Resolved: God Exists.

And thank you, Lannan, for a great debate as well. One of the better religion ones I've been a part of. Considering it's impossible to prove a theory (as it would become a fact), I would like to say that the resolution should be "what is the most reasonable theory," as we can't really prove or disprove anything with only theories. Especially God, since you could literally replace God with anything, and "theoretically" it could be true, however "theoretically true" is neither fact nor truly true.OntologicalityMaybe I'm off today, but I'm still failing to see how possibility = certainty. You assert that God exists, and you say he exists because he possibly can exist. Your 2nd point, however, doesn't work with our laws of logic - "If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world." This right away does not make sense, as you're saying "if it is possible, then it is possible." This is a theory, backed up with another theory, and you still have to provide evidence to support it. Theoretically God exists, you're right, as a theory is an idea. But we aren't talking about an idea, we're talking about a maximally great being, as you stated before.And I don't feel your theory is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a maximally great being exists.Your next paragraph can be summed up by saying "because you haven't examined every single particle in the universe and multiverse, you haven't disproved God." Well, unfortunately we're talking about proving beyond a reasonable doubt, and not only did you admit to not having evidence for God (God could simply be away from the reaches of the Kelper and the Hubble Telescopes), but you fell back on the "well, you can't prove he doesn't exist" argument - which unfortunately for you, can be "disproved" - to an extent - by simply bringing up other theories as to how the universe came to be, how life started, and other feats apparently only God could accomplish - that you cannot disprove.So, you cannot prove God's existence, and I cannot disprove his existence, but I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is not the only possibility for creation of life, the universe, time, etc. - and until you can disprove those theories, it's reasonable to believe God most likely does not exist.KalaBAMI "made a huge turnaround" because I'm showing there are multiple theories for the existence of the Universe, or the creation of the Universe. And until these theories can be disproved, it's reasonable to believe that the Universe was created naturally instead of supernaturally. What William has provided is evidence to support a theory. If he provided enough evidence to prove this theory to be a fact, that the universe did have a beginning, then I'm sure there wouldn't even be an argument against the Big Bang, or an expanding universe. But there still is, there still are many theories as to how the universe came into existence, or is currently existing or whatever along those lines. Even if I say "alright, you're right, the universe is expanding outward," (which I do believe, but remember I'm not the one proving the Big Bang Theory or the idea that the universe is infinitely expanding and contracting, I'm just denying the existence of God by providing other reasons or events that have done what you and others claim can only have been created by God), this doesn't prove that the Universe started from a singularity, nor that it was caused to come into affect by God. The universe could very well be expanding faster than it was previously [1], hinting at the idea (theory) that the Universe didn't start from a singularity, but the galaxies were all just closer together. Right or wrong, this is still a theory (one of dozens) that would need to be disproved to show that the only possibility for the "beginning" of the Universe was God.And unfortunately, I don't see any reason to throw in the cards and accept that the only possible way the Universe came into existence was God, especially when we have all these theories, and new ones, backed with plenty of evidence to support them. Not having the answer does not prove the existence of God. And having multiple possibilities backed with evidence is leaning toward the idea of God being just that - an idea, and nothing more.ThomistickyUnfortunately I'm failing to see how this is evidence for the existence of God. If anything, showing that we all have different moral values is evidence against God, as that implies morals are subjective instead of objective.By "random" I'm referring to something that does not have a conscious force that caused it to happen. The Sun exploding would be "random," if caused by too much helium build up or whatever, but it's "random" in the sense that a conscious being did not cause it to happen. "Space" refers to "nothing" as well, but people referring to darkness as "space" does not prove the existence of God.I accept your apology, kind sir.ConclusionI still have not seen any reasonable evidence that supports the idea of God. I have provided plenty of explanations as to how events - that apparently were caused by God - can naturally occur. And until those can all be dismissed as incorrect, the idea of God will remain an idea until solid, hard evidence can be produced. Theories will be theories, but theories with evidence will be more reasonable to follow.Thanks a lot for the debate, Lannan!