God exists.

Note to my opponent: When I asked for a syllogism, I was hoping for something simple with maybe 5 steps at most that we could focus the conversation around. If you wanted to support the premises of the syllogism, you could have done that in prose instead of writing it all out deductively. But this does have the effect of clarifying your reasoning considerably, so I thank you for that. I'll use the same numbering as my opponent. For example, A1 refers to premise 1 of syllogism A. I will just be stating my objections rather than restating his premises. You can refer back to my opponent's post if you need to remind yourself of what the original premise said. A1. It is false that there is no one who does not feel pain. In fact, some people have a neurological disorder that makes them insensitive to pain. https://en.wikipedia.org... E1. If anything that is contested is a delusion, then: (a) my opponent's position is a delusion, since I contest it, and (b) pain is just as much a delusion as anything else, since there have been scientists who denied the existence of conscious experience. F3. It is self evidently false that pain is the only thing that exists. My opponent exists, trees exist, the planet earth exists, etc. In addition, who is feeling the pain if nothing but pain exists? Pain presupposes a conscious subject, which would be something real that is different from pain. K2. This is an equivocation. It is true that you cannot avoid life once you have already committed suicide, but that is because life has already been avoided at that point. O2. This is a really weird claim. I have no idea what the evidence is for it. P2. Also unsupported. R3. I don't have an objection to this, but did you really need to "deduce" it? It is self evident that we have goals. W2. It is false that only the truth interacts with reality. For example, my computer interacts with reality, and it is not the truth. Everything that exists interacts with reality, not just the truth. W3.2. This is obviously false. A hammer or screwdriver is not the truth. Z2. Things other than tools interact with reality, obviously. For example, my dog interacts with reality, and he is not a tool. AA1. I don't know what this means or what the evidence is for it. AD1. I'm going to need to see a source for this claim. AD2. This is obviously false. Something can happen to most humans without happening to all humans. An example of a person who doesn't have this "archetypal, person possessing framework for reality" would be any atheist. AE2. Source? AF3.2. I'm going to need evidence that nature selects for belief in God. The fact that many people have a belief doesn't mean that nature selects for it, necessarily - it could just be a widespread idea for some other reason. AG1. What is the evidence for this? We obviously resulted from evolution, but that doesn't mean all of our attributes were directly selected for - some could have resulted from others without being directly selected for. AH2.2. I'm going to need a source for this claim as well. It is not plausible at all. AK1. This is false, since there are countless false frameworks that allow us to set goals and move toward them. It seems like any framework would allow that, really. Overall, there are a lot of problems with this argument.