God Does Exist, ( Christian God )

Assuming that Pro is 14 years old, that's awesome that Pro is into debating at this age! Keep it up, you learn so much more when you're competing to win debates. Enjoy. I'll agree that the philosophical burden of proof is on the one MAKING the claim. REJECTING a claim is not MAKING it. I reject the claim of god...I do not make the claim of god. If rejecting were making, then you would have the burden of proof to reject absurd ideas like the boogie monster, magical tooth fairies, or unicorns. No, if someone makes the claim of the existence of the tooth fairy, then that claimant must meet their burden of proof. Pro's logical proof for god is "If you were to move the atomic weak force as much as 1 part out of ten to the one- hundredth power, it would of not permitted a life permitting universe." Well Pro picked a science teacher to argue the atomic weak force with. First, what do you mean by move the atomic weak force? What unit of measurement is "part" with respects to moving the weak force? Can Pro demonstrate HOW one hundredth of this part of the weak force, if moved, would not sustain the life we have? The atomic weak force is just the force that holds atomic particles together...it's like gravity for atomic particles. What would it mean to move gravity 1 part out of ten to the one hundredth power? Pro should respond to my questions to clarify. Pro comments in addition to the weak force movement claim "Those odds are just too outrageous, to skip over and just start talking about things like the quantum vacuum or thinks like the universe is infinite." Why is talking about quantum fluctuations "skipping over" the low odds of our existence? To me, it's "skipping over" to say, these odds are just too outrageous, so god did it...no need to think about whether or not low odds actually indicate an intelligence behind the occurrence, just skip over it and assert god with certainty. Also, while I agree quantum fluctuations are a fact, I don't necessarily agree that the universe is infinite. If Pro agrees that god is not physical, but can interact with our world, then Pro should be able to demonstrate the properties/mechanisms that allow god to be undetected, but remain interactive with physical reality. We can't see air or gravity, but we can detect their effects. I know god isn't physical like air or gravity, but can Pro demonstrate the effects of god on the physical world? Has god's effect on physical reality been isolated as a cause? If yes, how? Also Pro says "I do believe [god] can still interact with our world in a way that we don't understand." If we don't understand it, how do you understand it? If you don't understand it, how do you know if your belief is correct or not? Pro was correct in their definition of contingent. I don't see how god is contingent on reality because the universe's odds are low. I also don't see how randomness is negated by low odds. Things for Pro to explain/answer: 1. Do you agree that rejecting does not equal making? 2. What does "moving the atomic weak force by one part" mean? 3. What is the unit of measurement for "part"? 4. Why is talking about quantum fluctuations "skipping over" the low odds of random existence? 5. How do low odds of life sustainability indicate that the universe is purposive? 6. If god isn't physical, but can interact with the physical world, then how is he physically interacting without being detected? 7. Can you demonstrate the effects of god physically? 8. If god behaves in ways you and I don't understand, then how do you know that your belief in these ways is correct? I will respond to Pro's morality question. "[Is it] wrong to kill a human being based on only the physical world, and no supernatural or Gods." Yes, the negative effects of killing another human exist in the physical world without god(s). In order for early humans to be successful in building shelter, catching prey, and protecting their offspring, not killing other humans had to be valued.