The Existence of God Can Be Proven

Hello and thank you for the debate challenge. Allow me to introduce myself, I am an amateur Christian blogger with a special slant towards Christian apologetics, I am a pretty avid enthusiast when it comes to philosophical meanderings about God and religions, so I would like to take a moment and say thanks to my opponent for the debate. I today, will be debating from the side of the pro, that yes, the existence of God can, and indeed has been proven. I would like to make clear however, my terms and definitions. Firstly, proof and persuasion are not the same. One could have something proven to their satisfaction, yet still not be persuaded. I do not therefore equate proof or sufficient evidence with what people choose to believe Secondly, I will, as a Christian, be defending the God of the Bible, who I define as having the "Omni" qualities. Do you accept these terms? If so, let us begin. My opponent has stated that the claim "God exists" cannot be proven or even backed up with sufficient evidence. I will be presenting my case of why this is not so. I will make my case not by presenting specific individual nuggets of evidence, I will however, be looking at the very foundations of what makes evidence intelligible in the first place, and from there, show that God, specifically the God of the Bible is the necessary precondition of that intelligibility. Let us begin: I am certain that in this debate, my opponent has very specific expectations. I am to use logic in my responses, I am to appeal to some type of evidence, which my opponent assumes is intelligible, and discernable through the use of human senses, and I am to do so in an ethical and kind manner, thus following a moral standard My opponent, and the very idea of debating presupposes the following: Logic exists, and not only exists, but does not and will not change suddenly from different rounds. The human senses and reasoning are functioning correctly, and are to be trusted to gain knowledge of truth. Truth exists and can be known. Moral standards exist and will not change from round to round. This entire debate rests upon unchanging moral, logical, and epistemic truths, and these truths I will show are only justified through the existence of the God of the Bible. In discussing evidence, we assume that the human senses can discern evidence, and that what we see is actually real, and corresponds to truth. I believe, as a Christian, that what I am seeing in the physical world is real because I know I can trust my senses. I know I can trust my senses because I know that a Truthful and Benevolent God has created me to accurately sense and reason, and discern the world around me. Without this God, what justification is there for presupposing my sense to be adequately telling me the truth? If I sense my senses are working properly, this is circular reasoning. There must be some justification given outside of myself. In discussing evidence, I know that there are unchanging laws of logic, that cannot be the conventions of mankind, because they are applicable everywhere and at all times. I know that logic exists and follows orderly unchanging laws because they are rooted in the Mind of my Unchanging God, and are a reflection of His very logical nature. Without an Immaterial and Unchanging God, what justification do we have to claim that logic is uniform and universal? I know that I must be friendly in this debate because I have an obligation to do so to my fellow man. Why? Because I trust there are unchanging moral standards that I must abide by. I do not expect morality to suddenly change, and therefore lying in my debate is all the sudden right. I am expected to be truthful at all times. This unchanging moral code is not something we have simply decided upon, these laws exist and are unchanging because they are rooted in and decreed by my Moral Lawgiver who is only truthful and benevolent. Without God, whose moral standards must I abide by? And what would make them unchanging? So you see, the very idea of debating requires unchanging immaterial logical laws, a firm faith in the human senses and reason, and an obligation to abide by unchanging moral laws. Apart from my Unchanging, Immaterial, Moral God, who created human senses and reasoning to work properly, I argue there are no ways to justify the existence of these things that we so take for granted. God is the necessary precondition of intelligibility, therefore without God we have no intelligibility. Thank you