"There is reason to believe a God exists"

My opponent seems to suggest (at least in his first premise) that because of the lack of empirical evidence for God measured by the scientific method we should adopt a position of disbelief. Knowing in advance of this idea is the reason why I specifically said that I would present philosophical arguments as my "evidence" (all arguments for God are philosophical in nature). However, This seems to present a bad idea that many secularists and skeptics have adopted and it is simply that if Science has no say on it then don't believe of course this idea has taken up space in the mental state of humanity at the dawn of Age of Enlightenment, The adoption of Humanism in Europe, European Imperialism and the Scientific Revolution. However, If we are going to reject something because we can't use the scientific method on it then allow me to give you a list of concepts that we also would have to reject: 1. Logical and mathematical truths (which are presupposed by science) 2. Metaphysical truths (like the past was not created 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age) 3. Ethical truths 4. Aesthetic truths 5. Science itself (since science is based on assumptions that can"t be proven) 6. The existence of the universe (why is there a universe at all? ) 7. The beginning of the universe (assuming it had one) 8. The existence of scientific laws 9. The existence of conscious minds 10. The fine-tuning of the physical constants 11. Love, Meaning, Purpose 12. Most of the things that happen in our lives such as why a person lives in a certain place, Works in a particular job or marries a particular person. In order to deal with my opponent's argumentation on sentient beings and the Universe, I will present the Cosmic Conscious Argument for God's Existence: First some pre premise assumptions. The Universe is emergent and Consciousness is fundamental. Here are the premises: P1. Contingent minds either have a personal explanation or a natural explanation P2. Quantum Mechanics and other fields of science imply the natural universe is emergent from consciousness C1. The Natural Universe cannot be the explanation of contingent minds P3. The explanation of the existence of a conscious mind is personal P4. The personal source is what proponents of this argument call "God" C2. Therefore God exists Is P1 sound I believe it is. Consciousness is fundamental and cannot be reduced to smaller parts like chemical processes in the brain. Add to the fact that we as a species both in of ourselves and as a collective group came into existence a finite time ago. This implies we as in our sentient minds came from a personal source which is sentient in of itself. The Personalism being because we are Personal beings and the fundamental state of consciousness means that source is personal. So P1 is sound. What about P2. Okay so because this would be a debate in of itself and would be a lecture subject I will try to sum it up. Physicists at most of them now believe that Space-Time as a reality is not fundamental but that it can be broken down into mathematical information from which such reality emerges. This is called the Holographic Principle. The theory, In short, Suggests that the 3D reality can be seen in 2D information. In short, Our "reality" is basically an illusion of sorts. Like so our minds are illusional products of perception that emerge from a fundamental consciousness (matter is a product of the mind) So Yes P2 is sound. C1, Therefore, Is sound. Why you may ask while I will sum it up. If the Universe is emergent then everything natural is most likely emergent from mind or consciousness. Therefore consciousness cannot be an emergent feature of the natural universe and neither can its explanation. C1 is sound P3 follows logically from P1 and 2. P4 follows logically as well and therefore C2 is sound. The being as I have demonstrated is both conscious and to the degree of establishment supernatural. My Burden of Proof is fulfilled. Thank you and God bless.