God exists and is a real being

By self reflection you can come to the conclusion not only does God exist but hes a real being. We know evil is real. My opponent said so. I’m wondering how Pro came to believe that I know “evil is real”. Was this bit of knowledge acquired while you were, “self reflecting”? I have never stated that evil is real. As a matter of fact I don’t believe there is such a “thing” as evil.Self reflection confirms nor proves anything about a gods existence or his celestial dictatorship. Facts, truth and epistemological evidence are what one needs to prevail in this debate. God is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.I think Pro is largely operating on the argument from personal experience for much of his claims. However the problem with arguing from ones personal experience is that it's personal. Whatever you feel is not something that anyone else can feel. Therefore it is meaningless and inconclusive. I can find somebody who thinks he saw Elvis in Hardees last week. That doesn't mean Elvis is alive. It means he was deluded. Any claim that cannot be tested or subjected to some sort of independent verification is not a meaningful, legitimate claim. People claim to feel the presence of god, but this can also be explained rationally from a psychological perspective via various concepts such as the power of suggestion, lucid dreaming, hallucinations, mental disorders, etc. Most importantly, personal "feelings" are not evidential.We do bad things. Yes its true there is not one that does good. we have all had evil moments and thought bad thoughts stole something lied ect. Its human nature. But it only takes one lie to make you a lair. We would all be highly immoral the soceity would be an evil ruthless society without some counter balance. The counterbalance cant come from the world because this world is corrupted. It must come from a highly moral world from a moral being into this world. There must have been a perfect man to do away with our evils. This man cant have been all man because man is corrupt. It must be a man not of this universe that is perfectly moral. This being is clearly God. Not only God, but Jesus.Pro is desperately trying to make an appeal to divine objective morality. There are serious problems for the theist who stores up his treasures in this argument. Divinely commanded morals are a huge problem for the religious to justify. I challenge Pro to solve Euthyphro’s Dilemma and preserve the idea god is not arbitrary. Socrates: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?Euthyphro: Certainly.Socrates: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?Euthyphro: No, that is the reason.Socrates: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?If rightness just is what is commanded by God, then whatever God commands is right. If God chose to command murder it would be right. It is because of the nature of acts of murder in relation to their circumstances that they are wrong. What a divine command explanation of the wrongness of murder threatens to do is to cut the wrongness of murder off from its basis in the nature of murder. Therefore it is a bad explanation and this form of moral argument cannot succeed.Self reflection of the mindConsider mind. Its a tough subject. We exist. Because we think. Our minds must exist. Alvin Plantenga said if whats true for my mind is true for my body then we should be able to doubt the mind. We can dobut the body but not the mind. The mind is not of the body but the mind began. From an atheistic perective its impossible. How did the mind itself begin and become correlated with the body? God must have been in play. It debunks materialism and disproves atheism. It mean the mind can't become into being by natural processes. It must be caused by a conscious being. Otherwise we would know about many useless immaterial thingsPro appears to build a case for dualism. Actually, according to John Searl, the mind–body problem is a false dichotomy; that is, mind is a perfectly ordinary aspect of the brain. Con arguments debunked and refuted"If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent"Richard Dawkins.Dawkins is known to be unphilosophical. God is omnipotent in the sense that he all powerful within logical laws. He can't be himself and not himself, he can't out power himself. He can't change himself. Con argument makes an unphilosophical assumption of the definition Pro begins his counter argument with an Ad Hominem fallacy which is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Then he limits god to logical laws. If god commands objective morality then surely he can create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it. For example, if I were to invent an imaginary god then my god already is way more creative and powerful than your imaginary one. My god is so omnipotent that she could make a very heavy rock, then make herself just weak enough so that she would not be able to lift it. Problem solved!References:Churchland, P.S. & Sejnowski, T.J. (1992). The Computational BrainDescartes, R. (2008). Meditations on First Philosophyhttp://plato.stanford.edu...http://wiki.ironchariots.org...http://www.freethoughtpedia.com...