God exist - and he speaks to each and everyone of us through experiences and coincidences

"God exist. The greatest evidence for God is the fact that he communicates to people through experiences and coincidences." I also explained how these messages are worthless. how, like cold reading, you take one or two minor coincidences, then fill in the blank with the message you want to see, making the entire message not provided by some higher authority, but by you. You made an example by lining up your birthday and name to international events. That means anyone else with either your name, or birthday sees the same message. "And of course there is circumstantial evidence that can be used to indicate God exist; evidence such as that provided in ROUND 4 (fined-tuning of the universe) shows just how precise our universe has been constructed for the narrow possibility of biological life. Our universe is just right for its existence and development." That's a logical fallacy that deists and even worse, theists use to defend their god. There are many, many planets with the potential for life. Think of it this way. Every second we pass through an uncountable number of decisions and variables, each send us into an alternate reality where those variables and decisions occurred in a certain way. If one of those choices or variables were different, our reality would be different. Although the chances were slim of us experiencing any combination of these are incredibly low, yet one of them has to happen. The same with earth. It was random, and even though the odds of any of them happening were low, one of the possibilities had to occur. If things were different they would be different. We wouldn't be here talking about the world being fine tuned Again, you spend the rest of this showing how you can't disprove all gods, but whether or not something can be disproven Is no evidence of a god existing. (2) "The universe couldn't have been an uncaused cause." I have a problem with your belief in pantheism. Although it is somewhat more rational than theism, it is still an non-disprovable hypothesis. Since that is so, it is up to you to provide concrete and empirical evidence, not just mere observation and a couple dates that line up. That does not qualify as work. (3) "Purpose to life." "Humans with the capacity to alter the Earth must now be taught limits and restrictions. They must also be taught consequences - and so legal justice has a place in this new picture." We created the judicial system as a evolutionary pack instinct. Even before we built sedentary society we had chiefs who ruled us. Wolves have pack leaders too, and apes have a great sense of social rights and wrongs. Our judiciary instinct comes from a desire to work together, coming from years of depending on the group for survival. We created god as a power behind the judiciary system to enforce it better than we could, and to justify a authoritative leader. God didn't need to exist to create our judiciary system, we created god to enforce to judiciary system. "The randomness my opponent craves will have a place. But life cannot be entirely random. Order will be required. Guidance. Rules and laws. Consequences." I know this is round 5 and he can't respond, but why? He provides no evidence to back this claim that life can't be random, and since his proof qualifies as coincidences, I will assume that he has I don't have enough characters to include the rest of what you said so I will summarize. You say that divine judgment caused you to slip off the road and flip your car. So? You have no proof to back this claim. So you got into a bad car accident, so what? You drove in a storm and that increased the raw chance that that would happen to you. Since there are no other connections between you getting hurt and a super being ruling over us, I shall dismiss this. There is no evidence to back this claim and I fail to see how this relates to your evidence of god. I shall list my problems with his arguments Your evidence is based around dates lining up. So what? I fail to see how this is any form of communication, and I explained how its the same as cold reading techniques, where you fill in all of the information that you want to hear, regardless of the small prompt you were given. You listed a coincidence that occurred to you where you almost died. So what? You fail to explain how this in any way shows the existence of god. Your argument is deistic. it cannot be disproven and yet you fail to show and real evidence for it and force me to try to prove a negative, which in this case is impossible. You spent much of the time not explaining why your god exists, but why your god is more rational than other gods, which I explained only works under the premise that their has to be a god. Please vote for me, I thank my opponent Juan_Pablo, for this was an interesting debate, for I was expecting a Christian Fundi who I could easily smack down with some scientific articles, then spend a couple rounds debating their legitimacy, then end with the conclusion that I'm going to hell and the fundi is going to Pastafarian hell. So thank you. I don't have any problem with you, or your belief, and I do accept that out of the million gods created by man, yours is more rational than most. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...-