The God in question does indeed exsist

Hello and thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to debate this fascinating topic. Although I have had other religious themed debates on here before this will be the first time I am debating the existence of a god. Before I begin I would like to reassure my opponent that while I may criticise them in my arguments I intend no personal disrespect to her faith, her beliefs or convictions. --- My opponent does not clearly define "The God in question" but the capitalisation of the word god and the fact that she is a Christian makes it pretty clear that we are discussing the God of Christianity. http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore she has quite a hefty burden, she must prove the existence not just of a creator god but that this is The God worshipped by Christians, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, eternal, everlasting, comprising the Trinity etc. The Bible teaches many things, most good (love thy neighbour - Mathew 5:43 but actually a reference to Leviticus 19: 17-18) and also plenty bad (stone the rape victim who does not scream loudly enough to death - Deuteronomy 22:23-24) but precisely WHAT the Bible says is totally irrelevant to whether or not it is correct in it's depiction of God. Like any other sacred text [ http://www.adherents.com... ] the Bible is claimed to be the truth but there is no way it can be regarded as factual evidence of anything other than a belief system. It is a carefully doctored and edited collection of various ancient documents, most of which contradict each other but it is presumed to be infallible and divinely inspired despite the fact that it was undoubtedly written, edited and re-written by human hand. <"Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible"> There is no explanation given for these premises, please explain why these laws or rational thought would not be possible. <"We use rational thinking to prove things. Therefore... THE PROOF THAT GOD EXSISTS IS THAT WITHOUT HIM, YOU COULDNT PROVE ANYTHING."> This makes no sense without a reason to accept the previous statements. It seems to be some corruption of "Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am)" into "Cogito ergo Deus futurus (I think therefore God is)" http://en.wikipedia.org... _____________________ <"The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved."> My opponent seems to be conceding the debate here. She has made the claim that God exists and admits she can't prove it. <"That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God's existence"> I disagree. If there is evidence for something then proving it is usually quite straightforward. The fact that something "cannot be proved" would indicate that there is no evidence for it's existence. Again the Bible is no more proof of the existence of God than the Bhagavad Gita is proof of the existence of Krishna, or The Sword In The Stone proof of the existence of King Arthur. --- <"The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God's existence."> Using God to prove God is an automatic logic fail. A=A? <"If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God."> No. If God did not exist he would still be the greatest conceivable FICTIONAL being. No contradiction there. The fact that Superman doesn't exist doesn't prove that he does. --- <"The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer."> Most of that stuff is pretty amazing to me too but the 'amazingness' of something is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. The fact of a human on the moon would have been off the amazing chart to the ancients but is taken for granted by most of us but this is a human, not a divine achievement. If you ever take LSD or a similar powerful hallucinogenic you will find yourselves amazed by the most mundane things, the complex pattern of leaves in a teacup could blow you away with its awesomeness but this has appeared by chance not design. Colonies of ants and other insects can assemble amazingly complex structures yet none would claim that an ant has the intelligence of a human architect, even one who designs buildings that are dull and unattractive by comparison. Lastly in the realm of free and expressive art, amazing and beautiful creations can be made without conscious design. Sun-Ra's experiments in free jazz are a wonderful example. http://www.rocksbackpages.com... --- <"Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something "un-caused" in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That "un-caused" cause is God."> This is circular logic that doesn't prove anything. It basically says that EVERY effect has a cause EXCEPT God and is equivalent to saying "God exists because I say so". If everything has a cause then what caused God? God's god? --- "Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God? This question almost answers itself. "Everyone has a sense of right and wrong", it comes from being rational beings that make decisions and from natural feelings of empathy and sympathy. Other people affect our own opinions with theirs, particularly parents but there is no need to look for a supernatural source for morality. Morality is also clearly not entirely objective as my opponent is arguing because different people (and different religions) define right and wrong differently. For example I would perhaps not consider it wrong for a starving man to steal food off a man who has way more than he needs, whereas if the action was reversed I almost certainly would. --- <"Despite all of this, the Bible tells us..."> As I have already argued, the Bible is way off topic here. Fantasia is not proof that Mickey Mouse is real. We are discussing the existence of a being, not of a concept or a religion. --- <"God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists."> I think that if 'non-believers' truly believed then the reality of an eternal inferno would be ample motivation for becoming Christian. Clearly they genuinely disbelieve it. <"The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence."> This argument is self-defeating because it would lead to the conclusion that: 'the very fact that some attempt so aggressively to PROVE His existence is in fact an argument for His NON-existence.' --- <"How do we know God exists?.....we sense His presence" etc.> A feeling is not evidence, if it was then the mythology of every single other religion would also be true. Some people who claim to sense supernatural presences are classed as delusional and locked up in asylums. I personally believe that we all delude ourselves regularly as a way of coping with things that we are uncomfortable with. At a mundane level this could be as simple as applying non-existent motives to others as a way to justify their behaviour to ourselves. <" Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing."> As baseless as an appeal to popular opinion is, the majority of people are not in fact Christian. http://www.religioustolerance.org... Looking forward to the next round. Thank you.