You cannot prove the existence of God.

I thank thee for responding and providing interesting rebuttals. It is now my job to try and counter these counter-arguments to the best of my abilities; I will try not to deviate until it is needed. ----- Counter #1 ----- "Untrue. Water is necessary for life on Jupiter, yet it does not exist there. (To the best of our knowledge) I really don't see how this argument is relevant anyways." Actually, this is false. There is indeed water on Jupiter (http://www.universetoday.com...), albeit it is very scant. Also, notice how I worded that sentence in respect of an anthropomorphic view, "OUR existence..." etc. etc. If I had said existence precedes essence, CON could have easily made that point, but since I have defined to what respect existence is being placed upon (humans, God, and so forth), the "water is necessary" point is not valid in this scenario. It is now up to CON to justify his rebuttal. ----- Counter #2 ----- Here, CON begins by using a very simple yet widespread "propaganda-like" example of sorts, if you will. It is most likely due to a YT video that lies by saying Einstein humiliates his Atheist professor. (http://www.snopes.com...) There is in fact evil in this world. While this may seem like a really dumb question to ask, but why wouldn't there be evil if there is the mention of it in the bible? Also, if there is only good, then what is "neutrality"? Is being "neutral" ever possible? Or is your life only black-and-white, like CON says it to be? There are many viewpoints from which an observer can view CON's statement. By saying that cold does not exist, we can also say we have never seen, felt, heard of, or spoke to God, and etc. So does God exist? By applying properties, we can verify the existence of something. What is God's "property"? If cold is the absence of heat, then why have I felt it every time I wash my hands? Or is that just subliminal heat? And what if we were to reach absolute zero, hypothetically speaking; is that not ultimate coldness? The second law of thermodynamics explains that heat flows from bodies with more energy to bodies with less, so if this occurred in an infinite stage of regression, what is the smallest energy/amount of heat that could be procured? Zero molecular motion, I presume? So would that make "cold" not impossible? Or I am wrong somewhere in my thinking. Evil and good, cold and heat, are dualistic properties. For one to "exist", the other must to. To summarize this all, cold is just another term for a relative concept. Evil and good CAN both exist, except we cannot define it using scientific proportions, so a half of CON's argument is invalid as it argues metrics of science, not religion. As for the later portion of CON's argument, he states that (basically) everyone is a sinner and is bad. Does this not apply to the Virgin Mary, God, Jesus, or His angels? If everyone has committed something bad in their lifetime (or lack of good, as CON states), then what is the purpose of our existence if we cannot satisfy our prerequisite to enter Heaven? This seems like an awfully terrible thing to say. I cannot and refuse to accept the fact that an innocent newborn child is evil from birth, in a Christian point of view. If people have fallen short of the standard of good, then why is there a Heaven? Because, if this is correct, some people are relatively more good than others? Seems like a pretty canny thing to say, but this is all CON's arguments after all. Please explain to us what a person must do in order to attempt to fulfill the standard of "good," unless this is impossible and we are all destined to be exiled to Hell. ----- Counter #3 ----- I cannot disprove God unless you prove God, otherwise denying the existence of something that does not exist is logically impossible for me. So, you can basically say that my position is one where I refuse to accept God as existing, and where I deny His existence using proof which I will mention once CON proves God using something other than faith. And I guess we are starting to approach contingency. This might prove to be a huge issue, but I hope I can sufficiently summarize my points. First, I want to bring up Occam/Ockham's Razor. The existence of a Designer/Creator is thought of as the best solution to the "who designed x, etc." problem. But Darwin's alternative, and scientists' alternative, is evolution. A Designer can be thought of as an unnecessary "hypothesis" in the eyes of scientists and Atheists alike. We can easily prove how natural mechanisms work in our advantage to disprove the belief that Intelligent Design is maintained as the sole inherent "order" of the universe. The design argument can only prove (in the worst-case scenario for us Atheists) that there is a Designer. But what about this designer would we know of? NOTHING. Is this Designer good or evil, bored or lazy? Furthermore, we can delve deeper by saying who designed the Designer? Did the Designer design himself? Did the Designer always exist? This requires a humongous leap of faith, more so than believing in evolution. I will just provide this link to give examples of self-organization, this will neither prove nor dispute any of my or CON's arguments, just some background info: http://en.wikipedia.org... Proponents of Intelligent Design claim that the perfect "fine-tuning" given in our scenario allows humans to live and breed comfortably and exactly in the right moment, place, and time within the cosmos. But using this can stem to ignorance, as what about the things that apparently aren't "perfectly designed?" What about all the things that contradict this Design? There are thousands of things this world can do to better themselves, why did God pick these flawed things such as poverty, starvation, strife, famine, etc? Why is the center of the earth a complex, turbulent mixture of molten lava and various minerals rather than just a stable lump of rock? Actually, as Hume pointed out, the universe bears a closer resemblance to something organic, like a plant, than it does to a neatly constructed watch (with a very clear purpose and no superfluous parts, see http://en.wikipedia.org...), and as we're trying to work out what created things like vegetables in the first place, it's useless to use that as the basis of an analogy. - http://www.bigissueground.com... Evolution is not lucky. Nature is never satisfied. Evolution is constantly occurring, no matter what. As is natural selection, even amongst humans. Maybe several hundred years from now our molars will disappear and we will no longer need wisdom-tooth extraction. Who knows? Evolution occurs for the better, not the worst. Since I'm running out of space, just read this for now (for all you readers/voters out there): http://en.wikipedia.org... ----- Counter #4 ----- Straw man or not, this fallacy occurs en masse amongst the Christian devotees. It plays a factor in determining the VALIDITY of the existence of God, as faith might be the only thing Christians will have left. Please note, however, that I am not accusing anyone of anything, so in that respect, do not be offended. ----- Counter #5 ----- My opponent has not disproved anything other than the fact that my point still stands. It does not matter if they have similar views in the supernatural deity, the resolution stands that the Bible is intolerant of other religions or Gods. While we're here, I apologize, however, for not clarifying my stance earlier. I was basically implying CON couldn't prove the existence of the Christian deity, God. And I think he still hasn't. ----- Counter #6 ----- On toast and on moldy walls. No offense, but this is not good enough for me. I have seen a faint resemblance of Aquinas on my you-know-what.