God exists

I never said there is no evidence; I said there is no CONCRETE proof. "My opponent has so far not done the point of the debate, he has attacked my logic and reasoning, but has still ignored the main point of the argument, to give proof that God exists. Undeniable proof that there is indeed a god." The point of the debate was to refute your argument that God cannot exist because there is no evidence. The only argument you have thus far presented is: "there is no evidence, therefore God cannot exist." If the point of the argument was for me to present "undeniable" proof that God exists, I certainly would not have accepted. I can give evidence, but not undeniable proof. I have not seen you present any piece of undeniable evidence (or any evidence for that matter). The point of your opening statement was God cannot exist without evidence – a point which has already been sufficiently refuted (by your very words even). "Well first of all, if you CANNOT prove that God does exist, why should I believe any of the stuff you tell me about said "God" ?" I simply do not know what you're talking about. I have never said anything regarding the character of God. All I have said is it is not plausible to assume that no god exists. Quite frankly, it takes more faith to be an atheist. "I'm sorry, but did I miss something? It looks like you said, because 90% of the population have said they have witnessed God, he exists..." Actually yes, you did miss something. The point is that witness testimony is rendered as evidence, and so far I have furnished 90% of the world's population as witness testimony. So that counts as evidence in my favor, despite the holdups you may have. "I believe that if there is a murder case, and the defendant is charged for the murder of two, the dead bodies are proof that he is the murderer (if the weapon used, DNA testing, fingerprinting, etc.) are found to match the defendant." Once again, the two dead bodies are evidence only of two dead bodies. You are now assuming a weapon, placing fingerprints, and dabbing for DNA – evidence that is not gathered directly from the bodies. You are creating a scenario and describing a process, but two dead bodies alone, is evidence only of two dead bodies. "90% of the population lacks critical thinking skills. (with re guard towards religion)." This is a completely unsubstantiated point and assumes that all people who believe in a god(s) are unintelligent. This sort of argumentation is mere ad hominem unless critical evidence for such an erroneous claim is provided. "the probability of a life sustaining universe spontaneously arising out of unguided primordial matter is very slim. It is very slim, therefore, it NOT impossible. This is the beauty that I see in the universe, that we are here on very slim chances, and honestly it makes the world a lot more beautiful for me." Again, if you believe it is possible for a tornado to rip through a junkyard and assemble an airplane ready for takeoff, then you're quite the high roller. In all logical rationale, it would be what most would consider impossible – then again, nothing is impossible with God. But it still stands as Item B in the evidence closet for the existence of God. Probability is simply not on your side. "First of all, you violate your own premise by saying that "the creator" is uncaused." I absolutely do not violate my own premise by saying God is uncaused. I'm saying that it is absolutely fundamental that something be uncaused in order that we do not have infinite regression. Time cannot progress forward unless it started. Dominoes cannot be falling if they never began falling. If you follow the dominoes back in time and it goes back infinitely, they never started. The Big Bang Theory states that Time, Space, and matter came from an initial singularity. Either something came from nothing, or something created that initial singularity; something eternal and uncaused. I say that this is Item C in the evidence closet for God. The absolute intricacy of our DNA, as Francis Collins states, is evidence for an intelligent designer. I'll put that as expert testimony for the existence of God. Michael J. Behe, a microbiologist, states that it is impossible for some of the complex organisms that exist today to have naturalistically evolved. He argues that some things are irreducibly complex. I'll put this as expert testimony. You have not proven your point that God cannot exist because there is no evidence. We both have shown that it is possible for things to exist even without evidence. And I have shown that there is indeed evidence for the existence of God. You have not offered any evidence that God does not exist. And you have been adequately refuted in all areas. I hope the judges will use there better judgment to determine that PRO has won with ammo left.