God most likely exists

How lovely! Con has descended from name calling to plagiarism. Here is the first thing Con has plagiarized: "If something exists, it can be scientifically quantified (measured and evaluated relative to its mass, energy, location, capabilities, and other qualities). For example, scientists have quantified millions of items ranging from from dark holes in outer space to tiny atomic particles (such as the recently discovered Higgs Boson). If something cannot be scientifically quantified, it does not exist (in the real universe)." It is from a wikiHow article titled, "How to Argue That God Does Not Exist": http://www.wikihow.com.... Con, I have no problem with you using arguments from other websites, I do it too. But don't take the credit. That's going to cost you points due to poor conduct. Always give credit to the original author. I will give you an example. The following is from: http://www.str.org... (BEGINNING OF QUOTE) I have four responses to this challenge. Here"s the first one: If God does exist; science is incapable of discovering that He exists. Science is a tool for discovering things that exist in the natural universe like protons, neutrons, and electrons. God, by definition, is a super-natural being, existing outside the physical universe. Science is incapable of discovering things outside of the physical world. Science is irrelevant when it comes to discovering God"s existence because science is incapable of measuring the existence of God. My second comment is that this challenge presumes that science is the only way that we can come to know something exists. This is a mistake in thought because there are many things that are real, significant, and important that science has no way of proving. For example, love. What is love? Do I love my wife? This is a question that science can"t even begin to address. What is a virtue? What is a vice? Should I kill my neighbor? Is what the Third Reich did in World War II appropriate or immoral? These questions are not addressable by the tools of science. Therefore, presuming science is the only way of knowing things is a mistaken assumption. In reality, science is just one tool out of many to determine what actually exists in the real world. In a previous video, I mentioned different epistemological tools that we have to discover whether things exist. Logic, historical inquiry, introspection, and testimony are all tools used to discover whether something exists and what it"s like. Science is one of tool, but it"s not the only tool. Some of the other tools are more efficient, accurate, and quick than science is at discovering the truth. A third problem with this challenge is that there is a fatal flaw in the logic of this objection. Here"s the principle that this objection offers: The only things we can know exist are the things that are scientifically quantifiable. Here"s my question: Is that principle scientifically quantifiable? The answer is no. That statement is a philosophical claim, which cannot be addressed scientifically. This is what it means to say that the objection is self-refuting or self-contradictory. This objection can"t even satisfy its own criteria. It"s a nonsensical statement. The fourth response I have to this objection is that we have good reasons to think that God exists. Some of them are based on scientific arguments. I"m not saying that determining whether God exists is a scientifically quantifiable endeavor. Rather, some of the evidence we offer in favor of God"s existence relies on scientific data. For example, the cosmological argument for God"s existence relies upon scientific data pertaining to the fact that the universe has a beginning. It began at a finite time in the past. Some of the other arguments we offer in favor of God"s existence have to do with a fine-tuning of the universe. There are cosmological constants like the nuclear force or the law of gravity that are balanced on a razor"s edge. If they fall a fraction of a percentage in either way, then no life would be possible. These scientific constants that we discover through scientific endeavors can be used in our arguments for God"s existence. There is a tremendous amount of information found in DNA. That information doesn"t just come out of nowhere. There must be a mind that infused DNA with information. The point is, there is plenty of evidence that God exists that relies on scientific arguments. (END OF QUOTE) Con continues to plagiarize when he says: "Religion, throughout history, has been used to control the masses, rather than enlighten them. An example of this includes the Christian crusades, and the present day suicide bombings of Muslims. Are (insert any faith here) really that different? No. Religion is something that was made up thousands of years ago. The Bible, often entire verses, stories, and anecdotes were falsified for the sake of making a point. Even the concept of the "holy trinity" is a fabrication created not by any god, but for political reasons by a zealot named Theophilus of of Antioch in 412 AD." All this is from the same wikiHow article. Just for plagiarism, your arguments are invalid, but I wont ignore them. Again, your lack of Bible knowledge is not evidence against it or against God. The Bible mentions a symbolic woman, Babylon the Great. This woman represents false religion. And here is one of the things the Bible says about her: "In her was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth." (Revelation 18:24) "False religion has persecuted and killed faithful servants of God and has been responsible for the death of millions in warfare." http://wol.jw.org... God does not approve the atrocities these religions are doing in his name, and that is why the Bible says, "Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues." (Revelation 18:4, 5). Is my faith any different? Yes. First of all, we don't go to war. You can read about that here: http://www.jw.org... Secondly, have you heard of Jehovah Witness suicide bombers? I haven't. And, for your information, we don't believe in trinity. Here are two links about why we don't: http://www.jw.org... http://www.jw.org... Con thinks I said evolution was possible through genetic mutations. I never denied this. Mutations is one of the ways evolution happens, and I don't deny this fact. But, for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of favorable mutations. We simply do not observe this in nature. (BEGINNING OF QUOTE) There have been a few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don"t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite, organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain? (END OF QUOTE) "The New Answers Book Volume 2". Although Con could not comprehend the intense heat of the sun, he will accept it because it is what science teaches us. Well, I accept God has always been there because, first of all, that is what science suggests about the origin of all things, and secondly, because that is what the Bible teaches. You can review the evidence for the Bible in my round 3. Here is the British Dictionary definition for the word writer: "the person who has written something specified". And here is the definition for author: "an originator or creator". There is the difference. The author is the originator of the book, and the writers write what the originator told them. This is not a debate whether homosexuality is normal or not. However, according to the Biblical definition of perfection, homosexuality is an imperfection whether you consider it normal or not. Being black is not an imperfection. Adam and Eve could have been black. The Bible doesn't say anything negative about anyone for their skin color. Con once again says that carbon dating proves the theory of evolution. He says, "Carbon dating shows that evolution is true by showing that different versions of creatures who had the same origin existed at the same time, and at separate times." His explanation is worded quite strangely, and he gives no sources for reliability either. I will allow Con in round 5 to fix this specific argument. However, round 5 will be just to summarize the evidence we have given for our side, no extra arguments. I await your response, Con. Thank you.