God exists

Important NoticeCon's arguments already fail since at best, they disprove the theistic version of God who intervenes and sustains this world. However, Con's arguments fail miserably at disproving God because what if diesm is true and God does not intervene in this world? Then all of Con's arguments lose their foundation since they all presuppose that God intervenes in this world.R1) Argument from Divine HidenessOn God revealing himself God reveals himself to those who earnestly seek him. Most of the time, God reveals himself to those who have spent their entire life seeking him and trying to find him or establish a personal experience with them (except for Paul). There have been numerous cases where people who earnestly seek God have found them and God have revealed himself to them. [1] However, This barely happens to atheists because most atheists spend their entire lives denying God and trying to disprove God which is definitevely and gradually moving them away from path to God so how is it that they expect to find him or establish a relationship with him if they are close-minded and spend their entire lives denying him and disproving him? How exactly would they find God if they are moving in the other direction of disbelief? Atheists are more close-minded than religious people [2] and thus it is self-evident why God would not reveal himself to them .. because they will not set out to embark on a relationship with God. God reveals him to those who earnestly seek him and this is empirical which is an argument against the argument from divine hideness.On the evidence for GodI believe God has created tons of evidence for his existence that I have discussed a slim part of in this debate. However, the evidence is clear enough for those who earnestly seek God but not too obvious and in your face as to allow free will to take precendence. For Con to just proclaim that there is no evidence and that God is hiding from us is just presupposing that I lost the debate and that there is no evidence for God. Atheist apologists like Matt Dillahaunty even realized that this is entire argument is based on a presupposition that theism is wrong and that there is no evidence for God and he stopped using this argument in his debates. However, I do doubt that even if there was a knock-down proof for God, that atheists would actually start accepting God since they have a higher tendency to be close-minded. [2]The biggest knockdown rebuttal to this argument is that atheists are very close-minded [2] and thus it follows that they are less likely to search for the evidence of a God or try to establish a relationship with God.R2) Poor Design On the poor design on EarthCon makes a point that most of Earth is mostly unhabitable but that is simply false. People live all throughout the world. From Alaska to Australia to Antartica to Greenland, Humans can and do exist everywhere on Earth. Con notes that diseases and miscarriages and infant immortality kill us and uses this as a contention that God does not exist. I applaude on this acheivement in creativity but I do not have the slightest of clue how diseases' or miscarriages' existence mean God does not exist. Maybe God created them as a parameter for population control. They could simply be the result of God's departation from sinful man or the fact that if God did interfere and did stop this evil, then he would show himself to everybody by dismantling the laws of physics and now there would be universal proof of God but that would take away Man's freewill because now humans will not worship God because they love him or because they can feel him in their hearts but because they would be scared of hell. Maybe diseases are a means to improve human immunity and make stronger healthier humans meaning God is just trying to make us stronger. Maybe they are tools for God to test the faith, patience, love and loyalty of his test subjects. We can get as creative as we want right along Con's creative tracks that miscarriages somehow disprove God. Con even makes the absurd claim that man made atrocities contribute to the poor design of humans and disproves God which is probably leaving the readers puzzled. The syllogism that P1) Humans kill each other P2) God does not exist is an obvious non-sequitur."Take our little planet, with every other rock in our solar system either being too hot or too cold, as is most of our planet. Our own existence is on a razor edge" I hope that Con realizes that he has just defeated his own case here. He has reaffirmed the fact that our planet is fine tuned for life which it is. If the Earth was just a tiny little bit further from the sun, Earth would leave the goldilock zone and water will freeze prohibitting life. If Earth was closer, It would still exit the Goldilock zone but the temperature would be too high (since closer to sun) that the water will end up in vapours still prohibiting life from forming. This fine tuning which proves that our existence is on a razor edge as Con stated thus proving that our world is fine tuned for life and is deliberaltely designed that way.For me, the most promiment rebuttal to this argument is that it is a non-sequitur.R3) Problem of EvilOn the man-made evil Man-made evil is eactly what it sounds like. It is evil caused by Man's freewill capacity to commit both Good and Evil. If God did interfere with the world and did prohibit evil from happening, then why even call it a test? If God allows humans to ONLY commit Good but not evil, on what basis will he judge them? On what basis is it even called a fair test anymore since it is guided by the test taker who will only allow his subjects to do the right thing? Analogy: Suppose your teachers passed a test to the entire class, however before any student circled the wrong answer or did the wrong decision, she would interfere prevent the wrongdoing and correct the student allowing only the right answers to be recorded on the test. Is this even a test? In order for God to be able to judge man on his actions, he has to allow them to make their own decisions. If God did stop every bad action that humans take like colonization, slavery, etc. How is this a fair test? How would he even judge people if there is no wrong and only right? God will judge the good and the bad accordingly. Why even create hell if everything humans do is good? Thus who suffer from man-made evil will be rewarded accordingly and thos who create man-made evil will be punished accordingly. On Natural "evil"-God departed from the worldThe only reason that Natural evil exists in this world is because God departed from this world. The world was perfect before man sinned, it was a world of gardens, rivers, trees and no death and no diseases and no natural disasters. When man sinned, the world became imperfect because sin entered through man's freewill to do evil. God is perfect and all-good and so he was forced by his own nature to depart from this imperfect world since him being the perfect being could not inhavit an imperfect world. When God who is the source of order and love is absent from this world, chaos and evil flourishes since God's love is absent from this world driven out by man's sin. Chaos and evil and diseases and disasters are only possible if God is absent and that is as far as Con and Pro will agree. However, God is absent from this world because man made it imperfect by choosing to sin and therefore God the source of infinite Goodness, love and order took all love and goodness with him as he left the imperfect world and left this Earth a place of diseases and natural disasters.- Texas Sharpshooter fallacyAnother reason I do not take the problem of evil seriously is because of the texas sharpshooter fallacy it commits. For the naturalist like Con, there is no such thing as evil. We are all a meaningless collection of atoms who came here by a miracle of accidents. Lighting, diseases, natural disasters are all meaningless byproducts of this chain. Why does Con call it evil? If Con wants to be consistent, he should do so with all the data not just the data that proves the problem of evil. He should also take into account the data that first and foremost, he is a naturalist and from a naturalist perspective there is no evil and no good. Just a series of happy accidents. As Richard Dawkins put it in the God delusion. "There is no God ..... No Evil and No Good. Nothing, but blind pitiless indifference." I hope it is now clear that for the naturalists like Con, there is no evil and the whole notion of an unconcious collection of atoms being evil is nonsense, at least for the naturalist. However, I am sure Con made this as an honest mistake since he seems to be a sophisticated and genuine young man.Sources : [1] - https://www.amazingfacts.org...[2] - http://www.independent.co.uk...