Resolved: God exists.

The thing is, the way you are referring to a deity, is more in the sense of some higher power that caused the creation of the universe, which there obviously was. You have not referred at all to the fact deities and gods are worshiped and omnipotent, which is very hard for me, as I cannot deny that something 'sparked' the universe but not in the sense 'created' it as it is always changing... The thing is, the way you seem to be describing this 'god', you are using everything I agree with... So I don't necessarily have a strong counter argument against most of your points, of course the universes existence is non essential, but that seems to be countering a deity, because, surely for there to be a deity, there would have to be a universe. If there is nothing, there is no deity. The main flaw in your argument that I can point out and actually say I can counter easily is the fact that the big bag had to come from somewhere, as that completely contradicts the idea of a deity, as where did they come from? By that logic, is there an infinite amount of deities creating each other? For points 1-5 I mostly agree, but I don't believe they back up your argument anymore than mine.1. Existence is only intelligible if it has an explanation.Agreed.2. The universes existence is therefore, one of two things:a) unintelligibleb) (intelligible) has an explanationLogically. 3. A rational person cannot accept premise 2a by the definition of rationality.For the most part I agree with this, but just because we haven't concluded an explanation does not mean that there isn't any; a less intelligent life form such as a dog cannot comprehend many things, but that does not mean these things are unintelligible. 2000+/- years ago people could not explain that the world was spherical, they believed it to be flat, this does not make it so. My point is; just because we don't currently have an answer does not mean there is no explanation. 4. A rational person must accept premise 2b, the universe has an explanation. (The only other choice.)Agree, of course. As I just stated, I believe the universe has an explanation, as it must! However, it doesn't mean we should rule out science and jump to the conclusion of a deity in any means. 5. There are 3 types of explanations:For the personal explanation I assume you mean that an effect is caused because a 'person' made it out of choice. If this is so, I agree with all this, but obviously all these explanations, especially b have a marginal lack of validity. Personal explanations when it comes to discussing the creation of the universe have no fact or ecological validity behind them, they are based on views and opinions not truth and cannot be tested, for something to be a personal explanation we would have to know the 'person' in question existed, as the 'person' causes the phenomena, instead of saying, heres the phenomena, there must be a person! 6. The explanation for the Universes entire existence cannot be scientific.This is not rational or logical in any sense, yes the big bag theory cannot explain the entire universe, because we cannot go back in time to see what truly happened, nothing will be certain, but saying the big bag has to have come from somewhere also contradicts the idea of a deity, if you can explain where it came from, then I accept your point. AS for the Archimedean point, for this to be true we would have to assume the universe has boundaries and a shape such as a sphere, or would you prefer to assume this 'creator' or 'deity' was some invisible force that is everywhere? In the former case, as far as we humans can tell, the universe appears infinite, just like time itself, some may argue that the universe may be spherical like the earth, or a 4D shape of a doughnut or the Klien bottle, that is why it may appear infinite, but the main argument behind this is what lies outside, and if there is a creator of our universe, what is the creator of his? 7. The Universes existence is not essential.Of course I believe in this, I don't have any counter argument to this, it is not essential, but this seems to contradict a deity, because, as I stated in my first paragraph, without a universe there is nothing, if there is nothing, there is no deity. 8. A rational person therefore, must believe the Universe has a personal explanation.To this I think we need to look at the bigger picture, for it to be a 'personal explanation' is referring to the fact the universe is, because someone made it that way. As I stated before, this seems like a very backwards view, instead of looking at what we know, you are taking the phenomena of the universe and placing a very illogical 'creator' into the mix just to make it intelligible, there is no proof in this 'deity/creator', it is just jumping to the conclusion that the universe is, because someone wanted it that way/someone created that way, without any evidence to base it around. 9. No personal agent but, a deity could have created the entire universe.Of course, I disagree, you have failed to really place any evidence on why the universe bust be here by a personal explanation rather than scientific or essential, and as I stated before, for there to be a deity, the universe would have to be essential! Unless of course you claim the universe is within another? C. A rational person must believe a deity exists.This is what I am trying to prove wrong.