Atheism vs Christianity : Does God exist

This is a shared burden of proof, however, this is not an argument as to whether or not God created the Universe. It is an argument as to whether or not God exists. As I brought to light in my earlier argument, the Christian Bible does not define God as a Creator, but a bringer of order to an Earth that was "Without Form and Void." The Universe can very well exist without a deity, yes, but that doesn't discount possible existence. Rebuttal To Original Argument Because this is not an argument for or against Creationism, but an argument for or against the existence of God, my opponent makes little sense by explaining the nature and creation details of the universe. While his knowledge and depth of explanation is to be applauded, it has little application to the question at hand, especially as Christians themselves, according to their Holy Book, only look at God as the one who brought order to a Universe in Chaos. As I go on to explain, God could be the order itself personified, as many other God's were with other observational phenomena (ie, the Sun Gods, Fire Gods, Sky Gods, Sea Gods, et cetera ad infinitum). God, though modern Christians often see him as so, is not necessarily a creator. It is not specified in great detail in the Bible, as Genesis is shockingly vague on the subject of creation, but very detailed when speaking of the ordering and structuring of it. Therefore, it is erroneous to claim that explaining the process of the origins of the Universe discounts the existence of the Christian God. Rebuttals to Opponent's Counter-Argument I will now take a look at the points my opponent raised against my own argument. In the opening paragraph of my opponent's Counter-Argument, he states that "I have shown how we can arrive at the conclusion that the universe does not need a God. So Con must show that God in fact does exist and argue this from a Christian perspective." The argument that the Universe does not need God to exist does not discount his existence. It could change the meaning of God, but, much like my opponent has claimed about the Universe, God does not need a reason to exist. In his first point, my opponent brings up my claim that God could have been created by the Big Bang. He calls it speculation. I would venture a bit further, and say that it is not speculation, but definite, as everything in the Universe was created by the Big Bang, and there was nothing beforehand. God is no exception to this rule, so he must have been created by the Big Bang. When I made this point, it was to illustrate the fact that Christian religion does not call for a Universe that was created by God, but one that was brought into order by him. Therefore, refuting the subclaim that God was created in the Big Bang does not discount the whole argument that God did not create the universe, and universal creation cannot discount God's existence. In his second point, my opponent brings up another one of my subclaims, that Evolution does not discount God. This once again is only an example, an illustration, to make the point that creation does not discount God's existence. I will agree with him that this is only speculation, but it's possibility alone helps to illustrate the idea that God, in Christianity, is not a creator. In his third point, my opponent states, "The Bible is false". While I respect his opinion, this is not relevant in terms of the argument at hand. While the morals the Bible asks followers to commit to are controversial and the subject of debate, they are not relevant to the debate at hand. When bringing up the Bible, I merely raised the point that it is not meant to be taken literally. All lessons are taught in parables and allegories, and all prophecies are taught with symbolism and metaphor. To argue that, despite all this, Genesis is the ONLY literal book in the Bible is simply absurd. The primary focus of this was the common argument that God did not create the Universe because it says he did so in 6 days, therefore, he could not have done so or have any influence in it. This is not meant to be taken literally. A day, by the Bible's definitions could be billions of years. The Bible's lack of literalness accounts for many common misconceptions of the Christian idea of God. In his fourth point, my opponent raises a valid argument. In my own, I cite that millions of people around the world have experiences of God, and that this offers non-empirical proof for his existence. My opponent is correct in saying that this alone does not improve God. It is a logical fallacy, called the Vox Populi argument. However, because no form of empirical proof exists for or against the existence of God, the debate calls for arguments that suggest the probability and plausibility of God. As historical precedent suggests, unproven phenomena is often proven as technology advances. As it does so, we can delve into the world of the mind, and what happens upon death (especially the Near Death Experience phenomena). Because of this, we cannot discount a lack of empirical proof as a lack of God. We are just not advanced enough to find the evidence necessary. Because God is an experienced, and well documented phenomena, this non-empirical evidence does not prove God's existence, but merely points to it, as is necessary in a shared burden of proof debate where there is no empirical evidence available (as, methods for the creation of the universe cannot discount God). In his fifth and final point against my argument, my opponent states that my defining God as order in the universe is incorrect, as anything, including a flying teapot, could bring order. This is true, however, this was not the argument. The argument was that God could be the personification of order and balance in the Universe, as Zeus is the Personification of Thunder and Thor the personification of War. This would define God as the order itself, not as a being that supports it. My argument suggests that the Bible states that God is a bringer of Order, and that, this could be a metaphor to say that God IS order in the universe. As Order and Balance definitely exist in the universe, thus,God would definitely exist in the universe. Conclusion In my final round argument, I have illustrated why my opponent's arguments are not relevant to the course of the debate, and why my own are. God is not, according to Christianity, the creator of the Universe, and, therefore, cannot be discredited by the explanation of an alternate form of creation. While his knowledge on the subject is extensive, and admirable, it does not apply to the discourse at hand. God is currently a phenomena, people claim to experience him all over the world in various ways. Before we had methods to do so, there was no way to prove the wind existed. People felt it, saw it act upon the observational world, but had no empirical evidence for it's existence. Once we had the ability, it's existence was swiftly proven, as it was a widely felt phenomena. God is much in the same. Once we have the ability, God will be proven, as he has been felt all throughout the world. And, it might not. Much like alien abductions, God might prove to be merely a mental phenomena, a manufactured memory that never really happened. However, currently, we cannot say that for sure, and we must take the personal experience of others into account, as no other source of information could exist. With no other evidence to suggest otherwise, the Burden of Proof is changed to the other side of the debate. As my opponent has not provided such proof, God, for the time being, exists.