you think, in contrast, that such a world proves God exists? “ Yes, as god made it and there would be evidence of that. Unless of course it did not have any evidence, in which case, no, I would not believe it. How would this be proof of his existence? I don’t know but I think you mean that it would be justified as it would seem we are special, however, we would not be as the sun would swell up and kill us all and we would have nowhere to go, then the sun would become a dwarf and give off very little energy in its later years, until it dies out. Why would there be a need for planets like mercury? So if you mean we lived in a universe where there is only the earth and he god provides energy, seasons and all that jazz, then yes I would believe in him as there is the evidence that he is providing for us. 1. In no way have I asserted that “as our knowledge of the world increases so does our need for a God.”. In fact I ‘asserted’ the exact opposite (if you bothered to graph the functions you would know that). There is no doubt that someone of faith can create amazing hypothesis within the scientific world, or any academic discipline, as they too are people like you and I. What it is is academic dishonesty. All sciences are based on evidence, faith is not welcome (unless it is personal faith while you develop and contextualize your ideas). A man/women of faith can’t also be a man/women of science (they can be scientists). As for your claim of “Science explains the How and Faith explains the why.” This is ludicrous. When I play a standard game of tennis on my earthbound tennis court I know that, unless obstructed, the tennis ball will always fall to the ground. The how and why are shown below, no faith required. Egrav ∝ (((m1)(m2)) / d2) Where Egrav is the force between the two objects m is the mass d is the distance between he centres of mass In response to “Do you think that nihilism and relativism exists ?” I do, and I have already told you tht this is what I believe. 2. The fact that you manage to know what I am thinking from a three word question is amazing (sarcasm)! However that is not what I was thinking. From the beginning of this debate I have thought of god strictly as the definitions we agreed upon (“the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being”, “ a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity”, “An image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god”, and “the all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe”). This can be seen in my arguments and rebuttals, nowhere have I claimed that god is a machine or an extraordinarily large person. If anything you are the one who has preconceived ideas of what a god is as you are the one who has defined god different from what the agreed terms are and were. Who are you to say that ‘god’ is not a large person or machine in the sky? We agreed this was not to be about a personal god but the god hypothesis that is defined by my terms and definitions. Going further into your refute, you say that “God is … uncreated, without beginning...” the only things that I can think of that are uncreated and don’t have a beginning are things that don’t exist, perhaps you could help me with this though. You also say that “No one made Him.”, well I am glad that we know god has a penis, how do you know if god is a man, women or has a gender at all? This goes back to the definition thing mentioned earlier, my definitions do not define god’s gender and this was not meant to have any personal beliefs in it, so where did you get the penis from? Then after talking about chicken nuggets and water bottles you came to the point of, “If someone "created" God, then that Being would be God.”, well if someone within the universe created god that would be the case, but what about the possibility of outside the universe? Also, what about the fact that it does not have to be a someone, but a something. Someone does not make water flow down the stream, gravity makes the water flow down the stream, I am yet to meat Mr and Mrs Gravity. 3. This refute barely addresses my argument but instead addresses the fact that I used the word religion. Since we agreed to use my terms and oxford dictionaries terms your points are rendered obsolete. I introduced no such “stereotypes” as the definitions of religion by oxford dictionary are “ 1The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God orgods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion 1.1A particular system of faith and worship:the world’s great religions ” Correct me if I am wrong but it appears that the belief and worship of a god and having faith are exactly what I meant when I used the word religion, no problems with that. As for the rest of your refute, you have not provided any evidence as to why “God is not a religious scam”. EXTRA: Pro, as usual, has made extra ordinary claims without any sort of or meaning. References to people’s quotes are not proof of this issue, what Larry said shows Larry’s opinion, but that does not make it true. Sure Larry may be a witness of a crime and then it is used for evidence, but has to be backed up by other evidence. The only proof that a quote can give is the proof of someone’s beliefs, ideas or past.