God Exists

Con argues that I have not proved the God of the Christian Bible. Let me clarify that in the resolution I never said anything about the God of the Christian Bible; that would be another debate. All I have to show is that a supernatural entity (God) does exist. Weather this entity is a trinity (as in the Bible) or one person (as in Islam) is not important to this debate. What his name is (Jesus, Zeus, Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Ra, etc) is not important to this debate. If proving God's existence was synonymous with proving Christianity, then all theists would be Christians, but certainly one can believe in God and not in an inspired book. In fact, humans have believed in God before there ever was a Bible. So this is just a red herring. Con complains that he doesn't understand my argument, as if his not understanding it somehow refutes it! He claims that none of the conclusions follow from the premises, but does not give one example to show how this is the case. "His conclusion the supernatural entity is God, for instance, does not follow in any way from the premises provided." Premise 1, the physical universe is all of nature Premise 2, the physical universe had a beginning Premise 3, life comes from life Premise 4, life does not come from non-living entities by itself Premise 3+4 = Premise 5, since life only comes from life, there was never a time when there was no life Conclusion, the universe didn't always exist, but life did, so there was life existing before the universe. The universe is all of nature, thus, this life was outside nature, which is by definition supernatural (that which is not conformed to natural law). Con must tell us which premises he disagrees with, or why the conclusions don't follow the premises, otherwise, his mere assertion that they don't are just empty. He mentions biogenesis and abiogenesis but provides no argument on these terms. I'm not going to argue with a link. If Con believes in that life came from non-living substances he's going to have to provide the argument for it. We don't see that happening today, do we? We don't have any repeatable laboratory experiments confirming it, do we? The generation of life from a non-living source would be just as miraculous as a resurrection from the dead. "This argument for objective morality is completely wrong, but again I don't need to go into depth on the specific reasons because his conclusion is still an assumption." Con claims my argument is wrong but doesn't give the reasons why its wrong. Is it because he can't find anything wrong with the argument? This is assertion. Show us what's wrong with the argument, Con! "This supreme law giver does no need to be God, especially the God of the Christian Bible. It could as easily be a deistic entity that cares nothing for human endeavors. There is no proof!" The problem is that no natural explanation accounts for objective morality, only supernatural ones do. Is Con saying that there are no objective moral values? That the holocause was not truely wrong? "The following argument referring to evolution and morality again makes no attempt to prove God. It only supposes that we have no reason to formulate any sort of ethical or moral code. I could think of reasons for us to construct moral codes: societal stability being one." When you see a house, that house points to a designer. Norational person would conclude that a house got built all by itself. Science deals with inference to the best explantion. There are many things science can't get at like pulsars, black holes, dark matter, and so on, but their effects are studies and as a result, scientist conclude that these things do exist. Now our moral values must have come from somewhere, and what's the best explantion? "Again, the next argument only supposes that we can make sense of morality by the grace of God. This is no proof! This is also a "God of the gaps" argument; that is, we need God in order to understand a specific phenomenon: morality. Well, what happens to your god when we find a way to explain morality? One possible way to explain morality is demonstrated in this video ()." The link to the video isn't working. I can't find a link between those brackets. Also, Con doesn't seem to grasp the meaning of his own argument. If God doesn't exist, there can be no objective morality. So Con, do you believe that murder is truely, objectively wrong? Yes, or no? If you, you have just abandoned all natural explanations in favor of a supernatural one. "This next argument for intelligent design makes the same fatal mistake Pro has been making thus far: it assumes this intelligent designer is God." Who is it? I wonder if Con is willing to admit that information comes from a mind? Why is he avoiding this? Because he can't tell us whose mind its coming from. If not God's, whose? Aliens? Well, wear did the information in thhere heads come from? Life only comes from life, so we'll end back up with the ultimate life soon enough. "Moreover, comparing human language to DNA is unfounded. The two things are completely different." Yes they are very different, DNA is far more complexed. "Of course, I would conclude that specific words found on a beach were written by a human because humans write words. We do not know if entities create DNA and therefore cannot make the conclusion they do." If a spaceship were to crash in your yard but you found no bodies inside, what would you think? By your logic it can't be aliens because you don't know aliens exist, you've never seen one. So to whom does this space ship belong? It's design and strange symbols, as well as advanced technology, points to an intelligence beyond itself. You don't need to know that aliens exist in order to credit them with building an alien ship; the ship itself is the proof, just like the information in our genes and DNA is the proof of God, a higher intellected. "Sorry, you are misguided if you think you can understand God. You need only faith!" I never said I understood God, I argued that he exists.