Does God Exist? Theism and Biblical Faith vs. Atheism and Agnosticism

What is reality? My opponent has provided an alternative definition for reality. First he defines reality as what "actually exists". This, however, is problematic because most dictionaries will define "exist" as "Have objective reality," which is a circular definition and not particulary helpful. Second he defines it as the state of things experienced or seen, which isn't particulary fair to his case since God is niether. Lots of things we experience aren't a part of reality either - dreams would be a good example. So none of these is a good definition. That's why I would defer to my more philosophical definition. Origin of the UniverseWhat my opponent has shown is that the origin of the universe COULD be an intelligent creator. I'm going to accept this. What my opponent needs to show is that the origin of the universe, at the very least, is PROBABLY an intelligent creator, let alone a perfect one. He has not even come close to this. The whole origin of the universe argument is not a good argument because we simply know so little about it. We can't even predict the weather one week ahead with much accuracy, and here we're dealing with what happened at the very instant of the creation of our universe, ~13 billion years ago. The reason why a singularity remains so controversial is that we have no data - either experimental or observational - about how a universe comes about. All we have is the guesses of good scientists. Good scientists can be mistaken. My respect for Steven Hawking is that when he realised that he was wrong about the universe beginning with a singularity, he admitted it. He even published it in his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time. " He even puts it right near the start (page 50) to make it immensely obvious. So it's quite wrong of my opponent to presuppose that time and space began with a singularity, just because Dr Hawking said so. The fact is that even Dr Hawking does not support that assumption. The assumptions continue throughout my opponent's case. He assumes, for example, that the universe was created from nothing. In fact there are lots of respected scientists who believe we are the result of an earlier, collapsed universe. If so, then we were created from the gravity that existed in that universe, and thus, a physical law. Indeed, assuming anything about a metaphysical world is nothing more than guessing. Is it possible gravity does not require time and space to operate? Yes (although it wouldn't have anything to operate on). He assumes something cannot be prior to itself in a metaphysical sense, but gives no evidence as to why other than philosophical premises based on observations of our world. Similary, the idea that nothing cannot create something depends on a worldview informed by observations about our world. I will conceed that there should be no beginning to the multiverse cycle, as its called (though "eternity" implies the presence of time beyond the universe which contradicts my opponent's narrative). I will conceed that the universe probably began. But that doesn't mean God was the cause. It could literally be anything. Science can't explain God away, but it also doesn't provide any evidence for him. God is no more likely than any alternative hypothesis for the creation of the universe because science literally doesn't know. For all science knows the whole universe is in fact contained in an electron of another universe (yes, some scientists give that very serious consideration). In fact, due to the logical problem I will outline, God is an impossible alternative that scientists can discount. Objective MoralityMy opponent spends little time on this argument, and so will I. My opponent does not cite his study, but even from the description it is biased, because it presupposes there is such a thing as "good" and "bad" behavior (objective morality), which is called confirmation bias in science. My opponent likes Rene Descartes, and he spent a lot of time thinking about this. He concluded that the only way to know truth was to exclude the alternative, which is impossible with a moral truth. Thou shalt not kill? Well first prove that thou shalt kill is "wrong". When one considers all the war, abortion, murder, capital punishment etc that happen in the world, its impossible to do this objectively. Even if nobody killed, is that evidence that not killing is right? Of course not. A moral truth cannot be proven. I will agree that most people follow more or less the same morality. However, the presence of exceptions (even among those babies, according to your testimony) proves morality is not objective. Religion makes us out to be all the same, and time and time again in history, has used the lie of objective morality to paint followers of other religions as inhuman. Objective morality is not evidence for God - it's the modern remnants of medieval warmongering. Back to RealityMy opponent has twice relied on a Godly attribute - in this case, being eternal and being omnibenevolent - to prove God. That does not show that God is a part of reality - God must exist independantly of those ideas. You cannot presuppose that God is eternal, for instance, as that would presuppose the existance of God, which I deny. Same for omnibenevolent. Presupposing what you're trying to prove is a form of logical fallacy. Omnipotence ParadoxThe idea of God as perfect implies that there is no limit to what God can do. In other words, God can microwave a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it. However, this would put a limit on what God can do. Some Christian thinkers resolve this by restricting God to doing things logically possible, but this would imply God cannot do logically impossible things and thus has a limit to his power - logic. Others state that God can do things logically impossible and thus eat the uneatable burrito, but then he has failed to microwave a burrito he CANNOT eat. Therefore there is a logical problem with being absolutely perfect. ConclusionThe origin of the universe remains uncertain, and so any presumption surrounding its nature is pure speculation. God is no more likely a speculation than any other alternative hypothesis. Objective morality doesn't exist. My opponent has presupposed the existance of God in both of his arguments. The God hypothesis is impossible because of the omnipotence paradox. I'm excited to hear my opponent's response.