The Existence of God

First off, racontour, the name is M A N G A N I. Thank you. I will first take some of my opponent's statements, and give my response: "almost certainly imply absolute, unbounded power and infinite knowledge" -You cannot possibly be a translator of Koine Greek, Ancient Hebrew, etc. to make a qualifying statement such as "almost certainly imply". Your understanding is based on your philosophy, education, experience, and what you have been taught about religion or the bible in the past. In order to grasp the intended meaning in scripture, you must read it with the understanding that it was written in the context of societies hundreds and sometimes thousands of years ago, and in languages no longer used, especially not to the degree they were in their time. If you apply an objective interpretation of much of the bible you would realize it is not much different than some of the claims I've made. What is absolute, unbounded power and infinite knowledge? Indeed Job is a philosophical book with at great message and lesson. One of those messages is that we do not dictate the nature of life. My opponent cites Chapter 37 verse 16 which is basically Job being challenged regarding his lack of knowledge of science. The speaker asks if Job possess flawless knowledge. He asks if Job is privy to the knowledge of he who possesses perfect science. Indeed perfect science is that which we cannot change regardless of our attempts. That which we cannot overcome; that which we cannot contradict- the empirical sciences that every scientists wishes to know. Job's friends believe only God knows what we do not. For the quote on Matthew, the claim is not so scientific, nor is it the "unbounded power" that my opponent suggests. The context speaks of salvation. Jesus says it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle (this is a livestock term, not a sowing needle) than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. The apostles were astonished and wondered who, then, could enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus said for men this seems impossible, but with God all things are possible. I think the context is clear. And now the contentions... I. Omniscience "The first major contention made as a positive proof for the existence of god is that the universe is conscious, that it must be conscious." -My opponent misstates my contention. Let me re-post my last paragraph in my first contention: In short, God is all knowing because his is the energy which sustains all life and consciousness. Universal energy and consciousness is of him, and it is him. The Universe is aware of every action- this is Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". There is not a pebble thrown into a pond that does not have a set of consequential reactions- however minute we might view them. Now let's examine what my opponent said about this... "I see no particular reason for this to be so, and I'm afraid that your support for this idea has left me no more persuaded." -My opponent doesn't seem to understand my argument. My intent was not to provide a persuasive reason to believe in God in presenting this contention, rather I was giving a more proper interpretation of omniscience, as it is misinterpreted by both believers and non-believers alike. The point was to simply show how scripture and science can reconcile the concept of omniscience. "The way I see it is that this could be one of two fallacies." -You cannot simply say "fallacy" and expect the definitions to fall in place for themselves. "If framed as "many actions are the result of conscious decision making ergo this action is also the result of a conscious decision", then it is an instance of proof by example." -First of all I didn't make an inappropriate generalization. In fact, I didn't generalize at all. I simply interpret scientific reactions as awareness. Regardless of what you call the various reactions and interactions dictated by science, you would have to acknowledge that the human consciousness is a sophisticated organization of either A- supernatural thoughts, energies, etc. embodied in a "soul" which returns to God when we die, or B- a natural complex organization of chemical, electrical, and thermodynamic reactions embodied in the brain which turns to dust, eventually, after we die. In either case, no matter what language we use, the subject of our chosen description is the human consciousness. I am simply proposing that if we consider every physical action and reaction with the same importance we consider the complex actions and reactions that are collective known in both science and religion as our consciousness, it soon becomes evident that we are simply a more complex expression of universal physics. "If I don't try to read into it, I can only describe it as begging the question. " -Hardly. "there are numerous explanations for abiogenesis, none of which call upon the proteins that formed the first organisms to be aware of each other" -What is awareness??? If molecules are excited when temperatures rise, or can cause temperatures to rise with their excitement, are the molecules, then, not known as "thermo-sensitive"? Just think about our senses and how they work. Is each of our senses not a simple set of instructions that even non-living molecules can follow? The difference is we compare each sense at a higher rate, and have evolved our senses to be processed into more complex reactions like making the statement to a neighbor "it's cold out". If the molecules in your body are not aware of each other, how are you aware of this debate? Either you believe in a spiritual consciousness, or a purely scientific one- I simply believe they are one and the same. My opponent has agreed that the next two attributes: Omnipotence, and Omnibenevolence are not relevant to this discussion. I do not agree that the attributes are "illogical", however, as I showed in my contentions they are perfectly logical, but dependent on interpretation. God is all powerful because all energy is of him, and God is all "good" because everything that happens is in accordance with his natural laws. "I await further reasoning as to why belief in this God is preferable to a more naturalist view of the world. From what in nature does it make most sense to infer that he or she or it exists?" -I didn't imply that "belief in this God is preferable" to anything. Belief in God is an individual choice. My opponent presented a debate in which his Round 1 argument gave the impression that he would like to believe in God, but hasn't been convinced because of the attributes he presented. I have shown how those attributes are #1- dependent on interpretation, #2- not absolutely necessary for the existence of God, and #3- much different in their original context than understood in modern churches. I also didn't say it makes sense to "infer" he, she, or it exists. I have presented unequivocally two things: energy exists, and this energy is in everything. I believe this energy to be 'God' in the sense he has always been referred to in nearly every religion. Every religion has attributes that ultimately describe the various laws of science- even if that explanation is presented in fictitious matter and from a position of ignorance. Even though my position may sound more scientific than religious, it is personal choice, experience, and societal expectations that lead one to label some things as religious, and others as scientific. I do not see a separation between the two, other than a self-imposed one. I believe scientists are the 'robotic' priests of the original religion of curiosity. They are robotic because they have imposed upon themselves the standard of pure logic and adherence to objectivity which can leave their lives empty. Science fulfills me spiritually because I believe my energy, soul, and consciousness are one with that of the universe... no matter how robotic the ultimate truth