It is likely that God exists

'We are both fighting a losing and winning battle because OBVIOUSLY it it about belief and no other way of disproving belief is with evidence. This then means that because we both believe our evidence is stringer that the other there will be no definitive proof of the existence of god.' That's not how debates work. I posted a valid argument. It will remain valid until you manage to prove that it is an invalid argument. The same applies to myself - if you post a valid argument then it will remain so until I prove it otherwise. Obviously we can never prove it 100% either way, but this debate is about likelihood. In other words, my argument asserts that it is likely that God exists. It is up to you to disprove the argument. 'What frustrates me is no matter what has been proven by science, there is always a way to say that god was a contribution towards it. Which does not make the likelyhood of god any higher than not being a god.' I don't know why you would be frustrated, unless you WANT God to be disproved. I agree with you though, about how it does not change the likelihood of God's existence. What it actually shows is that scientific discoveries do not reduce the likelihood of God. For example, explaining why God is compatible with the theory of evolution refutes the argument that evolution disproves God. 'how do you or any other religious person know truly what was intended to be the literal truth and what is just metaphorical poetry.' This is where common sense comes in. If something seems to contradict our basic knowledge (such as the world being created in 7 days) then we should attempt to take its meaning metaphorically. However, if something is non-contradictory then it is safe to take it literally. Of course not all theists will share the same interpretations, but that does not really matter at the end of the day because the core-beliefs about God remain the same. 'why are their so many objections amongst the religious group? Surely they should all believe in the same thing or am I missing something?' The objections are largely about details within religion, such as transubstantiation, moral law and the trinity. The fundamental belief in God is the same. My personal view is the omnist view (1); which is to say that all religions are talking about the same God but simply have different perspectives and interpretations. This is understandable, considering our minds our limited and so are bound to struggle when comprehending the infinite (God). 'If you believe there to be a god, what about the gods before the god?' 'What do you think of other gods? And the near perfect scenarios within them?' I do not believe that those gods exist, simply because my argument for the existence of God does not prove the existence of a pantheon of gods, it only proves the existence of a single, omnipotent God. 'This can say two things, either it is coincidence and all gods are too exist, or that the likelyhood of being a god is just based on patterned story telling through the ages.' This is because the fundamental idea of a god has remained the roughly the same throughout history. Assuming that our idea of God is reasonably accurate, it is only to be expected that the actual God (Jesus) is similar to other ideas of God (such as Horus or Krishna). 'Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence' A logical argument is evidence. And I have provided an extraordinary logical argument which therefore provides extraordinary evidence that God exists (the extraordinary claim). 'Where is your list of evidence that points towards a god other than logical arguments that don't prove anything.' I'm sorry? The very concept of proof relies upon logical arguments. To say that logical arguments don't prove anything is nonsensical. 'A brief summary for this debate, "what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating"' I simply disagree. Pure reason is enough to prove something without the need for experiment. I would add that most of quantum mechanics has not been proved by experiment (nor can it be), but that does not mean that it is not worth debating quantum mechanics. Theoretical physicists use pure reason and mathematics, which is just as adequate a form of elucidation as experimental investigation is. 'God is the consequence of not knowing the answer, hence making a falsified belief that fills the gaps to be at some ease.' Not necessarily. You have the incorrect view that belief in God is only a way to 'fill the gaps' in scientific knowledge. I believe in God because His existence is proved independently (using my logical arguments). 'I mean by getting rid or anything you know to be able to see with full open mindedness of any situation. Make your OWN assumption and not to be suggested by either the bible, or Atheists.' That's fine, I take an open-mind in debates. 'Why?..' It's your job to present the arguments against the existence of God, then I will show you why they are not valid. You can't expect me to go through every single atheistic argument and say why I do not believe them to be valid. 'It may well and be irrelevant in your case, but we are on speaking of religion as a whole, which makes it relevant.' Even if some religious people read less into science than atheists read into religion, it would not make it any less likely that God exists. There are many scientifically minded people, like myself, you believe in God (2). Therefore it cannot be claimed that belief in God can only be held from a position of scientific ignorance. 'He does not use any magical powers to help. Is this because he wants cause and effect? Giving money doesn't help the ACTUAL victim, only a prevention.' God isn't a magician in the sky who would wave his wand to make everything better. God, as an omnibenevolent being, would want people to develop. We can only develop if given responsibility for our own world and our own community. If God always stepped in and helped people then we would not get the chance to develop as responsible and loving beings. 'But this is also a contradiction to what all powerful can do, logically anything.' Yes, but the stone is not part of 'logically anything', because the stone is not logically possible. Therefore omnipotence would not entail that the stone could be created. 'would deter saying that religion can only use logic based argument which can be used with anything (Ontological Argument)' Logic based arguments form the basis of all our knowledge. To deny the validity of logic is to sabotage our entire knowledge-base. Even experimental evidence requires logical arguments to process it into a valid conclusion. (3) Furthermore, the ontological argument can only be used with a being that has 'an intrinsic maximum'. I would go on to explain it but for the fact that the ontological argument (at least in its original form) has not been part of this debate so far, and it would be pointless to include it now considering that my main argument has remained unrefuted. (1) http://www.psychicsuniverse.com... (2) http://www.godandscience.org... (3http://en.wikipedia.org...