Does God exist

The UniverseThere's no doubt that Stephen Hawking is a brilliant physicist, but the ideas he has presented in an attempt to remove a beginning for the universe have not progressed farther than hypotheticals. Neither has anyone elses', for that matter. In the first article Con has linked, Hawking discusses his famous theory of "imaginary time," which would effectively do away with the need for a beginning for the universe. I don't think that I nor my opponent would be able to explain the concept of imaginary time in such a way as to be satisfactory, so I will instead appeal to the rebuttal of someone much more intelligent on this subject than I am, theoretical chemist Henry F. Schaefer III: "Hawking and Hartle's no boundary proposal begins by adopting a grossly oversimplified model of the universe. Then the authors make time imaginary, and prove in their terribly restricted model that the universe has neither beginning nor end. The flaw in the exercise is that the authors never go back to real time. Thus the notion that the universe has neither beginning nor end is something that exists in mathematical terms only. In real time, to which we as human beings are necessarily attached, rather than in Hawking's use of imaginary time, there will always be a singularity, that is, a beginning of time."In the second article Con has linked, it discusses "M Theory." M Theory is essentially an extension of string theory, which is also a theoretical concept that has yet to have merits in actuality. Even provided that M Theory ends up being legitimate, and we do live in a multiverse, and so and and so forth, it still does very little to disprove the existence of a God. All we have done in that scenario is added another turtle. My solution to infinite recursion (which, I may add, is one of many different versions) may very well be kneecapped in light of such a scenario, but as we currently do not have an answer one way or the other, there is no legitimate reason to dismiss it as false at this stage.I will have to declare a stalemate on this point because I don't think my time is well spent trying to navigate the implications of hypotheticals that as of yet have no merit in reality. Once we have an answer, I will be more than happy to review my case.1 Timothy and the Status of WomenMy opponent, it appears, has based their entire opinion of God on a series of verses from 1 Timothy. These verses from 1 Timothy (as well as a passage in 1 Corinthians that says virtually the same thing) are infamous for being ripped haphazardly out of the bible by skeptics and used to smack Christians upside the head and accuse God of misogyny. The problem is that a single verse or passage does not exist in a vacuum, and the entire context must be considered before a judgement can be made. As I do not have the character count to discuss this issue fully, I will again refer to a source rather than my own words: https://www.gci.org...Hell, Round TwoMy opponent states that "Punishing someone and putting them in eternal fire is not only wrong, but barbaric." Strangely, I stated in my previous argument that this idea of hell was "crass, and does not accurately represent the issue," before continuing on to explain a few elements of what I believe to be a much more accurate and reasonable depiction. I am left to wonder if Con read my argument at all. The Gospels vs. Stephen HawkingI have never actually managed to have a debate with an atheist without encountering something along the lines of "you're too stupid/brainwashed/scared to critically examine your beliefs." Ironically, this tactic is usually employed in lieu of actually explaining where my reasoning is flawed. I am disappointed to see this behavior from my opponent. Things started off so well.Con states that I'd rather take my history from the Gospels than from Stephen Hawking. This is absolutely correct, as Hawking is a theoretical physicist and not a historian. As for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, there is little reason to believe they are unreliable [https://bible.org...]. The Gospel authors also didn't need "scientific evidence of what Jesus did" because they and/or their sources were supposedly there when He did them.The Problem of Evil, Round TwoOnce again, Con defaults to their original arguments rather than addressing my rebuttals properly. Con states "if I see a homeless man walking down the street with three kids, and I have all the money in the world. I will use God's excuse. It's society's fault and close the door." This is strawmanning with a side of false equivalency. If you passed a homeless man who was homeless because he betrayed and swindled everyone who tried to help him and would spend any money you gave him on lottery tickets and drugs, you would be well served to "close the door." This is a much closer equivalent to my argument. It does not matter how much help God gives us, because short of our voluntary decision to change or God's decision to violate our free will, everything will go right back to the way it started. Con has not offered a solution for this.Con has also not addressed my argument that God cannot stop every act of evil without, once again, violating our free will. I suggested that maybe God only allows as much evil as he absolutely must, and that horrors thousands of times worse than what we have seen could have been on the horizon had God not intervened. We would never know. As it stands, I can only assume that Con is a proponent for violation of free will, given that no alternative has been suggested.In conclusion, I have argued my case as best I can under the circumstances. If my opponent refuses to address my arguments in full, there's not a whole lot I can do to defend them.