"God exists" is true

A Priori ArgumentsMind Over MatterPro argued that information requires a sender and gives several examples of exchanges of information that require a sender (language requires a conscious agent and a computer program requires a programmer) and uses these examples to conclude that "information systems humans use" have conscious senders. I state that this is a tautology. Humans are conscious agents; so it goes without reason that "information systems used by conscious agents require a conscious agent". There is no reason to assume from these examples that DNA arise with intention as humans didn't give rise to DNA. My opponent argues that everything outside of nature (With other words: "build by humans" who are conscious agents) requires a sender and I should show why the analogy between information in nature and the information system humans use is different enough to not require a sender. The difference between these two forms of information systems is that one is used by humans and the other is not. Humans are always conscious agents. If god doesn't exist nature isn't always (the exception would be animals) necessarily a conscious agent. The Prime MoverMy opponent asks me how I perceive existence originated. I state that I don't know how existence originated or even if existence originated in the first place. I also stated before that I am not convinced existence has a prime mover but that for the sake of brevity I will(! ) grant this position within this debate, since I find that likely anyway. So I ask my opponent to please proceed as if I am convinced that there exists a first cause of everything. My opponent has trouble explaining his reasoning behind the idea "that simplistic patterns don't just have less boundaries but that the most simplistic pattern has no boundaries at all", within the limited amount of space of this debate. I respect that as I am sure the explanation is quite technical and complicated. I will certainly read the complete argument after this debate. My opponent successfully explains how simpler forms of matter can be used to create more complex forms of matter and how simpler forms of matter can be used to create more types of matter (cells only living things. .. not rocks. .. but going simpler atoms are in both living things and in rocks). So I agree that if this pattern continues that there should be a "simplest" form of matter that is within every form of complex matter all across existence. If this is what my opponent means with "uphold" than I agree this simplest form of matter "upholds" every other form of matter and thus "upholds" the entire universe. I do not see how this simplest form would than be "unconditioned". The fact that this simplest form can be used to create every other form doesn't necessarily make it "unconditioned". This simplest form could for example still have the condition that it can only be used to create forms that have gravity relative to their mass. Another example of a condition of this simplest form is that it has a limited storage capacity for information, or that it can only travel at the speed of light. IntentionalityNo need for my opponent to apologize. After the last two rounds I judge my opponent to be intelligent. If my opponent does not follow the argument I am making I probably didn't explain it properly. My argument is that there is a third possible Paradigm. Paradigm 3- The universe came into existence without intention. All subsequent events are contingent on this unintentional action. The human race evolved consciousness, language use skills and cognitive reasoning unintentional. These things where used to define meaning of words. One of these words is "intention" which some humans define as "a mental state that represents a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future. ". Another of these words is "meaningful" which could mean "what is intended to be conveyed by a word, text, concept, or action". Humans are biological organisms that act on impulses derived from previous unintentional conditions, the environment and genetics. Such organisms their brains can be in states. The humans themselves call these states of their brains "mental states". One of those mental states is "a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future" which those humans defined as intent. If a humans is committed to grab a cup the correct description of events is that one accidental collocation of atoms interacted with another accidental collocation of atoms which they call intent. If paradigm 3 is the correct description of reality than I have intentions and my arguments are not meaningless. My arguments are "accidental collocations of atoms interacting with each other in my brain that produce a concept (transferable by letters on a screen) which I have a mental state about that represents a commitment to convey". This is simply what we mean by the words "arguments have meaning". My opponent cannot of course know for certain that my brain has "a mental state that represent a commitment to carry out actions". But I am sure he (and any reader of this debate) would be fine with a proof produced by their own brain. If you have "a mental state that represents a commitment to carry out actions" than you have intent. A brain that can produce such a mental state can be produced by evolution which is an unintentional process. A posteriori ArgumentsThe Historicity of ChristMy opponent states that the 12 facts listed are generally agreed upon. I have already supplied a source that says differently. The very fact that we cannot reach consensus about the events of the 1st century is my rebuttal. We cannot know for sure what happened, even our scholars disagree. How could a laymen know which of these 12 things to belief? So we cannot use these 12 facts to base our beliefs on. My opponent invites me to state which of the 12 listed things I disagree with so he could argue in favour for that one specifically but I do not disagree with any of them. I simply state that no evidence for their truth has been presented. I respect that this debate is limited by space though and would like to to invite my opponent to give arguments to show why the claim "The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. " is likely. (even though this is the last round)I do not know which of these 12 facts are true or false and would not base important beliefs on them. But even if all 12 are true there are still other possible scenario's (which my opponent calls the "root of the matter"). A more superior explanation of the events is: In the 1st century, a radical Jew was crucified for claiming to be the Messiah of the Jews, and this religion spread across many cultures and is now the biggest religion in the world. The initial advocates of this religion were so convinced that the message of the Messiah would bring good to the world (which was their motive) that they agreed to lie about a resurrection (and possibly hid the body). Some where tortured and killed and kept lying because they thought the message would bring good to the world. all of those that got tortured could have eventually cracked under torture and stated that the resurrection was false but these statements are lost in time or simply not believed or denied by the followers of the church. It is also a possibility that later writers made up the martyring of the disciples to add credibility to the faith. I am sure I can come up with other explanations, but even if all such explanations are refuted simply concluding that "we cannot come up with other explanations of what happened so it must have been a miracle" is not something I would personally base any belief on. Historicity of biblical events is an issue requiring the cross-referencing of multiple (sometimes incomplete) primary sources written in several old languages while making sure you only use sources of "high authenticity" which requires factoring in tone, author intention, the possibility of tampering, etc. I am somewhat surprised my opponent calls this a simple argument and would argue that reproducing the conclusions of learned scholars would include becoming a learned scholar yourself. MiraclesI did watch both youtube videos and all examples mentioned could be (broadly) dismissed by stating "the eye-witnesses could have been lying or embellishing the truth to make the stories more interesting or to get more attention" but what really strikes me is the amount(! ) of eye-witness accounts in his personal environment. If such amounts are consistent across Christian faiths than cases of (for example) spontaneous remissions of diseases should be statistically higher in religious countries. Instead of anecdotal evidence in the form of eye-witnesses we should be able to see the effects of miracles in statistical analyses of certain communities. Of course it is always difficult to control for other factors (for example religious people do tend to live slightly longer which is attributed to them having, for example, stronger community bonds (1)) but I am sure that our scientists can control for such factors and would have found statistical anomalies among certain religious communities by now if miracles had real life influence. Afterword. I thank my opponent for the interesting structure and challenge of the arguments. I enjoyed the conversation and believe I presented rebuttals to the best of my ability. I look forward to his final defence of the position. If he wants to converse further or discuss the debate he should feel free to message me informally.1. . http://jamanetwork.com...