God exists (pro) vs God does not exist (con)

Rebuttal 1) argument from meaningless of the concept of God. My opponent argues that since God can not be understood or expressed in words, it somehow undermines the possibility of his existence. Based on MY understanding of con's argument, it can be followed in the following syllogism : P1) If God is not understood by human comprehension, he does not exist P2 ) God can not be understood by human comprehension Conclusion : God does not exist. any rational person would see through Con's logic that one is premise one is not true. God is an omnimaximal being, meaning he is the greatest possible being. It should come as no wonder that humans can understand God. The greatest possible being or the greatest conceivable being, by definition, should be extremely difficult/ impossible to imagine. If God could be imagined, that would be evidence that God does not exist since he can be easily conceived and is therefore not the greatest maximal being or the greatest conceivable being and is therefore not omnimaximal. However, even if we grant Con that his logic is valid, let's look at something that also do not exist by using his syllogism. - Energy can not be conceived of and therefore does not exist according to con, that just because we do not understand and can not conceive of a god then no god exists. In a similar scenario where we do not understand and can not conceive energy nor how it works, it simply does not exist. according to Richard Feynman : "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of definite amount. We do not even have a unified definition of energy" - The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, 4-1. according to con, energy does not and can not exist. - Quantum mechanics Quantum mechanics is a really hard and heavy topic to fully comprehend and can not be fully conceived of since human knowledge is still developing in that field. Therefore, quantum mechanics does not exist. - Consciousness. Consciousness can not be explained by science and humans have no theory on how consciousness works, therefore humans can not conceive nor comprehend consciousness and thus consciousness does not exist. R2) argument from the alone deity My opponent's argument to my understanding is P1)Before creation, God was only conscious of his own consciousness P2) This is a logical contradiction and is circular reasoning Conclusion : God's consciousness did not exist prior to creation because it is a logical contradiction and circular reasoning and thus God does not exist. Other than the fact that the conclusion that God does not exist is bombed into the conclusion out of nowhere, I do have multiple criticisms of this argument. Premise 1 rebuked) Before the universe, God could have been very well just conscious of the supernatural reality such as angels, demons, etc. Con has left this completely outside of the realm of possibilities. The existence of a supernatural realm could very well solve the issue proposed. God could have easily expressed his consciousness by acknowledging the existence of supernatural beings that existed alongside with him. However, admittingly this does raise the same question of who was God expressing his consciousness on before the creation of these supernatural entities? Read on Premise 2 rebuked) Con makes a point that acknowledging one's own existence and being aware of one's consciousness is a logical contradiction and therefore such entity does not exist ... We can obviously see where Con's reasoning falls apart. God could have easily expressed his consciousness on his own existence similar to how humans use their consciousness to acknowledge their own existence. according to Con's logic, those who spend time pondering their existence, using their consciousness to acknowledge their consciousness and acknowledge their own existence using their consciousness, do not exist similar to how God does not exist because he used his consciousness to acknowledge his own existence. R3) Hideness of God I agree with premise 1 since if God exists, he would be omnimaximal and the greatest conceivable being in every aspect including love. I disagree with premise 2 and 3. Premise 2) This premise is a non-sequitur (does not follow) since Con provided no proof of such. However, there is a plethora of evidence for God ranging from arguments like Kalam argument, Fine tuning argument, contingency, adequation, moral experience, etc. to historical evidence such as eye witness testimony, historical records of secular (Tacitus' annals, Testimonium Flavium, Nero's declarations, etc.) and Jewish historians and willingness to die for the miracles recorded in the bible such as the miracles of Jesus to establishing a personal relationship with God where you can glorify and enjoy him for an eternity. all of this evidence is within reach of the atheist who explores the evidence with an open mind and an open heart. There is emerging research that atheists are more close-minded than theists [1]. Premise 3) Reasonable non-belief does not exist. For non-belief to be reasonable, you would need evidence DIRECTLY against the God hypothesis. Since however such evidence does not exist and most atheists just reject God on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence for God, most atheists should be some sort of agnostic or something and not non-believers. They should be at best someone who claims that they do not know since future evidence might reveal there is a God or might reveal that God does not exist and they should not declare themselves as strictly speaking, people who reject God. I have also included an explanation somewhat similar to this in the introduction. The argument can be easily reversed to say : P1) If atheism is true, there should be definitive proof that God does not exist to support that atheism is true and there should be no theists. P2) Theists exist Conclusion : atheism is false The argument falls in that there is no definitive proof for atheism and that there are close minded theists. R4) Divine Freedom Premise three is where the entire argument falls apart. It does not follow that just because God is loving then he MUST created humanity to express his love for two reasons. Just because God is all-loving does not mean he has to express his love on a specified entity. Just because an entity is full of love does not mean it has to express this love. For example, my friend has a very strict mom. She almost never shows him any signs of love. No hugs, no kisses, no good nights. She is always strict that he must get good grades and behave himself and must fulfill his dreams and ambitions so that his future will not end up like her past. No signs of love and no expression of love, yet deep within he knows that his mom is doing this as a sign of love and empathy and mostly importantly because she cares. She wants to maintain her strictness and pressure on him for him to get the best results and be the best person in the world. Just because you do not express love does not mean you do not have any. Think of other examples where kids get vaccinated where the children will think that their parents hate them for causing them to go through the suffering of the needle yet the parent is doing so out of love. Why must he express his love on humans and not on himself. Why can God not express love to himself (For example, Christians say God is three persons. Why can't God express this love in the community of three people). Surely everyone here has a degree of love, respect and regard for one's self. Why can not God have the same thing but for an eternity? R5) Mind-Brain dependence My opponent has not demonstrated that premise 1 or premise 2 are true. They were merely bare assertions sans any shred of evidence. Most importantly my opponent does not really define what a mind is. Cognitive faculties? Jellyfish have no brain but they have senses and can experience reality and respond to stimuli and can acquire knowledge about their surroundings and run away from predators. [2] Intricate systems that relate to the natural world? You have Math which fits that definition but has no physical brain. New arguments : argument from fine tuning : P1) There is incomprehensibly improbably fine tuning of the unvierse for life (sometimes, even for the universe to exist) P2) The only logical explanations is chance, necessity or design P3) It is not due to necessity or chance Conclusion : The fine tuning of the universe is due to design. P1) One example is If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to an incomprehensible precision of 1 part in 1010123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind. Most of the sources and the examples of fine tuning can be found here [3]. P2) True unless my opponent wants to provide any other explanation. P3) Necessity : Some do not even have to exist [4] therefore they are not necessary constants Chance : The possibility that the universe would have had this perfect match of constants has been estimated by two of the best mathematicians of our time (Penrose and Lennox) to be 1 in 1^10^123 [5] [6] [7] . according to mathematicians, anything with the possibility of 1 in 10^50 is basically impossible [8] [9] It takes less faith for design. "This is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all . . . it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." - Paul Davies Implications : The deliberate designer would have to exist before the universe existed (to design some of the constants required for the universe to even exist) and is therefore independent of nature (supernatural), universe and its dimensions (spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical, etc.). The traits of this supernatural designer proves it is most likely God