God most likely exists.

Lets dive in. So on the existing. I normally would say non existing is going ex nihilo and dying would be the deforming of your particles. But it won't be a problem because I know what you're saying. There might be times where I have to specify for sake of continuity. If you're defining god as existing, Then him being exempt for the ex nihilo would be a special pleading fallacy. This might change depending on how you structure your argument. But I'm just pointing it out. On the logics. You don't have to verbally reject the conclusions. They necessarily follow from the premises. Your objections to my premises automatically puts the conclusions into question, But you could say my conclusion is bad if the structure is not valid. Just laying out semantics here. (2. "If things that exist affect reality, Then those things can be observed. " Not all of them. Assuming this premise as true puts -f. E- human emotion as something outside reality. I'll address this later on. ) So by your word for existence, I believe that this would still be sound. You define it as an entity in reality. You define entity as having distinct characteristics and distinct means they're recognizable. I believe it would then follow that in order for them to be distinct. There must be something to recognize it as such. Another way to put it would be to compare it to the deist god. The deist god could have no effect on reality and therefore, We have no way to measure it. From our human perspective, It would be identical to not existing. (1. "Abstracts do not exist. " They exist. If abstracts don't exist, Then any science nor any form of human communication doesn't exist, Since the only way we have to talk about them (or even think about them) is abstracting them, We can't "see things as they are" since our senses are known to be limited. ) Right, So an abstract is normally defined as being something that only "exist" in thought. The reason I say they don't exist has to do with the way things are generally defined. Scientifically, There are four types of existence. Type 1 is physical and the other 4 are some forms of abstracts. So when I say exist. I'm talking about holding space in the universe. Now I'm using your definition. But it still fits because abstracts are not entities, They have no bodies. They're timeless, And spaceless. An abstract is just a concept. Some are imaginary, Like unicorns, And some are theoretical, Like math. So space, Time, Triangles, Infinity and the like are all just tools we use to measure reality or they're place holders for imaginary things. Like the image of a unicorn in your head. Now I guess you could argue that the brain synapse is the abstract, But I would disagree with you. "According to universal physics, Yes, But God its outside this laws, Since God comes before the universe. " Special pleading unless you can pose a justification for his exemption from the rule. This will be key here. In response to your question. I believe that thought exist because it's demonstrated in the brain and I believe that consciousness exist as a quality of our being. I also think that both of these things are purely physical. I'm going to stop for a second and explain that in my world view, I believe that particles are the only thing that exist. I believe that all abstracts are nothing more than descriptive concepts and I don't even bother with solipsism for many reasons that I won't cover in this debate unless you're gonna push it for some reason. " Although I think that one of God's features is that it can be a tool (and a thing, Of course), Ergo it can be an extension of our senses. " I'm going to need elaboration on this claim. I get what you're saying. But I need to know the methodology behind it at least to some degree. Omni Gods: To the best of my knowledge, There is no real world application of infinity that does not result in a logical contradiction. I'm willing to except a sound example if you have one. I'm going to point out that I don't accept infinite time either because I don't think time exist. Minimally Powerful God: Okay, I was being slightly hyperbolic. It would matter in the sense that the beings particles would diffuse into the ether and could maybe be special particles or something. But this single event can necessarily be the only time that it has an effect. I should have said that from our perspective it's as if it never existed. God by Definition: If you're going to just define the first cause as god that's fine. But let me ask you. If the first cause didn't have agency or any intelligence at all and was just a natural process, Would you still want to call it god? The only flaws were the two special pleadings, Which really counts as one because you wrote them para to each other, And the rejection of the conclusions. It's good practice to get into the practice of accepting structurally valid conclusions and try to laser your focuses on the premises. In reality. The conclusion is just a summation of two or more premises, It almost doesn't even have to be stated because of the way logic is structured. But we state it anyway so it's easy for other people to read. I've seen a lot more flaws on a lot smaller arguments. Your floor.