The existence of God

Pro states that my presuppositions stop me from examining the evidence, but it is the distinct lack of evidence that has formed my presuppositions. Again stating opinion that there is a lack of evidence.You are correct in saying that I cannot prove that the universe is all that exists, I never said I held that position because there is no evidence.I was giving an example of something. Not saying you believed it If there is evidence for a creator which I should examine then kindly present it in the final round.You will examine it through your presuppositions, as you stated the only thing that will make you convert is something unlikely to happen, then you said you would think it was a hallucination. You wont be able to objectively examine it.Cosmological"Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility." This is a quote from Professor Heinz Pagel, acknowledging the fact that the laws of physics would allow for such a possibility.I showed you how VPs don't come from nothing. Secular scientists would love to appeal to an origin without God. Like I said Quantum particles are small and they don't produce universes. In fact they destroy each other so saying the universe started this way is unsupported.Pro states that this could not happen because quantum fluctuations occur in a vacuum. Well, I've already solved this by postulating an eternal, timeless vacuum before it, from which the universe-creating quantum fluctuation could occur. A vacuum has energy in it [1]. As I said in the opening arguments the energy would of been used up. Remember that this is just another what if, just like the creator hypothesis. And just like the creator hypothesis it ticks all the right boxes for it to fit as an explanation, except of course, my version is more likely because we actually know that quantum fluctuation's happen, we do not know of a God in the same observable way. Suddenly my alternative is not only just as possible, but more likely. The creator hypothesis gets its strength from being able to provide the only possible uncaused cause, which is exactly what my explanation does. This makes the creator hypothesis redundant... As I explained before quantum fluctuations Do NOT come from nothing. We can we infer that what this cause must be.• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).• He must be powerful (He would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it)• He must be eternal (self-existent).• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).• He must be timeless (He created time).• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything. Your quantum fluctuations don't fit the criteria.God of the GapsHe then states that, in order to find God, scientists must abandon the materialistic worldview. This is a pretty moronic thing to suggest science to do, because science is purely materialist. I wonder if you could explain how science should/could look for God if it did abandon the materialist worldview, where do they start? What should they do? Since science deals with the material world how are they going to find evidence of a transcendent,immaterial God? Its a category error. This logic is circular, You wont believe until there is material evidence of a transcendent immaterial God yet material evidence is the wrong evidence to look for so you disbelieve in GodWe would expect the following evidence from a transcendent God Self-revelation - A Transcendent God could only be known through a decision on his part to reveal himself to us, since he exists outside of our material world. Also, his self-revelation would not be subject to the demands of his creation to "show himself" since it would be self-revelation, not external coercion. Authoritative - Such self-revelation would necessarily be authoritative in that what the Transcendent God would reveal about himself would be true, right, good, absolute, etc., and would be based on his transcendent nature. Furthermore, his self-revelation would not be self-contradictory, nor would it be the subject of human approval for its validity since this would be subjecting the transcendent to the non-transcendent which is a category mistake. Miraculous - Any self-revelation of the Theistic, Transcendent God would be miraculous by definition and could not be explained by merely materialistic based hypothesis. If I postulated a flying spaghetti monster and you asked for evidence, I could simply support it by saying “despite the fact that there is no evidence, maybe there is evidence we don't know about.It goes nowhere.We know the origin of the FSM and know its a joke. I'm not claiming that since you cannot know all evidence that IS evidence. You're basically stating here "absence of evidence or convincing argument for the positive" is what justifies atheism. Its clear you cannot look at theistic arguments without atheistic presuppositions. You cannot compare anything to God since He is unique, you cannot say he is like a leprechaun or a flying spaghetti monster.You call my oxygen fairies explanation a reduction to absurdity. But that is only your opinion, I hold the opinion that it is no more absurd than God. Oxygen fairies is reduction to absurdity. Again God is not comparable to anything, we know fairies are myths and you know they are myths. You state that when you look at a watch it is reasonable to assume a watch maker. This is true because we know watches are made by human beings. It is an extremely misleading analogy to apply to the natural world.So if you didn't see the watch made you wouldn't know it had a watch maker? Have you actually seen a watch being made or are you just believing watches have a watch maker by what other people tell you? For example, you could comfortably apply that argument with life on earth and how well it fits with its surroundings, it may almost seem reasonable to assume a creator. However, we both know that evolution is the true answer.It would seem reasonable to apply evolutionary effects to God, but just because of this doesn't mean we cannot to the universe. To say so would be the fallacy of division It would be faulty reasoning to apply the watch maker analogy to the universe for the same reason, we don'tknow it was designed and to assume it would be premature. Applying the watch maker analogy to nature is a false analogy. I guess you're guilty of it this round. The universe can produce patterns with what's already in existence. So no its not a false analogyTAGPoint 1 is addressed in above argumentsPoint 2 doesn't account for laws of logic. It just claims they exist because we describe them. See what I'm getting at? I can describe the law of identity. But it exists if I describe it or not Point 3 kinda says the same thing that I addressed above. Just because human minds are capable of conceiving of logical absolutes is not proof that they are not dependent on a supreme transcendent mind. It only means that we can conceive of them.I've demonstrated in previous rounds how logical absolutes aren't dependant on the natural world.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...