If God Exists

Thanks to Con for opening the debate. I'd like to establish one thing up front: Saying that theists live in a "magical world" and are "almost brainwashed" is not an argument. I assure my opponent that I don't believe in magic, nor am I brainwashed. Since these statements are both false and irrelevant, I will ignore them. I hope we can avoid using such language in future rounds to prevent descending into ad hominem. I'd also like to clarify the argument here. Con claims they will show that "God cannot exist." That is much different than saying "God does not exist." Con must therefore make a sound case for why it's not even a POSSIBILITY that God could exist. If I can establish that it's merely possible for God to exist, then I have succeeded. Since no round conduct was specified, I will indulge in a few initial rebuttals. == Rebuttals == Con claims that God cannot exist because he lacks physical form and therefore cannot have a brain to think or feet to walk. Of course, this assumes that God must be made of matter in order to exist. This is a strange assumption to make when discussing a being who is supposedly "supernatural." If god is supernatural (literally, "above nature"), then he is not bound by natural laws. Consider the following: I think it's reasonable to assume that if God exists, then he is an omnipotent, supernatural being who created the universe. As the universe's creator, he invented the natural laws and the concept of matter. Therefore, if God created matter then he cannot be made of it because that means matter must have existed prior to its own creation, which is a nonsensical contradiction. I don't think it's hard to imagine the possibility that a supernatural, omnipotent god could figure out a way to walk even though he lacks feet. Con's argument essentially tries to define an all-powerful immortal deity within the confines of mortal human anatomy, which doesn't make much sense. Con claims to have used scientific facts, but I do not see a single source citation. Once again, if god is "above nature," then it doesn't make much sense to use scientific facts derived from within nature as a way of disproving the possibility of his existence. Unfortunately, I cannot offer more rebuttals because there are no more arguments. Con goes on to posit why religion still exists, makes some comparison to "1984," and then mentions the aforementioned issues with "brainwashing" etc... Finally, Con ends with a Carl Sagan quote which has no relevance to this discussion. None of these points are arguments, and they certainly do not prove why god cannot exist. As such, this will conclude my rebuttals. == Arguments == On to my initial arguments. Once again, I do not have to prove that god exists, only that it is POSSIBLE he exists. 1. Origin: Even with all our amazing advances in modern science, humanity has done little more than scratch the surface of all the knowledge the universe has to offer. As such, even the most brilliant astronomers on the planet must admit that we still don't REALLY know how the universe began. Yes, we have the Big Bang theory, but it's an extremely broad theory that still contains many conflicting and unanswered hypotheses. Furthermore, we have no really good or verifiable theories as to what caused the "bang" in the first place. If nothing somehow exploded into everything, then what exactly exploded and what caused the explosion.... and then what caused the cause of the explosion? These are questions science may never answer. Since we have no answers to these questions, I submit that God remains as a possible "First Cause." (as a side note, Big Bang does not conflict with theistic creation at all. Big Bang states that the universe was "created" by a huge cosmic explosion of energy, which is essentially what creation posits as well.) 2. Astronomical probability: If god cannot exist, then all life on earth is a giant cosmic accident. The raw probability of every variable needed to support life is extremely small. The exact distance of a planet to its star, the speed and axis of rotation, the atmospheric composition, the synthesis of proteins, etc... The chance of each of these events happening randomly in the same system on the same planet is close to zero. Notice, I did not say it IS zero.... so it is still a possibility. But this debate is all about what is possible and what is not. I submit that if we're willing to accept that the odds of evolution via cosmic accident are close to zero, then there is certainly also room for a nearly 0% chance that a supreme deity could exist. 3. Naturalism cannot produce true meaning, purpose, or morality: A purely natural process cannot produce intangible, unnatural concepts. Therefore, without God there is no true meaning, purpose, or morality in the universe. If my opponent believes this to be true then they have embraced Nihilism, and we will discuss that in the next round. I believe it is not true, and I submit that humanity's universal sense of meaning and purpose allows for the possibility that a god who instilled such things might exist. Looking forward to the next round.