Dose God Exist

Opening RemarksMy esteemable opponent appears to be bringing arguments to bear against Christianity, however this is non topical to the resolution, and is certainly not what I agreed to debate when I signed up for this. For this reason, I will not deign to respond to attacks on Young Earth Creationism, the Bible, Christianity, or anything of that sort.I will begin this round by defending my argument. After I have finished with that, I will treat with my brilliant opponent's nearly flawless arguments.The Argument from ContingencyWith his trademark talent, my opponent has provided incredibly brief, yet impeccable summaries of the first three of the five ways. With unmatched clarity, he boldly puts forth: 'It is a unscientific and pethitic argument to say we dont know the answer there for god is. aqunias says there had to be a time where there was nothing well then there had to be a time where there was no God. If you say well God is eternal Why can not say the same thing about space.', clearly attempting to put me off my guard by rendering his sentence in a fashion that pays only lip service to normal rules of style. While again I am forced to acknowledge Con's innate superiority over my limited abilities, I do believe his arguments suffer from fatal flaws.Objection 1. It is a unscientific and pethitic argument to say we dont know the answer there for god is.Reply to Objection 1. My opponent is playing a crafty game, trying to throw me off the scent by strawmanning the Argument from Contingency. This is one such strawman. The Argument from Contingency says nothing of the sort.Objection 2. aqunias says there had to be a time where there was nothing well then there had to be a time where there was no God.Reply to Objection 2. Aquinas said that there had to be a time when nothing existed if everything is contingent. Clearly, something exists, which means that there was no time when nothing existed, so everything can't be contingent. God is not contingent, being necessary, and for that reason removes the possibility of there being a time when nothing existed.Objection 3. If you say well God is eternal Why can not say the same thing about space.Reply to Objection 3. Because it's possible that space could not exist.RebuttalsI now intend to counter my opponent's arguments from Round 1.My opponent writes 'Pepole say well the forces of natuar are just right for life to exist this is the dumbest thing i have heard in my life. There are so many places in the universe that would kill life institly. Not just in the universe why are there so many volcanos ect.'I wouldn't say that the forces of 'nataur' are just right for life to exist, but they are sufficient for life to exist, and they fit within the very small margin for which life could exist.My opponent writes 'Why would God let so many african children get diesies and suffer. 95% of all species on earth have went extinct. Is this what God wanted? Why is there nothing about dinasours in any holy book? why arent theses species in any book? Why would a god create life and destroy it and create it and destroy it for millions of years ?'I didn't sign up for Q&A. If my opponent wants to turn this into an argument, then excellent, but if all it wants to do is put forward questions it can hardly expect me to be under obligation to answer them.My opponent writes 'Pepole say that if we changed the laws of physic by one point of an inch we would not exist this is true but this dose not support the design.'Yes it does. I wouldn't say it single-handedly proves design, but it certainly supports it.My opponent writes 'So many spots in the universe would kill life instintly. Why are there so many faild stars? why did god create the other planets in our solar system dead.'Why does my opponent ask so many questions instead of making arguments?My opponent writes 'Pepole used to think that the sun was a charriot riding acros the sky.'This is completely irrelevant. My opponent is trying for duplicity, in order that I might underestimate it, but I will not fall for such elaborate tricks.My opponent writes 'The bible says the earth is 6000 years old'No it doesn't.My opponent writes 'we know that earth is 4.6 billion years old.'Irrelevant.My opponent writes 'Why would God let so many african children children to starve and die.'In a clever attempt to turn one of it's many questions into a statement, while retaining the overall inquisitiveness of a question, my opponent puts forth this. I advise the readership to not be taken in by this treachery.ConclusionI believe that I have addressed all of my opponent's arguments, although as my opponent seems to operate on an intellectual level far above my own, it is possible that I haven't. As it stands, I deem the resolution affirmed.