God most likely exists.

On existing. God is exempt from ex nihilo following the argument of cause-effect (something/someone necessarily would have to come "from nothing"). If this doesn't justifies the statement, I agree that it is indeed a special pleading fallacy that can not be proven any further. Just out of curiosity, -and this one is not my personal belief- how would you address it if God didn't "come from nothing" but "come from itself"? Since this is derrailing from the debate a little bit, It's fine if you don't want to address it. On the logics. Yeah, It sounded clumsy while I was writing it, It makes sense. Thanks for pointing this out. On how things that exist can be observed. You're right. It still would be sound. Though, God fits all these, It has independent characteristics which makes it recognizable as a god. (In fact, It has so distinct and independent characteristics that are only fitted by god, Like the creation of the universe) On abstracts don't existing. A few things here. I can't agree with that assumption because it assumes that abstracts only exist in thought; I agree that probably any kind of abstract "originates" in thought, But it doesn't stay there. Tangible reality affects thought, Thought affects tangible reality then making abstracts a reality. As humans, We can exist simultaneously in more than that type-I existence. Abstracts are in fact an entity. I don't think that as a whole, Altought it could be argued that they are (The Abstract), But math is an entity, And unicorns are. They aren't timeless, Since math and unicorns weren't always there, We can track those through a timeline; I would say that they are spaceless, But for the sake of the argument, I'll say that they aren't, Since they occupy space -at the very least- in our brains (which by your definition its not an abstract, And following your premises, Therefore it exists). On God coming before the universe and the statement being a special pleading fallacy. I remit again to the cause-effect. Following patterns/laws of physics all the way back, The answer must be that at some point in time, These would not were in place, And therefore anything that existed before those is outside them. Response to the response of the question. "I believe particles are the only thing that exist". This is not true, Since the only way we have to understand particles is by abstracting them, And following that assumption, Particles themselves don't exist since they are part of an abstraction; I remit to "thought affects tangible reality, And tangible reality affects thought". Abstracts are indeed descriptive concepts, But not classifying these as reality leads to a total disconnection from reality, Because, Again, The use of abstracts its what allows us to know anything in the first place. On God being a tool / thing that can be used as an extension of our senses. Since a tool is a means to an end, And God generates both means (through all the religions/mythologies writings which -f. E- tell us how to behave, Which I know, Weren't written by God, But by people that were undeniably affected by it, Since they all were generated from it) and ends (again, Depending on the religion we look, Different Gods have different ends that are desired/required). Althought it seems like it, I'm not arguing that God is a means to a God, Only that God is a means to an end, Whatever end that would be. On Omni Gods: I would argue that there are uses. For example, Infinities helps us determine mathematically which expressions are within our ability to perceive by classifying others are infinite/limitless, And stating that those that are infinte, Are outside of any possible comprehension by us (since the infinite is virtually unreachable). Minimally Powerful God: I'll try to elaborate a little bit further. There is universe X where Z exists. There is universe Y where Z doesn't exists. (X being the summation of everything that composes the universe, Including of course, Z) --> X = X. Y = X - Z. Therefore X it's not equal to Y. Inexistence affects the existence. God by Definition: I am indeed defining God as the first cause. "If the first cause didn't have agency or any intelligence at all and was just a natural process, Would you still want to call it god? " God has agency (the capacity, Condition, Or state of acting or of exerting power); probably intelligence too although I'm not sure on this one (I'll look into it later); and since God came before all the things, God is associated with all natural processes, So I wouldn't call God an unnatural process. // I get from how its formulated that that question was an hyopothetic one? If God didn't have any agency nor inteligence and was a natural process, I would still call it God since it would became "the natural process that lead to the rest of natural processes". Again, Thank you for pointing this debate protocols, They are really helpful for my next debates. Your floor.