Does God exist

"Con agrees that there must be a cause to the universe" No, I do not. I accept the possibility, but I do not absolutely believe in such a case. The wisest will remain skeptics until they are absolutely and demonstrably proven otherwise. The wisest will say, "It is not possible to know, in our current state, what may or may not have caused the universe." And if it were the case that one were to demonstrate a specific case, say Islam, then it would be their burden to prove this case supernaturally, as using reason and logic to demonstrate the supernatural is contradictory. Pro failed to recognize my argument of the computer simulation in its entirety. The computer program was programmed by the creator, however it is the user that starts the instance of the simulation, and it is the user that is "playing" therefore one cannot grant anyone in this scenario the title of "creator." Nor does this case include an afterlife and an absolute omnipotent being to be worshiped, therefore recognition of the outside realm is irrelevant. This case is just as believable as your case. "all these are finite beings they would too need a creator, the creator of the universe has to be eternal and that can only be God." Have you ever seen anything immaterial create something material. Logic and reason dictates that the number "1" cannot create a chair, nor can any other immaterial object create a material object, so therefore the creator of this universe, which is material, cannot be immaterial. "We can't do an experiment to prove this physically, but we can do mental experiments and use logic, because something eternal had to have created the universe it couldn't be something finite like a computer programmer, because then we could ask the question who created the programmer?" Again, I address this issue, you cannot use logic nor reason to explain the supernatural. You must prove and demonstrate that supernatural things can happen in order for credibility. Nor can you use the argument that something immaterial can create something material, because we have never observed such a case. "Even if the universe is a simulation, someone had to have created it, the creator must be eternal so it too doesn't require and explanation." Again you say "someone" as in referring to an absolute creator, when I have expressed numerous times that the cause of an event does not necessarily mean an absolute creator. The cause of this universe can be the case of an omnipotent entity, but not recognizable as a single object and is conscious normally you would think a god would be. You keep on equating the cause of the universe to an absolute creator, which is a faulty assumption. It is within reason to believe that this universe may have a cause, but to believe a certain cause without proof, is unreasonable. "Which god is the true God, well there is only one God, as the Quran says, "Say He is Allah the one Allah the independent and besought of all, He begets not nor is He begotten and there is none like unto Him," It is faulty to use religious text to address the credibility of believing in God. "God is an eternal independent being, and there is only one religion that worships such an independent being and that is Islam" You are only one of hundreds and millions of humans on this planet that believes their faith is the one true faith. "God is an eternal independent being, and there is only one religion that worships such an independent being and that is Islam" an adherent of Hinduism would beg to differ. "only Muslims worship the eternal creator whose existence I have already proved" You did not prove anything. You are just trying to make unreasonable belief reasonable. If you think your logic is correct, then you must assume all of these scenarios can also be correct. 1.It is within reason to say our creator can be material 2.It is within reason to say the entity that created us is omnipotent, but not conscious like a God. 3.It is within reason to say the entity that created us is omniscient, but not omnipotent. 4.It is within reason to say that the entity that created us is a conglomerate of causes instead of one. 5.It is within reason to say that entity that created us does not exist anymore. 6.It is within reason to say our creator can be material, but their creator is immaterial 7.It is within reason to say the cause of this universe does not care for us. Again, the only conclusion that you have made which is reasonable, is that there might be a cause of the universe. Please do not make the mistake of equating 'cause of the universe' to an absolute immaterial infinite creator. Morality You have a fundamental flaw. You assert that law is not moral code when that is just what it is. How does man make law if he does not know what is moral? God did not instruct not to smoke tobacco on school buildings, yet why did man find it compelling to make this into a law? You have a fundamental flaw in your morality argument. If God only knew what's wrong and what was right, then it is only he who is able to instruct man to do things, however man has found whats wrong and what's right independent from a God. "No where in the Quran does it say to go around killing people and committing crimes, you can't blame religion for what certain extremists do, just like you can't blame Darvin and Evolution for Hitler and Stalin who believed in Social Darwinism" Pro, has yet again, failed to recognize my argument in its entirety as I was not referring to any extremists. Allow me to repeat myself "Morality does not correlate with religion or a God. Is there a moral good that a religious man can do that an atheist man cannot absolutely do? Is there a moral evil that an atheist man can do but a religious man has not done?" "Who cares about society if there is no God, we are all going to die aren't we, so why not go around killing people. If there was no God I would kill myself because I will die anyways and no one could stop me, who could stop me from killing people and getting away with it. Only God can and he gave us the moral code in his Book the Holy Quran and from it do we know what is right and what is wrong and if we do wrong we will be punished" flaw 1 - you equate the wellbeing of society to the existence of a God. flaw 2 - you assert that humans can only moral things in fear of punishment or reward. flaw 3 - you equate killing yourself as a no-loss situation, when if there was no God, and if there was no afterlife, every moment you spend in your life should be deemed precious. flaw 4 - Moral code(law), can be made by man. Again, i understand that there is no need to talk about the atrocities that have occurred by extremists, and i have not mentioned anything about that, so please don't bring it up. "You do need God to be good, because God is good, how would you define Good and Evil without a God?" There is no absolute evil nor is there an absolute good. What is moral is relative to the situation and society you are in. If i'm in a civilized society, i will remain civil because this is what i was taught. If it was a dire situation with the means of life and death, my morality will change accordingly to survive. My morals aren't absolute, they are relative. "Con missed some serious points in this debate" I don't feel the necessity of addressing every single argument nor do i feel the need to follow regiment and order in order to come to the truth. Transcendental Argument Pro was trying to make the point that logic is absolute"that it is true in all times, places, and circumstances. I disagree with this statement. In his argument, for example, he refers to a "Law of identity", "Law of non-contradiction", and "Law of excluded middle." Pro is trying to lay the groundwork for a Law Giver who will eventually be the author of such laws. What Pro calls the "Law of identity" is really just the definition of equality. Exactly how you define equality is effectively a human-based assumption built into the model. The "Law of non-contraction" concerns the desirability of soundness of the system, meaning that if you build on false statements, you can no longer trust the conclusion. Soundness is a human-desired property of a formal system and we would reject any system that didn"t have it (and yes, such systems exist). Finally, what he calls the "Law of excluded middle" is an axiom of formal logic. Axioms are assumptions (made by humans) that may not be applicable in all situations. The point here is that no God is involved. Pro argument is on shaky ground from the beginning. Quranic Argument This is an issue of belief. Honestly, if you think, because some object is so complex that it can't be replicated, then there must exist a God, then I must say you're just a very gullible person. I can agree with you that the Quran is very complex, but in no way will that argument will ever bring me to believing in God. Furthermore, i do not see the correlation of how something so complex brings the idea of a creator. Believing is unreasonable