God Exists

"Before I start, it should be stated that this resolution, or the title of the debate, is too narrow." Con waits till the second last round to complain that the resolution is too narrow; why did he not tell me in the comments section to widen the resolution a bit so he have the sort of debate he wanted? Could it be he's having some difficulty refuting my argument and is now wining because he isn't getting his way? "I believe God exists," Vote Pro! "but I do not believe he can be rationalized, known through reason." Con says on his profile page that he is a Christian. I don't know if he's the kind of Christian that doesn't believe the Bible. But the Bible says "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Rom 1:19-20) It is only God's existence we need to know in this debate, and Romans 1:19-20 is saying that the creation itself shows enough proof of God so that we are without excuse. Psalm 19:1 says "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork." God's signature is all over his work. If Con is a Christian who beleives the Bible, he couldn't make the argument he is making. I'm left to believe he was not serious when he wrote his profile. He even says that his argument is not against the existence of God, hence, he's not even arguing against the resolution "God exists." Vote Pro. "My opponent must recapitulate his argument. It has completely failed." Because you say so? I'll let the voters decide that, thank you. "Moreover, it must be narrowed because it is too broad for anyone to adequately address." It's too braod for "you" to address, I know plenty of atheists who can competantly bring a more reasonable argument than you have against the resolution. I won't agree with them, but at least they would make more sense than you have so far. Con has admitted he cannot competantly address the issue; vote Pro! "He has now resorted to attempting to poke holes into various scientific theories without proving his case." Con brought them up, so I showed them to be very unrealistic. He hasn't shown God's existence to be unrealistic. I showed his theories to be improbable. Had I left them alone he'd be boasting that I couldn't respond to his evidence. "Even if Pro proved that life was produced beyond nature, that would not necessitate the supernatural entity to be God." And what other supernatural entity do you know of that existed before the entire universe? Con's problem is that he wanted to tie me down to the Christian concept of God, but all major religions recognize God as a supernatural entity. "I would say that only faith can lead someone to conclude God exists!" And what is faith? If Con believes in faith apart from evidence, then Con's beief in God is mere credulity. He's gullable, believing in something without any proof. If Con is comfortable thinking od himself in that way, fine, but I'm not, and I doubt most Christians are. Con seems to be saying that he believes in something he has no good rational reason to believe. So why does he beieve it? Why not give up God, and become an atheist?