The christian god likely exists

I thank con for his argument. I would like to remind the viewers that the BOP is shared, thus it is necessary that con and I both establish our case as well as refute the others in order to fulfill our burden. My case For this debate I will be defending the moral argument for the existence of God. The representation of the moral argument that I will be using is derived from various moral arguments, but the formation is self devised. P.1 Without God, morality has to be explained by naturalism. (By lack of other cause) P.2 A moral code exists. (By observation) P.3 A moral code requires a basis or source. (By necessity) P.4 A natural moral code lacks a basis or source. (By definition) P.5 God can be the only other explanation for a moral code. (P.1) P.6 God is the only possible source or basis for a universal moral code. (P.1, P.3- P.5) P.7 God is the best explanation for a moral code. (P.1, P.3- P.6) C. Therefore God exists. (P.1- P.7) Naturalism co-existing with moral objectivity. Sb-P. Naturalism cannot account as a basis for morality. The very idea of a natural moral code refutes the whole basis of what a universal moral code is. No moral code can be naturally formed, because the very premise "natural", refutes the whole idea. A moral code needs a basis. In fact it necessarily requires it. If there were no God, metaphysics naturalism would be the next viable belief. Every part of our body therefore would have had to have evolved, which would include our minds. In other words naturalism would have to entirely create us. With this fact in place there could be no way that objective morality could exist. For why would it? We would lack the necessary tool to make right/wrong judgments. Metaphysics naturalism could be the only possible source, and naturalism is not a valid basis at all. Thus morality would be variant. If there is no greater power, than there is no basis for morality and thus there could be no such thing as a moral code. Morality could not exist considering these facts, and God can be the only explanation.[1][2][3] Existence of a moral code[2] Let me make it clear that by moral code I do not mean all moral facts are objective, but that a basic moral code exists and that some objective moral facts do indeed exist. I think it has been established that naturalism and a moral code cannot co-exist, so now the only thing to do is prove that more than likely a moral code does exist. Thus I will have to argue that the chances of there being a moral code is more probable than morality being entirely subjective. By observation, moral objectivity is evident. Cons case itself would lose all credibility without objective morality. In fact cons whole argument is based on one large moral judgment. Thus in essence, by attempting to disprove God morally, my opponent is helping to demonstrate my case. Morality is not something that is flippant in nature; it is polar. Certain actions are blatantly obviously wrong, such as shoving shards of glass into a two year old babies eyes simply out of pure delight. Con himself makes the claim that evil exists in this world. He cannot make this claim unless a moral code exists, for if it did not than all moral judgments would be subjective and therefore cons great moral judgment would be largely flawed and evil could not exist.[4][5] Now there might be certain people who do not have much of a moral sense, however when we look at these people we will always find that they have some kind of mental disorder. Thus they are not applicable for by mutation their moral sense has been skewed, not by the subjectivity of moral laws.[6] Moral and sense perception comparative A moral code can be demonstrated by showing that there is no categorical difference between moral and sense perception. Our sense perceptions are often prima facie reliable. They allow us to perceive facts and make judgments. Hearing a sound behind me allows me to reason that someone is approaching. My sense perception allowed me to perceive a certain fact. There is no reason to believe moral and sense perceptions are non-comparative. Our sense perceptions are within a reasonable amount accurate and our moral perception would have to be greatly skewed if we do not confirm to the fact that they are analogous. [2] I have thus proven that God is a far better explanation for morality than naturalism, and that objective morality does indeed exist. Cons case Con presents an argument which would be best defined as the Evidential problem of evil. (EPOE) This is a very common argument against the existence of God however by pointing out a few facts, and some of cons logical fallacies and unaddressed assumptions, I think it can be reasonably refuted. God as all-loving Firstly, the cons argument completely falls on P.1, the basis of his argument. My opponent reasons that an all-loving God could not co-exist with evil. However what Con has failed to do is show that God is all-loving. He attempts to, but an attempt is all we are left with. John 3:16 The passage says "God so loved the world". This I must assume is cons reasons for his concluding that God loves everybody. However it does not mean that at all. God loved the world. Does this mean he loved everybody in the world? Not at all. He loved the world as a whole. Emily loves Irish people. Must we take that statement as meaning Emily loves every Irish person? Of course not. The analogy is directly applicable. The Bible also in fact say God hated Essau.[7] Jeremiah 31:34 Fails when looking at context. This passage is talking about Israel. Not everybody. Therefore it does not prove God loves everybody. God loving the world unto its end? I would like the viewers to drop this evidence. Con does not provide any verses. He cite the Bible as his source only. This is a very poor form of sourcing because basically he's asking whoever wants to find this passage to just search for it himself. Therefore this should be dropped on basis of inadequate proof. The ten commandments I’m not sure I get my opponents argument here. He says the ten commandments were supposedly written to protect us yet people still break them. However I see no reason to believe the ten commandments were written to protect us rather than instruct the Israelites hundreds of years ago. God unfathomable. Con arguing from the unknown. We really cannot presume to fathom Gods ways. If God exists are we likely to know why He does/allows certain things? The differences between God and man are maximally huge, therefore I say no. God is of a whole other nature, essence, being, dimension, character, and magnitude. What is known about God is actually very minimum. By very definition Gods ways are unfathomable even according to scripture.[8] We cannot comprehend Him and thus arguments like the POE fall. By attempting to use this argument con is reaching into the GREAT unknown, thus committing a fallacy. Irenaean theodicy Irenaeus argued that the existence of evil is necessary for human progression, and that it allows Gods purpose to be naturally fulfilled.[9] Humans were made in the image of God having the potential to achieve moral perfection or likeness of God. Free will is necessary to achieve such perfection and humans must experience suffering, God being at an epistemic distance from humanity. John Hick argues that the universe exists simply as a “vale of soul-making”.[10] Therefore suffering and evil must occur in order to complete Gods purpose. We are created in a state of imperfection as part of a two-stage creation process. Humans are initially made in the image of God being flawed and incomplete; or imperfect. The next stage is the likeness of God in which they achieve their potential and reach full development.[11] Con pulls at emotional strings but his case fails logically. There is SO much more to be said for both arguments, but character limits restrain me. Sources in link as premised. http://www.debate.org...