The existence of God

Accepted evidenceSo there is basically no changing your mind. You cannot objectively examine the evidence with your presuppositions making any attempt to prove god to you useless because of your presuppositions,I can no more prove to you that God exists than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your call of proof asks for acknowledgement of many types of evidence because your presuppositions don't allow it.What would it take for me to disbelieve? 100% proof that a natural creation happened or proof that we have no free willCosmologicalCon is ignoring the second half of the argument. Con claims that there is zero empirical evidence for God, yet there are many that are not cosmological. Quantum fluctuations are simply that just quantum fluctuations. No evidence that they are powerful enough to create a universe. As I have shown that quantum fluctuations do not come from nothing.God of the gapsNot only did you condense the arguments, you changed what they were arguing. As I have shown you attacked something different.I strongly believe that given proof, scientists would happily include a God into the scientific world-view. Why wouldn't they? They've include every other new discovery... Evolution, atoms, quantum mechanics... Even when doing so creates so many more questions. The reason it is unscientific to give a God explanation is because, from the scientific perspective, there is no evidence. Science works on the basis of empirical evidence, not philosophical assumptions, therefore, there is no proof for a God. That is not my opinion, but that of the scientific community. Con is trying to justify begging the question. Then commits the argumentum ad populum by saying "That is not my opinion, but that of the scientific community" How ever atheists(scientists especially) commit a category error when looking for evidence of GodSince God would be immaterial and transcendent, atheists cannot rightfully require material, non-transcendent evidence for a non-material, transcendent God without committing a category mistake. He must abandon his materialistic worldview - but this is incompatible with his atheist worldview. First of all, the scientific method is a way of learning that consists of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, and theory. It is based on logic and observations of the material universe,its nature, and properties. Second, the scientific method, along with a materialistic worldview, necessarily excludes transcendence - that which exists independent of the universe. Therefore, it can't detect what is outside of the material realm since it is based on observing things inside the material realm.Third, Theistic worldviews claim that God is transcendent and outside of the material universe. So, to ask for material, non-transcendent evidence for an immaterial, transcendent God is the wrong approach is a category mistake Actually it's not only my opinion but that of the scientific community. Science obviously doesn't work on the basis of 'despite the fact that there is no evidence for this, maybe there is evidence we don't know about.' If this was their way of reasoning then there'd be a tooth fairy/Santa Claus explanation lurking around every corner. I'm going to shoot back at you with: Don't rule out Leprechauns! Since you don't know all the evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves Leprechaun's existence.Argumentum ad populum again. And reductio ad absurdum. Leprechauns are written as mythology and we can create a rainbow to see if one is at the end of it. You are suggesting here that baseless assumptions are good starting points, the scientific community clearly disagrees, an unsubstantiated theory stays that way until it is proved, then it is expanded upon. Imagine if we'd said: “How are we breathing? Well the oxygen fairies are a good starting point, then this can be expanded upon... With the evil oxygen fairies which must be suppressed, the nature of the oxygen fairy... etc.” When the creator hypothesis is proven, then it could be used as a starting point.Are you suggesting assuming a watch had a watch-maker is a baseless assumption. You appeal to authority then commit reductio ad absurdum, and false analogy. When we look at a watch its reasonable to claim there's a watch maker, when we inspect oxygen we have no reason to come up with oxygen fairies. As I said last round, which you ignored. The light-bulb was invented by Thomas Edison only 140 years ago, science is still in its absolute infancy. It is unfair to say that just because natural creation has not yet been recreated, that it will not.Straw man. “I said the longer that these gaps are unfulfilled then the more likely a natural creation did not occur and that the gaps are permanent.”Science is in a starting stage is irrelevant.TAGI don't really get what you're saying here. It seems like a big "I agree mostly"Therefore, I submit that Logical Absolutes are Not conceptual by natureWhat is their nature? One of the premises was that they're not dependant on the world since if no one existed they would still applyI don't think you get what I mean when I say they're conceptual by nature. I mean since logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature since Logical Absolutes are truth statements about Logical things. Not that they are contingent on minds. That would make them not absolute.In the next round please explain as to how you account for these laws of logic. Since you do seem to agree that they are not contingent on the material world.