God exists

Correct me if I am wrong, Tholos, you were the one who requested the debate and decidedly chose to make the claim that God does not exist. If you truly desired no burden of proof, you would have properly taken the route of agnosticism. You however, chose to make the unequivocal judgment that God does NOT exist – a claim which, since you do not posses absolute knowledge of the universe, must be adequately substantiated. "Secondly, just because you cannot prove that something doesn't exist, it does not mean that it exists. Think about it, just because there is no proven cure for the common cold, does not mean that it is not out there somewhere. " Please notice the grave mistake my opponent has made. In hopes of refuting my point, he has actually made my point all the clearer. He asserts that if something cannot be proven to NOT exist, it does not mean that it exists. However, in hopes of qualifying his aforementioned sentence, he only hurt his own argument. He states that even though we have no proven cure for the common cold, it would be a grave mistake to assume that there is none out there somewhere. Well, Tholos, that is so beautifully true – and explain to me why the same is different with God? We cannot prove that He does not exist, and we have no concrete proof for his existence… would it too be a grave mistake to assume that God did not exist out there somewhere? You fall by the testimony of your own logic. Take note that Tholos did not adequately refute my point of personal testimony. He tried to nonchalantly cast it aside by saying that I cannot prove that what they experienced was real. Ironically that was precisely my point. By illustrating that Tholos cannot prove to anyone at any moment the content of what he is thinking, but must rather hope that people simply believe his testimony, I hoped to illustrate the enormous amount of weight people put on personal testimony on a daily basis. I cannot prove to anybody that I love them; they must take my word for it. Almost every part of our daily communication relies on the honesty of personal testimony. But if Tholos believes that a courtroom of 90% of the world's population can so easily be cast aside then let us move forward. Tholos believes that somehow two dead bodies is evidence of murder – unfortunately the only evidence that can be concretely proven by two dead bodies is two dead bodies. Apparently Tholos can make the leap that two dead bodies = murder, but it is wrong for 90% of the population to say that a fine-tuned-and-intricately-complex-universe = creator. Tholos also tried to show that 2,000 years ago the concept of the atom was proven. Mistakenly, I am sure, he said that the concept was proven. Unfortunately it was not proven, but rather just the concept was derived (by mere speculation and not a sliver of science) in order to refute such things as Zeno's paradox. Atoms did not gather evidence for existence until 1661 AD. It should by duly noted that other mere concepts such as Flat Earth and Spontaneous generation have once been held – so mere hypotheses cannot be rightly used as proof or evidence. So what evidence other than overwhelming personal testimony gives credence to the existence of a god? First, let us start with what is formally known as the Anthropic Principle. The Anthropic Principle essentially states that the probability of a life sustaining universe spontaneously arising out of unguided primordial matter is so slim as to be logically classified as impossible. Our universe is fine tuned in away that if the gravitational pull was any different, our universe would either drift into abyss or implode in on itself. If the balance of our chemicals (nchop) was any different, our earth could not sustain life. The universe and its constants have an apparent fine-tuning for life that simply cannot be explained by chance. Unless of course Tholos wishes to reckon that it is quite plausible for a tornado to rip through a junkyard and spontaneously fling together an entire airplane ready for takeoff – that is the sort of probability that we are dealing with. In order to keep it shorter I will highlight only a few more things. Something needs to be eternal and uncaused in order that we do not have the impossibility of infinite regression. The Big Bang Theory essentially states that at one moment time, space, and matter were brought into existence – something came from nothing. This defies the 1st law of thermodynamics that states that "matter is neither created nor destroyed. " If our universe is not eternal - as the 2nd law of thermodynamics seems to imply (and the Big Bang Theory states) - then there needs to be something that is. This is an evidence for a creator that is both eternal and uncaused. There are far too many things I could use as evidence for a creator; I simply have too little room. But it should be noted that if an intelligent designer existed, it would eliminate the contradictions in modern theories. That is to say, there would be no contradictions with the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, and there would be no contradictions with the 1st law of biology (that nonliving organisms cannot produce living organisms, which would have had to been the case if we believe in a completely naturalistic origin of the universe). And lastly, if my opponent believes that there are only two reasons for believing God, he should talk to Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, who states that our DNA is the very language of God. Or C. S. Lewis who states that he was dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom of heaven by reason alone. As is abundantly clear, my opponent has not refuted my points or even presented a case of his own.