If God Exists

I thank Con for the response. I will try to keep it brief, but there's lots to say here..... My opponent repeatedly says I must prove god exists to win the debate. This is false. Con specified their position in Round 1 as "God cannot exist." So, since I am opposing this claim, my position is "God can exist." This debate is about whether it's possible for God to exist, not if he actually does. It's not an excuse, it's the premise. I don't want to get too semantic, but I needed to clarify that. Con says I must show proof to support my claim, and I 100% agree. Con defines proof as: "demonstrate the truth or existence of something by evidence or argument" and they go on to demand I must show evidence. Yet, my opponent seems to ignore that last word in their proof definition - "argument." I can also demonstrate proof through argument, which I believe I have done. As a final disclaimer, Con provides videos and links to explain their arguments. They also list several random websites at the end. This is called an "appeal to authority" and it's a logical fallacy. If you want to make an argument, you have to say it in your own words within the character limit. Hyperlinks are not arguments. I'm not debating Neil Degrasse Tyson, I'm debating hayhen13. Since these points are not valid arguments, I will ignore them. I sincerely look forward to my opponent offering arguments I can actually respond to in the next round. == Rebuttals == My opponent continually appeals to "scientific facts" that render God impossible, yet I still don't see any of these facts presented in Con's argument. The only trace I can find is when Con broadly mentions evolution and the Big Bang, neither of which I dispute. My point is that evolution and the Big Bang do not prove God is impossible. Like I said in Round 2, the Big Bang is quite compatible with theistic creation. For the next round, I challenge Con to specifically list the "scientific facts" they reference that prove God cannot exist. Con says I must believe in magic according to a "literal definition" of the word, and I therefore contradict myself. There are no doubt many definitions for magic, but the top 3 listed in the Merriam-Webster dictionary do not match Con's definition, nor do they include the term "supernatural." So while Con can reference one definition, I have at least 3 others I can point to. Anyway, this is pure semantics, so let's move on..... Next, Con curiously attacks my assumption that if a god exists he probably created the universe. I think this is an extremely valid assumption and I'm not sure why Con questions it. To be clear, the definition of God I am working with is: an omnipotent being who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. So yes, I am assuming if god exists he created the universe. I don't see a problem with that. For the Bible verse reference, it's pretty obvious that Jesus is not saying "pray for whatever you want and I'll give it to you! Free money for everyone!" He is talking about "truth" - seek truth, ask for truth, knock on truth's door, and you will find it. Jesus was not concerned with making people rich, he was interested in revealing what he perceived as Truth. God refusing to turn you into a bird does not prove he can't exist. My opponent says that human imperfection proves God cannot exist. It doesn't. It proves that God gave humanity a choice, and we chose to reject his plan and invite imperfection into the world. If God is truly perfect (which he must be, by definition), then it makes no sense to measure him against a human definition of perfection. If we admit that humans are imperfect creatures with limited knowledge, then we cannot possibly know what true perfection is. I again point to the fallacious logic of saying God must be made of matter. When Con says "we have never observed anything other than matter in the universe, so why should we assume that somehow doesn't exist in God. It can't" they violate the Problem of Induction. This is like saying "I have never observed a black swan, so all swans must be white." This is a fallacy because, obviously, black swans do exist, and no amount of observations of white swans can discount that. So, simply saying "we have never observed anything not made of matter" does not prove everything is made of matter. I once again submit that matter is unnecessary for the existence of a supernatural, spiritual being. Con's rebuttal to my Argument #2 is not really a rebuttal. They basically said scientists have found evidence to support the Big Bang, which I agree with. The Big Bang is the "giant cosmic accident" I'm referring to. If there is no supreme being controlling things, then the Big Bang was essentially a random accident. I fully realize there are other earth-like planets. That still doesn't change the fact that they are extremely rare. I assure Con that I do not need a lesson in basic astronomy, I know how planets form. Finally, I'm shocked that my opponent can deny the possibility of god, yet accepts that true meaning, purpose, and morality exist in the universe. I eagerly look forward to hearing Con explain how this is possible. For the sake of brevity, I'll leave it at that. I still submit that Con has failed to demonstrate why it is not possible for god to exist.