RE: God's Existance

Con, It is the final argument and now it is time for me to confess. I never intended on arguing this topic with you. I saw in my notifications section your challenge for me to debate "Gods Existance". I noticed the typo and thought to myself, "great, another illiterate rebel wanting to shove some sketchy 'evolution theory' down my throat." I was bored, and decided to see what you were made of before I actually decided to debate you. If you noticed, I never truly tried to throw any hard evidence at you. Instead, I challenged your wits and your Ad Hominem responses. I learned that you were more serious than I expected and that I would be willing to argue this point with you. I did not have the time needed to properly argue this topic with you beings as I am in this same debate with another challenger. I apologize for wasting your time, but I only accept challenges from legitimate opponents, usually of which I have researched (your profile was new so I could not). If you do not believe me, and expect I'm making a false claim, check my profile to see some of my debates. I could spend this time making more harsh comments to you, but I have a better idea. I will give you a small example of what exactly a "true" argument from my side would have looked like. Allow me to show you my weakest argument from the point of The Christian God: "You have likely heard that it is impossible to prove that God exists. You have heard wrong. Not only can the existence of God be proven, denying the proof undermines rational thought. It is true that God does not need anyone, let alone this argument, to prove His existence. The Bible teaches that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for denying Him. No one needs proof that God exists, I simply suggest the logical proof of God's existence in addition to what you already know (and may be suppressing). 1. Laws of logic exist. 2. Laws of mathematics exist. 3. Laws of science exist. 4. Absolute moral laws exist. 5. Laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are immaterial. 6. Laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are universal. 7. Laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are unchanging. 8. You must acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature. The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him. Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. Therefore... 9. The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything. This type of logical proof deals with ‘transcendentals' or ‘necessary starting points,' and the proof is called a ‘transcendental proof.' Any contrary view to the God of Christianity being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume God in order to argue against Him." This would be a small and very weak example of one of my arguments. If you notice, to reject any of the first 7 points, is to contradict yourself. You must assume one of them to deny another. So as I told you from the beginning, the FACT of God is to be assumed, that is why the burden of proof was always on you. Remember, the definition of an atheist is an "Anti-Theist" Anti means "against". You must assume God to deny Him. Well, it has been fun! I enjoyed testing your limits, and as I have stated earlier, I would be willing to debate you on a professional level as you seem to be, gutsy. Thank you to all who have kept up with this debate, and a special thanks to my opponent, bbowhan. I urge all that are voting to hold those arguments I made at face value, and if you disagree with them, to look them up as I assure you, I am not mistaken. Again, thanks! God bless you all!