God exists

Deism VS InterventionalismIf deism is true, God can't reveal himself, nor judge man by placing them in heaven or hell as my opponent propagates. Second, under the hypothesis of deism, God is unfalsifiable. If he doesn't show himself, how could we know if he is there or not? At that point God is unfalsifiable, undetectable, and unknowable, and what is the difference between that and a God that didn't exist at all.Fine TuningI am not a cosmologist, by extension I am not qualified to debate this scientifically. If my opponent is, thats great, but I be willing to bet against it. So I will attempt to argue on philosophical grounds, and please forgive me if I make any scientific mistakes.First off, one must ask the likelihood of God existing. If the universe's existence is incredibly unlikely, this tells us nothing about the probability of a designer.Second off, there is the possibility of the multiverse. Not to say for certain it exists, but it is a potential solution.Third, if I may counter with a separate quote from Hawking, "The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty"IntrospectiveWhy is mind not reducible to matter? Upon brain death, where lobes cease to function, it is impossible to feel anything since your neural processes have ceased to work. Similar things happen as an effect of trauma or brain injury. Is the mind not contingent to matter, due to every physical effect on the brain impacting your mind itself?I do find your quote from Squire's humorous. I could say the same about anything. "Most of the scientific community will reject these ideas about healing stones.. their reasons are based on prejudice rather than sound argument." If a scientist could prove the existence of souls, neuroscience would be turned upside down and he would win a bazillion nobel prizes.Modal OntologicThe ontological argument has been rejected many times, including Aquinas and Kant, and now me. The primary problem with this argument is that you define God into existence, by making existence part of his properties. If an object nessarily exists, it must in fact exist, but defining it so it fits said properties does not make it so. Second, how do you know this being is even possible? Some have even argued that the very existence of a being is self-contradictory. Divine HiddenessYou do realize that by saying that God reveals himself to whoever earnestly seeks him, makes your position unfalsifiable. If someone sees God, hallelujah, praise the Lord. If they don't, they must not have earnestly sought him, or had sin in their heart, etc. You set up a win win scenario for yourself. And for many people throughout history, it is hard to seek God without even an idea of his existence, as with the Native Americans. Multitudes of people have converted to Scientology and such, yet this doesn't make it true.I disagree with your statement of atheist's close-mindedness. Almost all atheists were formerly members of another religion, and they changed their mind about God. Ask any atheist if they used to belong to a religion, most of them would say yes. Their very existence for the most part, was based on their ability to change their minds in one of the most fundamental beliefs one can have. This is not to say there are no close minded atheists, but most of whom are who they are today, because they could change their mind. An author of the study my opponent cited said himself that "the relationship between religion and closed-mindedness depended on the specific aspect of closed-mindedness." He also has said that they "do not know whether the findings are typical only for the Western European (secularized) context in which the study was conducted, or it reflects more global tendencies… With that in mind, and the fact that the effect sizes found in our study were quite small, a replication would be due to confirm the stability of the findings."Poor DesignWhen did I ever say that Earth was mostly uninhabitable? People can live all throughout the world and even in outer space through the advent of science. The universe is a different story. My argument was not against God's existence, though it can be used for that, rather against omnimaximal status of his being. Imagine if an architect designed a zoo almost completely uninhabitable, and 99.9% of animals died. My opponent presented the Fine Tuning Argument, propagating that God is the divine watchmaker. However, if this argument is valid, you must accept the implications of it. If God is responsible for the design of the universe, you must give him credit for not only the good, but the bad as well.You do realize that free will itself is debated in philosophy vigorously, and even some Christians disagree with this motion. Some variants of the Calvinist, and to lesser extent Lutheran ideas of predestination disbelieve in free will. One's eternal destination is determined before birth, and your potential damnation is up to the whim of God. Second off, many people already worship God, without absolute proof, due to a fear of hell. Was this not what Pascal's Wager was based upon? Third, how is it a violation of free will to reveal yourself. If Trump said something about nuking N. Korea, you have no choice but to believe he said that, or at least someone said he said that. Every time you turn on the news and learn something new, this would supposedly be a violation of free will. God could very well reveal himself to everyone, yet this would not necessitate that everyone worships him. As mentioned before, Satan had absolute knowledge of God, yet still rejected him. And if God revealing himself messes with free will, how exactly do miracles occur such as turning water into wine or making it rain loaves and fishes?God doesn't need to fine tune anything. If he is omnipotent as you suggest, the critical mass of the early universe doesn't matter. He's God, he could just abracadabra and create life if he so wished. Only under naturalism would you expect life to be incredibly rare if humanity is part of God's perfect planIf you wish to applaud my creativity, may I present my next (parody) argument?P1 Unicorns exist and are NazisP2 Nazism leads to grammar intoleranceP3 Grammer Nazis are ride VolswagonsP4 Volkswagons are bad, thereforeC1 God doesn't existProblem of EvilI've already partially covered this in poor design, so forgive me if I repeat myself. Again, to use the free will theodicy, it must be proved that free will exists. It hasn't. My opponent's analogy presumes that life is a test, yet this has not been given justification. Second, right and wrong are categories of actions. You could pick from multiple immoral options, such as rape, murder, and torture; while at the same time pick from multiple moral options, such as charity, honesty, and kindness. Even if only immoral options were available, we could still have free will, due to us being able to pick many various options. My opponent offers no justification for the afterlife, merely asserting that God will judge everyone accordingly.http://www.psypost.org...