If God Exists

I congratulate my opponent on their response and I thoroughly apologize for language and descending, that was uncalled for. So you said, as a comeback from my response about science was that, “If god is supernatural (literally, "above nature"), then he is not bound by natural laws” and, “I think it's reasonable to assume that if God exists, then he is an omnipotent, supernatural being” So you obviously you believe that God is “supernatural” and is totally inconsistent to facts and to everything that we have observed in the universe. But the literal definition for “magic” is: “used in magic or working by magic; having or apparently having supernatural powers.” So by literal definition God is magical. And most people believe that magic is not real since it is impossible to be real. And you said literally said that, “I assure my opponent that I don't believe in magic” even though you believe god is real. So you strongly contradict everything you said, which confuses me greatly. For you say you strongly don’t believe in magic, yet you strongly believe in a magical God. Interesting. “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.” Here, you assume that God created the universe. Of course! God will make sense if you’re every thought of God and every fact about him is from a book that was written by him! “None of these points are arguments, and they certainly do not prove why god cannot exist.” “Con goes on to posit why religion still exists, makes some comparison to "1984," You are correct that they do not prove that God doesn’t exist but I was attempting to inform on how and why things are the way they are today. To explain something who, what, when, where, and why are helpful and I was explaining the why and how. 3. So in order to win this debate, you have to prove that God can exist. In order to prove something, you have to have evidence. The definition of prove is to: “demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.” So in order to prove God exists and for you to win this argument you have to have evidence. Science has loads of evidence to show how God is impossible, how evolution is a fact, and evidence for the Big Bang. I will explain some evidence that God doesn’t exist, but you can always search the internet for it yourself, for I will not encompass it greatly. One piece of evidence is that it says specifically in the Bible, “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” Found in Matthew 7:7. So it says specifically that “everyone who asks receives” if I pray to become a bird. Nothing happens, millions of Americans pray to God but nothing happens, because he isn’t real. Also, God is supposed to be a perfect, all knowing, supernatural being. So if God is perfect, then everything he makes has to be perfect for him to remain perfect. But supposedly made the world, and made humans and the humans were imperfect. He realizes this and kills every living thing on the Earth in the flood because he messed up. Therefore God can’t exist because a perfect thing can’t be imperfect. Also, the thing with physical matter, 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. Rebuttal: Response to 1: This did not have much proof of anything, you just said that the Big Bang is a theory but I recommend you watch these two videos for it explains what I am trying to explain: http://deadstate.org... Response to 2: “If god cannot exist, then all life on earth is a giant cosmic accident” No it isn’t. Scientists have found significant evidence showing after matter from a large past explosion (Big Bang) and have seen objects all moving away from each other and slowly expanding (force from Big Bang.) “The raw probability of every variable needed to support life is extremely small.” The reason there is life on Earth is because it is the perfect distance from the sun to sustain life. We have seen other planets such as ours that are in the “Goldilocks” zone from the Sun to be able to support life. Look at: http://www.pbs.org... As matter expanded from the Big Bang they crashed into each other and gravity pulled them together. Then the smaller objects revolved around the bigger objects and created Solar Systems. This is a very, very, very, short summary. But if you want to learn it then watch a Cosmos with Neil Degrasse Tyson on the Beginning of the Universe. I would like to say more but I need to move on. Response to 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” I do not hold these to be true at all. Conclusion: To win this debate you need to prove God exists. You have tried to narrow it down a lot, “god who instilled such things might exist.” And “a POSSIBILITY that God could exist” and “only that it is POSSIBLE he exists.”I do not like that you made so many excuses, but in order to win you have to give evidence that God exists. I look forward to your response. http://godisimaginary.com... http://www.big-bang-theory.com... http://skyserver.sdss.org... http://www.pbs.org... http://deadstate.org... http://www.evilbible.com...