"God exists" is true

I just had finished writing my arguments, and the website crashed, and I'm having to start entirely over. I apologize, but I'm going to quickly write what I had as fast as I can, and I'm sorry if my text is rushed and incorrect at times.Mind Over MatterI recognize that I argued for a tautology. I shouldn't have stressed the connection between humans and possibly God. Instead, I should have argued that the information humans can create seems to be similar to the ordered information in the universe. If those are analogous, and given that computer information obviously requires intention, it seems rational to induce that DNA required intention from an agent. The Prime MoverWhat I meant by "unconditioned" is that it is the Prime Mover. So, I am conditioned by my parents, they are conditional to their parents, etc. Eventually, there would be an unconditioned first mover that everything else is conditional to. Also, as organisms are conditional to organs, to cells, to atoms, etc., eventually there must be an unconditioned prime mover that upholds all of existence.IntentionalityI fail to see the difference between my opponent's proposed paradigm 3 and my paradigm 2. He seems to concede that, if the universe wasn't intended to exist, then human consciousness is a mere illusion. So, even though people have mental states, those mental states only give the illusion of choice. In paradigm 1, an agent, namely God, chose to create other agents. These agents were created with purpose, and are also able to intend purposes on other things in creation. In paradigm 2/3, the universe was created by an accident. No purpose can ever be derived, only illusory purpose. Humans have mental states where they perceive choice, but the correct description of events is that they are accidental collocations of atoms interacting with other accidental collocations of atoms. Historicity of Christ With due respect, my opponent provided a link to a Wikipedia article stating that scholars have disagreement over facts about Jesus. However, I provided a link that shows some facts that most scholars do concede to. These are not contradictory facts. My opponent argued that Christianity could be historical fiction. However, why would people make up a religion of a crucified hero, and where all the original followers are persecuted and martyred? If you were going to make up a religion, why would you make up that? It's hard to preach a religion where you might be expected to be killed for what you believe in, and yet this is what was preached. Also, there are multiple ancient records of early Christians being martyred. If you don't accept historical documents, you have to throw out all of history. This is all that we have, are historical documents, and we draw the best conclusions that we can. However, if we were to be skeptical of ever ancient document, we wouldn't be able to construct a past at all. My opponent also argued that the resurrection of Jesus isn't a good argument. This is demonstrably false. 3 billion people in the world believe in Christianity because of the resurrection. Now, just because 3 billion people believe in this argument doesn't make it true, but it shows that this is at least a convincing argument to many people. Miracles I agree with my opponent that it is possible for people to have lied about the miracles. Also, there are many superstitious people in the world, willing to call simple improbable events as miracles, when naturalistic explanations are more reasonable. However, there do exists millions of miraculous testimonies in the world, and it is irrational maintain a proposition that requires millions of people to be liars. My opponent also seems to discourage anecdotal evidence, which I argued last round that humans base the majority of all their beliefs on anecdotal evidence. He then argues that because scientists haven't empirically evaluated miracle claims, or because he hasn't seen any of them firsthand, shows that miracles shouldn't be accepted. This kind of thinking is fallacious- there are numerous phenomena in the world that hasn't been seen or scientifically examined, but that doesn't make those things automatically false. It could be that there isn't a God who intervenes and performs miracles. But, millions of people, all across the world, are stating that they've witnessed miraculous acts, from resurrections to power over nature, all in the name of the Christian God. You could be skeptical, and claim that these millions of people are liars, but it isn't a rational position to hold. Conclusion I apologize for the unorganized structure and quickness of my final arguments. I would like to continue this conversation, as my opponent has shown to be very polite, intelligent, and extremely challenging in this debate.