"God exists" is true

Thank you, Con, for your rebuttals.A Priori ArgumentsMind Over MatterCon argued that I didn't supply and argument to support that information requires a sender. I feel that I did so, and will re-iterate it and attempt to explain further. In this argument, I am attempting to show that it is not matter that is fundamental to the universe, rather, it is information that is fundamental.I showed that information requires both a sender and a receiver by way of using the analogy of language. The sender necessarily must be a conscious agent, and the receiver can either be another conscious agent or something material. So, language constitutes the exchange of information between two agents. A computer program constitutes the exchange of information between the programmer and the computer. My opponent might disagree that information requires a sender, and may provide DNA as an example. He may argue that DNA arose without intention, and show that information doesn't need a sender. Or, he could argue that DNA didn't arise with intention, and therefore isn't classified as information. Recognizing that I set up my argument as a deductive argument, and that failed, I should re-establish my argument as an inductive argument:Given that, besides what we see in nature (as nature itself is what we're evaluating whether nature's information had a sender or not), we notice that exchanges of information require a sender an a receiver. So, given that we do see information in nature, it is reasonable to assume that it is likely that a sender, namely God, ordered matter in such a way as to create this universe. So, in order for my opponent to refute the inductive argument, he has to show why the analogy between the information in nature and the information systems humans use is different enough to not require a sender.The Prime MoverMy opponent stated that he is not convinced that there exists a first cause of everything. Given that I am a theist, I evaluate that the alternative to a first cause is irrational. So, would like to ask my opponent how they perceive existence originated (whether that be our universe, or the multiverse, or what have you).My argument was simplistic, and I did not mean to say that cat cells could be used to make other animal cells, rather, cells themselves can be used to make up organisms. I am happy that my opponent did concede that “simpler patterns of building blocks have less attributes and therefore less boundaries.”He did disagree that the most simplistic pattern is free from all boundaries, which is the point of contention. This idea is tricky to fully explain in a limited amount of space. I would like to reference the complete argument here (1). This reference is only if my opponent is interested in the logic of this argument; I do not find it fair to link to a long and thorough argument without arguing for it here. So, if my opponent, or anyone else is interested in it, please check it out, but I don't count this as part of the debate.Okay, with that out of the way, let me try to explain this argument as simply as possible:No, a cat cell cannot be used as a dog cell. But cells in general are a simpler form of matter than are used to create more complex forms of life. Atoms are even simpler, and are used to create even more things, namely, all of the elements of the universe. Quarks are even simpler, and so forth.Eventually, going down this chain of more simpler forms that uphold more complex forms of reality, there must be one simplest form that upholds everything in the universe. This simplest thing must also be unconditioned, as it upholds all other things that are conditioned or contingent patterns of reality. My opponent lastly states that “the idea that such a prime mover can only be an eternal mind does not necessarily follow from these statements.” I agree with this. This is why this argument follows the argument of information, which requires a sender. My next argument for intentional also requires that the first intentional action requires a mind. So, I was premature when concluding this argument with there being a mind- I should have left the Prime Mover argument after the information and intentionality arguments as a better form. But to concede my opponents' claim- yes, if my information and intentionality arguments fail, then the Prime Mover argument can at best only support a weak form of Deism or perhaps even Pantheism.IntentionalityI apologize to my opponent- I'm not following the arguments you're making.You seem to make an unfounded assumption that humans do have intentions, without proving that they actually do.The point that I am making is that we have two look at two completely different paradigms:Paradigm 1- The universe was created by an intentional act. Given this, intentionality is a part of the universe.Paradigm 2- The universe came into existence without intention. All subsequent events are contingent on this unintentional action, meaning that no contingent action can have intentionality. The human race necessarily doesn't have intentions, rather, humans are biological organisms that act on impulses derived from previous unintentional conditions, the environment and genetics. Any form of human intention is necessarily an illusion. One might believe they intended to grab the cup, but in actuality, the correct description of events is that one accidental collocation of atoms interacted with another accidental collocation of atoms.This argument does not prove that there was indeed an intentional act of creation. Rather, it shows that if one denies paradigm 1, they must concede that intentions and more specifically the arguments in this debate are all arbitrary and meaningless. Paradigm 2 might be the correct description of reality, but these assumptions are beliefs that people never act on. My opponent cannot actively live out the reality of the logic of his beliefs- he must necessarily assume that he has true intentions in his actions, and as proved, intentions require an original prime mover that purposefully created the universe. A posteriori ArgumentsThe Historicity of ChristI agree with my opponent that there is much disagreement amongst scholars on the details on the life and death of christ.Also, I want to point out that I would never consider an argument that rests on authorities to be good arguments. The reason why I used this approach, though, was because I wanted to establish a basis of that the academic community does generally agree about. In a debate like this, space is limited, and arguing for each specific agreed upon fact could take up the entire debate. So, the facts I listed are facts that are generally agreed upon, while yes, everything else is hotly debated. If my opponent disagrees with any of the 12 facts listed, I would happily give arguments to show why they are likely. However, I would hope that my opponent can start with the consensus so that we can make reasonable conclusions about the events of the 1st century.My opponent is correct in pointing out the contradiction between the consensus of scholars agreeing that the disciples believed Jesus had resurrected and that one scenario that people argue for is that early apostles his Christ's body. I do content that historical scholars agree that the disciples believed Jesus was resurrected, and most of the historical scholars I've read and listened to advocate some type of hallucination or mass hysteria hypothesis. One non-intellectual scenario that is advocated is that the disciples hid the body, and I use that in my argument because some people do try to argue this route.So, if my opponent wants to argue against any of the 12 facts, I am happy to argue for any of those specific contentions. But, if my opponent is willing to concede these, I would like to get to the root of the matter. In the 1st century, a radical Jew was crucified for claiming to be the Messiah of the Jews, and this religion spread across many cultures and is now the biggest religion in the world. The initial advocates of this religion were so sincere in their beliefs that they were martyred for their faith. I believe the best explanation for these events is that Jesus was in fact resurrected. I would like to hear from my opponent what he considers a superior explanation of the events.As for the side note, I don't see how this topic requires learned scholars. I appealed to learned scholars only as a means of limiting the length of debate, and am happy to get into the details of history. I don't think this topic is complex by any means, and I think this very simple argument is a very good reason to accept Christianity.MiraclesI did provide links to youtube videos of the author describing some miraculous claims. I am running low on space, so I can wait until next round to describe one in the context of the debate (which I agree is fair and understandable), but if you are able, I would ask to watch one, as the short link is only a few minutes.I agree that most miraculous and superstitious claims can be explained with naturalistic causes, but that doesn't prove that we must throw out all of eye-witness testimony. Every person relies on eye-witness testimony through the majority of all their beliefs. Think of school, books, scientists, etc. I can understand that some people are less adept at recognizing the best explanation of the events they saw, but that doesn't throw out their testimony. As for the physician beliefs in miracles versus the american individuals- that was clever. Yes, more educated people are more skeptical than non-educated, I agree. My point, though, was that the majority of trained physicians do testify that they've witnessed miracles. I am running out of space and am unable to finish this argument- I will provide a better refutation and examples of good miracles in the next round.References:1 http://magisgodwiki.org...