God exists

Are X-rays a black hole? No? Then X-rays must then be an observable effect of a black hole. The problem is that black holes have observable evidence. A God doesn't. Scientist must check the boxes of omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscience etc. A black hole is a really powerful gravitational that is capable of trapping everything in it. the universes mere existence, Unicorns exists because the mere existence of the universe. Bad argument the existence of a life supporting universe, How about how many errors in other planets? Do you see other life on those planets? What I see are mistakes. Either that is not all-capable or is making mistakes deliberately. Both really call its motive. What does God want? irreducible complexity, Isn't God complex? What created it? Another bad argument. and the language of DNA among other things. We do not know everything necessary about DNA so I can just say God. That is your position. He is the unmoved mover which must exist in order for the universe to have not achieved thermodynamic equilibrium and also to prevent infinite regression in the timeline. Having a being to start the universe. Requires a motive. If the universe was just always there then it requires no purpose. No, Stephen Hawking did not claim that god exists. He did however point out that the universe has a finite past, Necessitating the unmoved mover. States finite past not not require an unmoved mover. If he did you would added quote of him saying it. After all, Without omniscience, How will we know when we have every single possibility? You haven't got any information of how everything started yet you think with certainty that it was God. You haven't given evidence instead of probability argument which at least you is the best we can do but that is not enough. If we had only one interpretation of God then maybe we can have a thoughtful conversation on this but that is not a case. God existing requires to know which one it is and its purpose. I have not made an infalsifiable claim. God cannot be disproven since all we can do is observe the natural world. God is supernatural and since we cannot observe that world it is an infalsifiable claim. I don't even know how you think you even can state it isn't. You have conceded time and time again that god is the most likely explanation for the universe existing which is statistically impossible. Bear in mind no quote was given and I am Con is God existing. I said it earlier but I say it in a different way. God adds more questions that a person who does support the theory cannot answer. even if I grant you this argument I still have a 1/3 chance rather than a statistically impossible chance. Still have not given me why the Biblical God is the right one so I am guessing you believe it to be so without any sound reasoning. Only the Abrahamic religions have this concept. Judaism is an Abrahamic Religion and their hell is much different than the Biblical and Islamic hell. It was called a soul cleansing washing machine. Meaning if Judaism is true you can go to hell. Have your soul cleanse and go to heaven. With the other two you are stuck in hell forever. One is less worse than the other I would consider Judaism's version of hell not even hell. I would call it a stop before heaven. Therefore, Pascals wager would suggest that your best bet is to live a good life while having faith in one of the Abrahamic religions. I only need to find another Religion which also have a concept of hell. Shinto does so your argument is bad if another Religion outside the Abrahamic ones have a concept of hell. Shinto I guess would be in between Judaism and the other two. It is basically a "shadowy land of the dead" (Jigoku and Yomi No Kuni: Exploring Japanese Hell - Tofugu). Meaning they also have a concept of hell. Not as bad as the other two but not as well I guess good as the Jews version of hell. but the mere existence of the universe. If that all you got for defending the teleological argument then all I got to say is that cthulhu exists because of the mere existence of the universe. is a sapient force that prevents people from choosing to do bad thingsWhat a weird way of defining it. The force itself is not wise if it can perceive wrong but does do nothing about. Something can't be wise if it does nothing. A person's actions determine that they are wise or not. The sapient force as not yet acted so it is not wise. All objective morality means is that it is immoral to rape, Murder, And steal. Not that people are physically incapable of doing them. Objective morality: Objective morality is the perspective that there are things about the universe that make certain morals claims true or false. (Google: Objective morality define)If people think something is wrong but still do it. They are either lying or think the gain from doing the wrong thing outweighs doing the right thing. Objective morality can only exists if we agree on assumptions and principles. This assumption can be the Bible is true or human life is valuable. The principles can be from the Bible as well or gained from discussing with on another to see what the best course of action is. Without agreeing with assumptions and principles there is no objective morality. Even if they agree it won't be objective morality it should be called agreed morality instead because we cannot prove something to be wrong if we don't agree on the same principles. If you don't understand why serial killing is wrong then we've got bigger problems on our hands. Note that Pro is incapable of answering my questions which leads me to believe that Pro cannot state why a serial is wrong. If Pro cannot answer that question how can make an argument for God's existence? (Rhetorical)But once again, These shared principles cannot be derived from nothing. You've never refuted my point on objective morality being necessary as a reference point for morality. Yes but since you believe God can derive from nothing how are you in a position to make such a claim? (Rhetorical). We perceived facts and then we conclude with whether we like it or not and make morality. It is not objective because everyone does not think a like and everyone does not come to the same conclusion. So, My opponent makes a few claim on his point about morality and mathematics. My claim is that maths and morality are not the same. Maths is either right or wrong. Morality is subject to someone's opinion. The Roman culture of the time was so obsessed with slavery, That some historians estimate that one third of the empire was in some manner enslaved. Put simply, The church didn't have the juice to change Roman culture, So they figured that if people are going to do it and they couldn't stop them, They might as well do it as justly as they could. Great argument since everyone else should do a bad thing that also allows me to do bad as well. Not an argument because slavery was and still is wrong yet you do an explanation that can be summed up as well since they can do it so can I. Which is a bad argument because what if they are doing wrong? Do you still do it? From your reasoning yes. One of the core tenets of Christianity is that all men are made in God's image not one man nor any group of men but all men. As such, It becomes a biblical impossibility to elevate one group of men to dominance and another to submission. To do so is to violate and defile the image of God. Yet the Christians at Rome were not wrong to have slaves. This is a contradiction. If the Christians believed humans are equal why do they have slaves? The answer is that they shouldn't if they believed that. That's life. You have to make decisions and come to conclusions based on the evidence you have. If more evidence comes to light then you can change your position. Beliefs aren't set in stone. But I refuse to live my life in an ideological limbo because I don't know everything. The problem is that the answers to the failure of God are out of there. You just have been looking at bad sources and allowed that to hinder your reasoning. You state Christians beleive all humans are equal yet they had slaves. You allow your biases (I am assuming you are Christian) to blind you to the truth and conjure a lie. But as it stands god stands high above the rest as the best possible explanation for the universe. His argument also didn't address the main point of my argument which was that no one can find the unmoved mover even though there are entire fields of science dedicated to finding it. Simple a God require a purpose which you have not stated. If the Universe is just is then we have no use for the purpose of the universe instead if there is a God we require purpose. Forget credible physicists. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell you that matter, Time, And space can't exist before they're created, Therefore the thing that brought them into existence must not be made of them because it predates those things. Credible scientists with more knowledge about the field we should just disregard? That is like saying we should not be asking the Pope about the Bible. We should ask random people who do not follow it. This is why infinities don't exist. Numbers are infinite. They keep on going. Sure there isn't a number for it but we can safe to assume numbers are infinite. Not a particular number but numbers in general. Even if I grant you this, I still have a 1/3 chanceThe problem with this is that if Pro does agree that he/she is wrong then as far as Pro knows he/she will not exist when he/she dies or go to another version of hell. At high levels of physics, Chemistry and physics become very intertwined. Cosmology also deals with the existence of a life supporting universe which requires a knowledge of biology. No specific statement was made so don't get annoyed if I assume what you were saying. A chemist cannot give advice about physics since they do not know the particular. If you lack understanding don't talk about it. Ran out of space.