God exist - and he speaks to each and everyone of us through experiences and coincidences

My opponent, Lordgrae, states this in the Comments section:"Please post some evidence for god. I stated about three times that your argument is only arguing for the existence of your god under the premise that their has to be a god. You have provided no evidence to disprove the theory of no god."I'll direct him to my opening statement in ROUND 1, where I state:"God exist. The greatest evidence for God is the fact that he communicates to people through experiences and coincidences."Yeah. My position is that this serves as evidence for God. The fact that God uses things in our environment to communicate messages to us serves as evidence that he exist. And of course God doesn't just use personal experiences either, but world events! God uses the great variety of things on this world to communicate that he exist - and to communicate his will. For millenia, humans have been trying to interpret his will, with limited success. I'm of the belief that as time proceeds, humans will become far better at understanding God's plan for intelligent life on this planet.And of course there is circumstantial evidence that can be used to indicate God exist; evidence such as that provided in ROUND 4 (fined-tuning of the universe) shows just how precise our universe has been constructed for the narrow possibility of biological life. Our universe is just right for its existence and development. And now onto the enumerated points my opponent makes in ROUND 4.(1) "You cannot disprove the god hypothesis."Well, actually you can prove that specific Gods do not exist, but you cannot disprove that all Gods in the set of All things that can be God do not exist. This is a logic and soundness argument. To clarify, let me provide a syllogism to demonstrate what I mean. "If God is real, I'll levitate in my computer chair within the next five minutes. I did not levitate in my computer chair in those fives minutes. God is not real."This syllogism is valid, but its soundness can be criticized. I'm using a condition (my levitation in a computer chair) to determine God's existence. This may be an ineffective way of determining God's realness. However, the syllogism is still useful with respect to the God presented in it. "If God is real, I'll levitate in my computer chair within the next five minutes." I failed to levitate. Conclusion: This specific God is not real. The God presented in the syllogism therefore cannot true.The syllogism therefore did provide useful information about the God existence of the God in the syllogism. It isn't real. Now a God may exist and he may even be able to levitate things, but the God in the syllogism was shown to be false. That God did not exist.We use this sort of thinking to discredit the Gods presented in holybooks. It is a valid way of determining the nature and character of a God that might exist. True: it can't be used to prove that all Gods in the set of All things that can be God do not exist. But it is a legimate way of determing what kind of Gods do not or can't exist.A perfect example of this can be found in Matthew 21:21 of the New Testament, where Jesus says [1]:"...Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."Well, tiny faith cannot move a mountain. Conclusion: This specific condition of faith described here in this quote by Jesus cannot be real. The insinuation is that the God attached to this condition of faith cannot be real, either. Thus the God revealed here is not factual. Of course other statements made by Jesus can be regarded as possible to demonstrably true, so the God of Jesus can be considered, at best, an approximation of a factual God he came to know. But the specific, described God explicated by Jesus cannot be true.Should a personal God in fact exist, Jesus only knew this God approximately.(2) "The universe couldn't have been an uncaused cause."My opponent clarifies this statement with this:"The problem with this argument is that there are either a finite or infinite number of causes. If there are an infinite number of causes, then you cannot have a god, because there would be a cause before god, and therefore god would not be a god, simply a large being."Of course there is no conclusive evidence to show that there is a cause for God, no more than there is conclusive evidence to show that there is a cause for the universe. (The Big Bang is a model that explains how the universe evolved in its first moments. It does not provide an explicative cause for the universe.)However, my opponent is relying on a definition of God that requires him to be the first cause of all that exist. This may be an auxillary description of a category of Gods believed by some people, but there are defintions of God that are much more general. Here for example is the second definiton of God as provided by thefreedictionary.com, an online dictionary resource:"A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. [2]"God has a variety of definitions. To the pantheists, in example, God is defined as the totality of the cosmos. Whether God had a cause or not has no bearing on his classification as a God, as God still exerts influence on everything within the universe.This is from New World Encyclopedia's page on pantheism:"Pantheism...refers to the religious and philosophical view that everything in existence is of an all-encompassing immanent God, or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent....In equating the universe with God, classicial pantheism . . . still believ[es in] a personal God. [3]"My opponent makes the error of setting a "first cause" condition to define God. Definitions of God are quite diverse, and so a hypothetically conscious universe, with the capacity to alter itself at will would still satisfy a variety of definitions for God. The subject of theology, after all, is fairly broad on this topic.(3) "Purpose to life."As with the second point, my opponent clarifies this final point: "Why does there have to be a purpose to life, why can't it just be random?"For most life on planet Earth, life is a daily struggle. The only purpose there seems to be to life is to survive and to reproduce. Life is primarily brutish, nasty, and short...and intimidating.Intelligent biological life poses a new challenge for the universe. Because life can take on so many more meanings, it also requires added responsibility. Intelligent life must now be taught personal and social ettiquette (morality and ethics) and laws, so that the living experience isn't reduced into an elaborate form of misery and carnality. Humans with the capacity to alter the Earth must now be taught limits and restrictions. They must also be taught consequences - and so legal justice has a place in this new picture.The randomness my opponent craves will have a place. But life cannot be entirely random. Order will be required. Guidance. Rules and laws. Consequences. Because this debate revolves around the importance of coincidences, I will end my arguments by revealing a devastating, life-altering coincidence that happend to me on February 9, 2009. I live about an hour away from the university I was attending, and on my way home, in a rainstorm, the car I was driving hydroplaned off the freeway into a desert, flipping and cartwheeling when it did so.I was lucky to be alive, but spent a day in the hospital because of lacerations to my head. I was badly bruised; the car was mangled - the windshield, ceiling were crushed in, the trunk tore off, 2 tires ripped off. It was purely weather related. The paramedics informed me other cars went off the road at the exact spot!But I attribute the accident to something greater...a divine judgement.[1] http://biblehub.com...;[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;[3] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...;