God most likely exists.

On Occam's Razor: "If it was an omni god, For instance, It would be the most complicated thing in all of existence. " Yes it would be, But that could also be said if there was no god and only physics, Physics would then become the most complicated thing in all of existence. So I think at this point is just a matter of choice, Since I found that both answers are equally complex when breaking them down. // I find your 2 premises to be true, Only with the detail that I'm not arguing that many uncaused causes exist, Just one. Although, I can see why this, If not taken as a special pleading fallacy then it would kind of have to create a new rule which leads to the possibility of more uncaused causes. I agree with most said on this subject, And concur that is rather unfortunate that we don't have any not-purely-abstract information on G. On observation. That wasn't exactly my point. On the leprechaun issue, I'm not documented, But it could be argued that only those who see the possiblity of the existence of leprechauns, Can in fact observe them. Again, Not everyone is unable to observe God. To be honest though, I think this is one of my weaker points in the whole debate and that it could be easily debunked. // "But why do we hold god to a different standard? " Well, If that's not a rhetorical question, I would say because that in case it would be true, It would dramatically change the way people see their lives and those from everyone around them; to elaborate a little bit more, The existence or the non-existence of a horse with a horn or a little guy with a bucket of gold wouldn't change our perspective much, But when we are talking about the creator of the universe and source of all moral authority, I don't know if justified, But rather very understandable for the standard to change. On abstracts. "The difference is that I cannot choose to change my abstraction of reality. " I can't see this as the case since -I'll use for example, Any kind of resource (food, Building materials, Even money)- resources are an undeniable part of reality, But our abstractions on them change rather usually, People don't always abstract the same from the same resource, The way they perceive it (thou making it an abstraction) changes many many times through their lifetime if not every different time they observe it. For further elaboration, Some simple examples: someone who sees money as a priority can change their abstraction of it to push it down the list, Someone who likes certain food might choose to see it with "different eyes" due to health, Etc. // "One could actually argue that our mind actually improves our view of reality. " I would personally like if this would be the case, But as said in the previous argument, This can't be proven since that without minds there isn't view and therefore we can't know if there is any reality at all. // "Everything we see is actually 90% Empty space between atoms. Yet we can't put our hands through them. Isn't it funny that our minds set things up so we could see the barrier of movement. " Fascinating, Indeed. // "So in that sense, We're actually seeing something that exists for a short instance in time. " Although, It could be argued that it keeps on existing after that and/or that it existed before that short time. // I agree on what makes something physical, Although I think we might have to agree to disagree that only the physical exists. On particles being abstracts. Without observing, The non-existence of particles is more likely than their existance, Since, As you stated "it's logically more sound to start with the assumption that nothing exist until it is observed". // "We could think of abstractions as representing causality or lack thereof. " I'll think of this, But it well likely to be the case, Really good point. On physics. "But what I'm saying is that the fact that it will happen under those variables is always true in all times and all places regardless of observation. " Wouldn't this contradict "it's logically more sound to start with the assumption that nothing exist until it is observed"? Omni: " Without math, Physics would look exactly how it does now. Just like it did before humans invented math. " Yes, But they wouldn't be physics as we refer to them today since they go hand in hand with math, It would be just. . . "the stuff we see happening"? I don't know about this one, Lol. // I think I agree on the rest you said, Since my knowledge on physics is poor, And the short lesson is appreciated, Haha. To give some closure: My purpose for this debate was to see how far I could take the assumption of a god that exists/existed, And I think I accomplished that (for a couple of years, To the very least :P). I was aware that I wasn't going to be able to prove the existence of god (I mean, No one in the whole history of mankind could, It would be rather pretentious from my behalf to think that I could, Lol). On that note, I would say that all your points hold pretty steady and some of mine have nasty holes in them :P. This debate (my 1st) made me want to be around this website more, To further develop my debating skills. I'd like to thank you like I did at the beggining for the respect shown (in my experience, Most of the people who reject the existence of a god aren't very respectful to those who believe in it) and for those early tips on premises; and to say that I would much likely debate you again on some other subject some time from now, Since I sense we hold pretty different views in many things. You may have the floor once more. Good debate.