Gods existence

[[ K. Cosmological Argument ]] 1. Pro is incorrect. First, intuition cannot be considered evidence. Similarly, experience is not evidence (in this regard). I can experience a lightning storm but that doesn't mean I can use that experience to prove that God was responsible for it, or prove He exists because of it. Also, Pro claims to have given me "philosophical evidence" that I have not disputed; however, I've explained why scientific evidence is necessary AND I have responded to each and every of my opponent's claims which is more than I can say for the Pro. 2. Pro has not given us any reason to believe that the Big Bang could not have resulted from an uncaused quantum fluctuation. Meanwhile, I have explained why this is possible regarding sporadic energy in the quantum microworld. Pro's response of "Pnysical laws are a cause" doesn't really say anything at all, and the fact that nothing existed before the Big Bang is irrelevant since once again I've noted that and explained how it is possible. Meanwhile, Pro has not explained how God existing without a cause is possible, therefore my explanation stands above Pro's and this point has been negated. [[ Teleological Argument ]] Pro has ignored all of my points regarding this argument. Please extend them. [[ Moral Argument ]] 1. I've never argued against objective morality; this point is irrelevant. 2. Pro hasn't responded to my point about other ethical systems. He asks what they say, and I'd be happy to explain some of them at another time; however, what they say is not really the point of this debate. I was using them as examples to explain alternative origins or theories regarding morality aside from God. [[ Religious Need Argument ]] The only thing Pro really responded to here was my point that just because people might seek spirituality doesn't necessarily mean that they NEED it. Pro says that people don't invent needs; they just recognize them. However, in looking at my argument, I pointed out that several theories express a "need" for spirituality in the sense that it makes people feel good or makes it easier to understand and accept certain things. Thus, they don't actually NEED it but just like it or feel inclined to be drawn toward it. Whether this is good or bad, right or wrong is not for me to decide and quite frankly irrelevant to this debate. Why? Precisely for the other points I mentioned: not everyone feels this 'need' and people might mistake tradition and what they've been taught (or already believe) as a 'need' rather than what it really is: comfort. [[ Rebuttal ]] Ah, finally Pro addresses (briefly. .. very briefly) my arguments. Regarding the problem of evil, Pro merely states that God must permit evil in order to create moral creatures like us. How does that make sense? If one consistently acted immorally, wouldn't they be IMMORAL creatures? Plus, this doesn't explain why God does not destroy evil. Saying "morality implies we have free choice to do good or evil" doesn't answer it, and "But we would not be creatures in his image anymore" doesn't either. Unfortunately, I find the rebuttal to this argument to be entirely inadequate and must consider it another point won for the Con. Next, Pro ignores my argument regarding inconsistent revelations and simply states that it's irrelevant. Pro writes that it would only be relevant if it were a debate about the legitimacy of Christianity - not God. However, this is not true at all. If God existed, why would he want people to believe different things or offer wrong claims about right and wrong? For instance, some religions think it's holy to do one thing while another might find the same action a sacrilege. Moreover, millions of lives have been lost and ruined due to religious beliefs. A benevolent God would reveal the truth instead of letting all of this evil result of His ambiguity. Finally, Pro copied and pasted a rebuttal to the omnipotence paradox that I'm sure mongeese would approve of; however, unfortunately it does not negate my point and both debaters are wrong. Premise 1 states that God can do everything that is possible, and premise 2 notes that God cannot do what is IMPOSSIBLE. Obviously making a stone so heavy He cannot lift it would be impossible due to physics and the laws of nature. However, many traits about God don't adhere to the laws of nature at all (for instance, being eternally living). .. So why should we not accept that God cannot do what is impossible? But if God can transcend the laws of nature and even do what is impossible, can He do that (create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it)? If the answer is no, then premise 1 fails thus negating the entire argument. As a final note, I'd encourage the audience to look at Pro's sources. Not only did he not signify what information he took from what source, but many of the sources I do not even think he used. Overall, I have refuted all of Pro's presented arguments and he barely scratched the surface with mine.