God Exists

I will first defend my own case then move on to attack my opponents. 1. First he says that I just copy paste my information, (while his own case has been copy-pasted word for word I might add) And While I do research, I do cite my sources. I cited several scientists and studies throughout my case. 2. I did not invent excuses. My argumentation was completely secular and devoid of emotional appeals or appeals to ignorance (unlike my opponent) with the exception of the time when the answer required that I explain a long held Christian belief in the freedom of choice. 3. If you believe that my numbers are B.S. as you say, perhaps you would like to provide evidence to refute them? Simply saying something is wrong and then not going forward to refute it is simply pointless. 4. "Oh, and btw, YOUR god is 0% because after all, if there is only supposed to be "one", in which your bible doesn"t claim that at all, in which your god is absolutely unproven in the first place, then he"s 0%. So Its takes A LOT more faith to believe in your god." I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. this is completely incomprehensible. If you're trying to say that the Bible doesn't say that there's only one god then you're simply mistaken. 5. he states that Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist. I don't contest this. He states that Fred Hoyle is an atheist. I don't contest this. and he states that Steven C. Meyer believes in intelligent design. I don't contest this. The point of that argument was to point out that even people who normally contest the existence of a god are forced to admit the evidence that the universe does give the appearance of having been designed by an intelligent force. 6. Again, you fail to make even a feeble attempt at actually doing research and refuting my claims. your appeal to authority has no pull here. I did watch the video then I went on to gather my own contrary evidence. 7."Well see, had you bothered to read the entire line of questioning, in which clearly you did not, its all clumped together." I'm not certain what part of my argument this pertains to. 8. Finally, a valid criticism. the person who made that claim was Astrophysicist Erik Zackrisson from Uppsala University in Sweden. 9. " Absolutely not have you because if you had, then you"d be the only quadrillionaire on the planet and your god would be the only one worshiped. Period. And you wonder why I shouldn"t insult you? Try harder." this isn't even an argument. There's nothing to say here. 10. My opponent makes the claim that Christianity does not believe in free will and requests that I point out a verse in the bible that suggests that free will exists. I will provide several. 2 peter 3:9 "the Lord is not slow in keeping his promise as some understand slowness. He is instead patient with you not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance." This verse illustrates that God has given us the choice to come to repentance rather than forcing us to. Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. John 7:17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." of course we know they did eat so this indicates that they did have the capacity to choose. I think that's plenty. 11. He once again states that text is the worst form of communication. I'm not just going to restate my argument as he does so I'll move on to the next part. He states that there's no reason for anyone to translate anything in text form. Unless someone who doesn't speak Greek or Hebrew wants to read it. For the same reason that we translated Plato's Republic from Greek. More people wanted to read it. so it was translated into their language. The claim that there is no reason to translate anything is absurd. 12. His conclusion is ludicrous seeing as I have addressed every single point he's made, I have not invented a single excuse, and I have provided a far larger quantity of evidence than he has (most of which he hasn't even made an attempt to refute. my card on physics and biology goes unaddressed as does most of my science.) I would request that the rest of this debate remain civil.