God exists.

In the last round I raised several points regarding the non-existence of God. The affirmative denied each of these and for my final case I will explain why this denial was wrong and will provide further evidence as to why God does not exist. 1. MORALITY DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY RELGIOUS BELIEF Whilst the affirmative began the debate with the phrase 'objective morality without God is impossible', they ended the debate by stating 'Morality doesn't require religious belief... no one is disagreeing with this point'. This is highly contradictory and needs to have been clarified by the affirmative. Whilst they previously argue that morality is different to objective morality... morality is by definition OBJECTIVE! Proof that God does not exist comes from the fact that God supposedly gave us morality and yet my points have clearly shown that he did not. If God did not give us morality as is stated, who did? The answer to this question is humans themselves. From the beginning of civilisation humans have developed a sense of morality and to say all these advances were the work of God would be (to quote the affirmative) fallacious. 2. THERE IS NO SCIENCE IN RELIGION Once again the affirmative rebuts a point incorrectly. Scientists themselves state that they only understand 4% of the universe. Their life is devoted to discovering the other 96%. The affirmative assumed that my main opinion via this point was that science and religion are mutually exclusive. This is incorrect as I was simply trying to display the differences between the will to learn of scientists and religious followers. The affirmative stated that scientists can be religious and believe in God. This is exactly my point. Have you ever seen a religious person converted to evolution via research into that field of science? No. This is reiterated by the affirmative's statement of- "I do not need an open mind if I already have the truth". If the affirmative is so certain that God exists, a debate such as this against him would seem pointless. Whilst not my main point, the idea that science and religion are mutually exclusive is valid and true. Religion is not science. This is because intelligent design implies an intelligent designer, not as science but as evidence to reinforce existential beliefs. 3. THE MORTAL ENEMY OF FAITH IS KNOWLEDGE The affirmative took this point way too personally. My point was simply stating that if you believe in something (whether it be the weather tomorrow, the next lottery number or the existence of God) you will always be adverse to knowledge against your opinions. The aim of this point was the further state how religion can blind you with it's faith and make you unable to see knowledge provided against the existence of God. Once again, this explains the denial put forward by the affirmative during the course of this debate. 4. THE ROOTS OF RELIGION CAN EASILY BE CHALLENGED Although I understand many of the points put forward by the affirmative. I do not understand their views against this point. If Christians believe that God exists, they must believe that the root of religion is with God himself. However, evidence of the Bible begin adjusted and lengthened by unreliable sources is pinpointed throughout all of history. This shows that the roots of religion do not lie with God and if God is not connected to religion in this way it makes him a figment of Christian imagination. 5. RELIGION HAS BEEN USED TO CONTROL THE MASSES The affirmative has called me a stupid, stereotypical atheist for stating this point. I am tiring of saying that he took my point into offense via a misunderstanding. The true meaning of this point and it's proof for the non-existence of God lies within the fact that religion can be used a tool to control others. Imagine if another tool was created that sent entire populations to the same spot every Sunday morning. Who would create this tool? How much power would it give them? Did someone create the image of God simply to use it as a tool? Does this prove that God does not exist? 6. THE BIBLE MAY BE FALSIFIED There is no doubt that opportunities for the Christian religion to have been adjusted and lengthened to benefit individuals have risen over the course of history. Whilst we may never know if these opportunities were ever taken up, it seems highly likely with some the examples I gave in my point last round. "As an atheist, don't presume to tell Christians which part of their belief is accurate or not. Just stick to refuting the dumb and errant arguments, and intelligent Christians will provide meaningful ones that can further our knowledge on the topic of God and religion." These were the harsh words of the affirmative in rebuttal to my case. "Is this a 'civil' way to debate my friend?" 7. RELIGION IS OFTEN USED TO EXPLAIN THE UNEXPLAINABLE The opposition appears to have yet again denied the validity of my point and so I will now provide a second example of revealing the actual validity within this point. The Ancient Egyptians once believed that the sun was the god Ra who rode across the sky in a chariot. In the 21st century, we know that the sun is actually a celestial body that moves across the sky due to our orbit. The Ancient Egyptians did not know this fact and thus relied on religion to explain this occurrence. My point here is that the idea of God may simply be a way of explaining the processes of the beginning of our universe which science is yet to explain. Yes, the affirmative may see a possibility for a God to create our world but it seems far more likely, due to previous scientific findings, that it is some astronomical factor we have yet to consider. 8. GOD IS NOT OMNISCIENT NOR OMNIPOTENT The affirmative regarded this as my only semi-legitimate point. He then went on to state that God can do what ever he wants because: 'he's God', 'God has a plan in which people can be saved' and 'Humans form the opinion that God is evil'. The affirmative likes to play the game of demanding evidence for my points. It is now the negative's turn to ask the affirmative- "Where is your evidence for these statements?" The affirmative continued to discuss why we should not condemn God for his own actions however this seems irrelevant towards my main point that if God loves us all so much- why does he not use his omniscient and omnipotent powers to save us from all dying? Is it because he can't? Is it because he does not even exist? CONCLUSION In the comments section of this debate the affirmative assured me: "I will be civil. No worries." Throughout the course of this debate, the affirmative seems to lose the idea of being civil and reverts to taking all comments made by myself to be personal. As the affirmative is a Christian himself, he has further proven much of the points I have raised in this debate. The mortal enemy of faith is knowledge and the affirmative seems so intent on defending his diety that a debate such as this appears pointless. The affirmative seems not willing to even consider the alternative to his case where God may not exist. The only arguments solely raised by the affirmative are that three premises of morality define the existence of God. As the negative, I believe that I have firmly rebutted this point and have raised a myriad of examples as to why God does not exist. The affirmative has tried to rebut these arguments with simple denial but this has only strengthened the validity of my case that proves that God does not exist. Thank you.