God most likely exists.

Hello, Glad someone with a respectful attitude and more than good explanatory skills chose to debate me. On God definition. "the supreme being comment was just a summation tool correct? " Indeed, I consider an entity that creates the universe "supreme", But the "supremeness" is not a big deal for me. // "you mean he's a god who can intervene with humans? " Correct. On existence. "Does a thing that exist have to be eternal(always existed)? " No. But I don't think "eternal" is an impossible. // "Did it get created from nothing? " Interesting point; since God is the creator, The "source" of all things, God is the only entity that is over the "nothing comes from nothing" assumption. // "Can an existing thing stop existing? " Yes, But it doesn't becomes nothing again, It just becomes another thing, Different from what it was. I hope this is well worked out, If not, Tell me and I'll address it again. Premises. 1. "Things that exist affect reality". I agree. 2. "If things that exist affect reality, Then those things can be observed. " Not all of them. Assuming this premise as true puts -f. E- human emotion as something outside reality. I'll address this later on. C. Don't agree with this conclusion. I address this in the definition of "observed". (a definition of abstract would be helpful here, I'm going with "thought of apart from concrete realities, Specific objects, Or actual instances", If disagree, Counterargument) 1. "Abstracts do not exist. " They exist. If abstracts don't exist, Then any science nor any form of human communication doesn't exist, Since the only way we have to talk about them (or even think about them) is abstracting them, We can't "see things as they are" since our senses are known to be limited. 2. "Time and Space are abstracts". I agree. C. Don't agree with this conclusion. Abstracts exist. 1. "Things that exist must hold space in reality". According to universal physics, Yes, But God its outside this laws, Since God comes before the universe. 2. "If Things that exist must hold space in reality then nothing can exist outside of space". ^ C. Don't agree with this conclusion. God can indeed exist outside of space. The structures are in fact valid. I think the most important point here is abstraction. How can you recognize human thought and interaction as an existing thing, When abstracts don't exist? Or are you implying that these human characteristics (thought and interaction) as a whole doesn't exist? "Definition: Observe --- To detect with one's senses, Either directly or by the extension of a tool or object (Thing). " I agree with this assumption, Although I think that one of God's features is that it can be a tool (and a thing, Of course), Ergo it can be an extension of our senses. ---- I sense we hitted a massive disagreement here, And think we should debate those premises to go clearly further. But I'll do, As you did, Some quick assessments in those god's "categories": Omni Gods: Humans can't, But infinities can comport into reality. In fact, As one of the definitions of comport is "to behave in a manner conformable to what is right, Proper, Or expected", Fits God's "skill set". Maximally Powerful God: Since physics, Light, Speed and even science is an abstract, I'll leave this one for later. Minimally Powerful God: I found the assumption that "something that is dead can't affect us and might as well don't exist at all" to not be true. It affects us on every level; if we understand dead as an non-existence, Inexistence itself affects what it still exists. Deist God: Same ^. God by Definition: I think here is another "gold mine" in this debate, Besides the premises. I do think as God to be a "default" because cause and effect. Every effect has a cause; so if you start doing that process all the way back it leads to something/someone that was indeed outside of space, Of time and every other abstract and would have to necessarily "come from nothing", And since it was first, Inherently being the cause to the "first" effect, Thus the creator/source of all things. Very interesting point here. I'm hoping to see some of my points proven has flawed. // I think I over-used airquotes here, I'll try avoiding it in further rounds/debates. If something is badly or not-at-all explained, Please tell me and I'll try my best to address it. (newbie debater here, As you can't -hopefully- notice :P) Your floor.