God exists

Pro states:Take a black hole for example. We cannot see, Hear, Touch, Taste, Or smell a black hole. Pro undermines his/her point later on by saying this: we can observe the way they impact the universe around them. What Pro does not realise there is evidence for a black hole. Source: What evidence do we have for the existence of black holes? (HubbleSite)If my source is true then we have proof of black holes existence of it and the impact it does have. Now take God. . . Next to none. The black hole has evidence whereas God does not. Pro is trying to use an example to make the idea of a God seem more grounded but it actually isn't. Take for instance an all-powerful being that always existed. Nothing that we know has ever been all-powerful or has always existed yet we are supposed to believe a God. Mentioning the problems of an all-powerful being is that it is never all-powerful. All powerful does include itself meaning everything single time it has been considered all-powerful straight that very time in becomes even more powerful. An infinite increase meaning it is actually not all-powerful only always increasing in power just to be more powerful than last time. Like I said, You can be almost 100%. . . That it's unlikely. This is an argument of ignorance. A square is not a circle. A circle is not a square. It cannot be joined then it ceased to be either a square or circle. A squared circle cannot be doable. But that's more or less. . . Claim. Not me. Assuming my position without actually knowing it. My position is I don't know. Your position is fallacious and has shown errors which you have not answered. The things that come into question:How has God always existed? Did God create itself? So yes, My argumentation. . . Say I'm right. Insults my intelligence which removes from the point he/she is trying to make. The problem with this is that most if not all scientific facts are more often not fallacious. Another quality of a scientific fact is that it is falsifiable. God since it cannot be observed through our natural is not scientific and becomes infalsifiable. It is basically my word against yours which gets us nowhere. At least you were honest about your arguments being based on probability. It can't be anything more until God decides to shows itself through the natural world. I highly doubt it would since it hasn't in the past. Yes that isn't the best reason for God not appearing in the future but what more do we have to go on? So, You also like to. . . I have a 50/50 shot. You stated 3 different Religions and state that you somehow have a 50/50 shot. You don't. If there were only 3 Religions in the world your chances of being right are 25%. 3 for Christianity, Judaism and Islam and 1 for none of them being true. Not to mention the other Religions you so kindly missed out. Since you did not tell me why you boiled it down to these 3 I am left to assume you based in on a fallacy called Argumentum Ad Populum. The proposition must be true because most people believe it. Am I wrong? You however are betting. . . L impossibility. See the difference? Did you make this up? If you didn't quote your source. If you did what was the point of this statement? I am not basing my belief on objective reality. . . God must also exist. Note that the only proof or lack thereof Pro has shown for the existence of objective morality is that to quote DOES exist and must for even subjective moral reality to exist, . The problem with this is that it is not proof and by the way subjective moral reality is not a phrase. This train of thought does not follow. Pro is basically saying subjective reality exists so objective reality must also exist. This is a claim without an explanation. So I am going to dismiss is as such in hopes Pro decide to explain himself. Moving on, The serial killer is wrong. 2+2. . . Doesn't mean everyone will follow it. Somehow in Pro's point of view a serial killer being wrong is equal to maths. Bearing in mind 2+2 can only have one answer and a serial killer is subject to interpretation. A serial killer to himself does not think he/she is wrong or vice versa. If the courts cannot sentence him due to the lack of evidence of him being a serial killer he/she is not a serial killer in their eyes. Someone viewing the collection of ears the serial killer has tells them that the person is a serial killer and if the person is not also a serial killing would think that is wrong. I have given you 3 different scenarios where either the serial killer is morally good or bad depending on the viewpoint. Maths has one answer like you said 2+2 objectively equals 4 but it is not the case for something being wrong. It is based on interpretation. My opponent. . . Things from happening. What I said which Pro misinterpreted: "We have to agree on the same principles like slavery is bad because you are own a human as property. If we do not then we have Nazi Germany gassing Jews"The condition we have to agree on principles. This is not the case with Nazi Germany being apart of the holocaust. Slavery still existing to this day. Serial killers thinking they are right and more. Pro made a point on a false assumption so I don't see why I need to rebut his claims. If Pro does ask in the next Round. He conceded. . . Is badNo I didn't. It was based on agreeing on the same principles. I'm an Ockham's Razor. . . Based on assumptions. No you make arguments based on your inherent biases that there is a God which are probability arguments which can be boiled down to assumptions if not beliefs. Going to go with beliefs. So basically you are making belief claims just stating you are using a flawed tool that most likely the simple answer must be true from two options which is not the case even with God. Options can be God exists but has an impact on the world, God doesn't exist, God exists but has no impact on this world. Not even mentioning other scenarios we have yet the information to theorise. All right, Let's. . . Matter can't exist before it's created. Follow? Another statement trying to insult my intelligence bearing in mind all his argument is based on is what if. This is also an argument an ignorance. The proposition must be true because it is the best you can think of. This is not better than my position of I don't know because I am not assuming what is the case instead waiting until the correct answer is given. By assuming it what is the point of proving it? For your satisfaction? You already believe God to be the case but yet you want to prove it. The unmoved. . . Completely ignored. What Pro does not realise is that either God is bound by these laws or it isn't. If not why? I am going to guess Pro does not have a sufficient answer. By picking either the Christianic or. . . Order apparent in the universe. Point made again. No proof or explanation given I am meant to accept his numbers to be true. You don't seem to understand that. . . Function. You don't understand you argument is of ignorance. You don't know you assume it to be true because what else could the answer be. So basically the God of gaps argument. Your logic is so broken that if. . . False. The train of thought does not logically follow. Moved on from God existing because the opposite is wrong not realising we have yet the information to give an informed decision on anything related to the start of the Universe. This debate is over A god. . . And the Islamic God. A God which requires to know which Religion it sponsors to or if none of them. Pascals wager will require to fit every single God and it is capable of doing so just add more sections. No reason given why Pascals wager does not work maybe because it just makes the idea even worse than before. One more time, God is. . . Not have a creator. This is an infalsifiable claim which you or I cannot prove yet you say this is a given to be true. Await some actual evidence or explanation. If you would like. . . I will. Pro has made a strawman of my position. I wanted a citation of where Pro found his explanations that Pro gave earlier on yet Pro strawman's my position to be wanting everything Fred Hoyle has written as a scientist. That is not true I only want what Pro used to base his assumptions. Basically is anything you stated based on science? statement. . . Asking for. Surely it did not take his entire life just to say something that you lifted of his earlier right? Another problem with this is that a person is right or wrong. Does not matter the time someone put into something. It matters whether they are right or wrong and I can't make that judgement without supporting material. He holds a degree from. . To biology. A branch of biology does not mean he studied the core of biology. Relation does not mean it is the same thing. If it was why do we have two degrees for the same course? We can however observe God's. . . Natural world shouldn't exist. Where is God's impact? Back to that one part in 1010^123. . . Theory. What are those numbers? Where are they from? Would like answers. It is still an infalsifiable claim since we cannot observe God doing anything yet you are so adamant that God did something. The definition of. . . Good reasons. God cannot be observed. If you can in the next Round tell me where is God? If you are going to stick to impact realising there is evidence for a black hole. You are basically making an argument where there is no supporting information that can be compared to God yet you tried anyway with the black hole. Another problem with your argument is that if we do not know that God exists how can you identify its impact? It must be is not argument since it boils down to an argument of ignorance.