There is a God

OK. Thanks for a speedy response.Opening question 1) Con states that there is lack of extraordinary evidence for godBut it is only Con's opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God. 2) Con seems to beg the question here. I can say "The lights on my house work fine without presupposing electricity"3) Basically an argument from bad design. I agree we do live in a fallen world as a result of sin. God did not design organisms to be perfect. To do so would be to create an equal of Himself.Argument from Design Unnatural things do not require a creator, and thus you have created a false analogy. A computer requires a creator because it cannot be made by natural means. But other, natural things, like rain, happen of their own accord. A creator for these things is unnecessary.You're implying that unless humans design something, we can't infer design. Zero-Energy universeThis is nothing but a mathematical trick to try to get around the 1rst Law of Thermodynamics. It invokes negative energy, but such a concept violates the very concept of energy, since it would require a force to push a mass in the direction opposite to the direction in which energy is applied. In other words, this proposes a type of energy that manifests behaviors in a way opposite to what is meant by energy.this means that gravity (which has negative energy) and matter (positive) cancel each other out.This concept is seriously flawed. Below is a refutation[1] "Mathematically energy is: Where, ΔE= Change in Energy = Force Vector = Vector Distance Over Which the Force Acts θ= Angle between F and d vectors If the force is negative then the mass is pushed in a negative direction. W = (-F)(-d) = Fd The result is that the work is still positive. For work to be negative the force would have to push the mass in the opposite direction from which it is applied. W = F(-d) The force of gravity is negative as a vector since it is always pulling a mass down. So the formula for gravitational force can best be written as: F = gravitational force. M1 = mass 1. m2 = mass 2. r = distance between the center of each mass. G = the gravitational constant. The potential energy (P) of a gravitational field is obtained by integrating the force of gravity over the distance from ∞ to ro. ro = radius of gravitating body. ∞ = infinity. Such that: Since G, m1, m2 and ro are all positive, P is also positive. Since P = potential energy, the potential energy of a gravitational field is positive and not negative. This falsifies the idea that gravitational potential energy is negative energy. Work as been done on The negative effects of energy, showing that it would produce some effects that have not been observed in gravity.[2] The final nail in the coffin of the notion that the total amount of energy in the universe is zero is that theoretically negative energy must be followed by a larger amount of positive energy so the positive energy must always be larger than negative energy. As a result the total energy of the universe must be > 0.The other problem is that empty space and/or the quantum vacuum aren’t nothing; they’re something. So Krauss’ book does absolutely ‘nothing’ to answer Leibniz’s question, and leaves his readers no better off than they were before where the issue of the origin of the universe is concerned. If these quantum fluccutions produced the singularly known as the big bang then where did the vacuum come from? Below is from a New York times review of the book by David Albert is a professor of philosophy at Columbia and the author of “Quantum Mechanics and Experience.” [3]"Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that.""[T]he fundamental laws of this theory ... have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place.""[V]acuum states — no less than giraffes or ... solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to [nothing] ... is the simple absence of the fields! .... And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence ... as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence ... as my fingers rearrange themselves."Krauss complains about the 'the intellectual bankruptcy' of those who tell him that he can't refer to these vacuum states as nothing. Alpert says:"as far as I can see, ... Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right." TAGCon doesn't answer the question proposed by TAG. How can an atheist account for the laws of logicI would like to point out that pro's entire second argument was plagiarized from this website:Genetic fallacy and Con seems to be trying to remove any of my credibility . Its irrelevant. But I didn't get it from that website. The origin of the argument goes back far. I've read it in books and in schools studying in apologetics is where I first learned this argument if you must know.Why do 'logical absolutes' prove a God? I've explained it in my opening argument "Thoughts reflect a mind"Even if pro wants to argue that these laws presuppose a God, that would not mean that God follows from them. This conclusion fails to understand that logic is not separate from God's nature, but is a reflection of God's nature. Since God's nature does not change, the principles of logic cannot change.God's self-existence and necessary attributes are consistent with the first Law of logic, the Law of Identity, which states that something is what it is: A = A. Since the TAG argument ultimately concludes that God exists (God = God), then his attributes, which are dependent and necessarily a part of his existence, also exist. You cannot separate God's attributes from God himself, since his attributes exist because God exists. By way of analogy, I am six feet tall. My height (or whatever height I might be) is an attribute of my existence as a full grown man, and it cannot be separated from what I am. Of course height can be altered, but "height" cannot be removed from my physical existence. It is a part of my existence.The critic fails to understand the TAG argument properly.So in the next round I hope my opponent wont evade the question proposed by TAG. [1]http://creationwiki.org...[2]http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net...[3]http://www.nytimes.com...[]