IN MY OPINION, God does not exist.

I'm not treating you like a child, Con. It's just, you cannot put my stance for all of Christianity. There are way too many divisions in it. The majority of Christianity is Catholocism, which I am most certainly not arguing for. Within Protestantism, there are many thousands of different denominations. So, no, you cannot base your arguments against me by covering it with all of Christianity. Standards of LogicOkay, you have a common misconception about this argument, which is completely understandable. This isn't an argument as to why faith in God is better than not believing. This argument isn't about proving God's existence (not necessarily, but it will lead to it, as I'll show), it is about showing the difference between two paradigms (two worldviews).One worldview says this: God created mankind to be rational beings. We can trust logic completely. Logic is absolute, and morals are objective.Another worldview says: Logic is a societal construct. Metaphsyics isan illusion, and everyone's reality is their own perception. We cannot trust logic. Logic is subjective and so are morals.Only one of those worldviews can be true. They cannot both be true. What many people want to do is, they want to assume that there is no God, and take the atheistic paradigm. This is fine. But in this paradigm, there is no reason to trust logic. There is no right and wrong. We simply just "exist". So one cannot say "we ought to not believe in God, because in a universe that has no meaning, one cannot tell another what one ought to do. One may say that we can each create our own meaning, but then this meaning is subjective, that is, we each decide for ourselves what to do, and each person is just as right with their personal life as the next. One cannot criticize another person because this would contradict their belief in moral relativsm. We are all just random collocations of atoms. As long as the atheist stays in this line of thinking (in line with his/her paradigm, this is fine). But if the atheist then wants to argue the existence of God, he/she must invoke logic, (which is untrustworhty in the atheist paradigm) and is invoking morals (you ought not to believe in God is a contradiction to moral relativsm)So an atheist may say they believe that God does not exist. But once they ask to use logic and moral objective standards, they have just borrowed from the theistic paradigm. They have stepped onto a worldview that needs God to exist. They are in a contradiction. So in order for an atheist to argue against God's existence, they need to invoke it while doing so. A contradictory paradigm is an incorrect paradigm.MiraclesMy opponent argues doctors say that miracles happen becaues of ignorance. No, doctors understand natural human biology. So when they see a contradiction to natural human biology, only divine intervention is left, so by process of elimination, they understand it is a miracle. My opponent argues that the chances of miracles are so slim, they cannot be true. This is cicular reasoning. I showed proof of many miracles happening in hospitals, and he rebuts it by saying that miracles don't happen often, so they couldn't have happened. No, I showed evidence of miracles happening frequently. It wouldn't matter what God they prove (by the way, the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian God is the same God), I only have to prove that a God exists, as any God existing would disprove atheism. Resurrection of JesusMy opponent continues to use the same faulty analogies. Remember, he is arguing that the apostles died to protect something they knew was a lie. He then gives examples of people murdering others for (incorrect) religious reasons. 1. The Nazis were killed for punishment for what they did. They did not die for a lie. 2. The Catholics murdered others. The people being murdered were not dying for lying about what they believe in.3. This, again, is another war. This is not example of people dying for lying about what they belive in.I will say it again, in bold, so my opponent can understand what i am saying: People will not die protecting something they know is not true. So, people who die in wars for unjust causes is not the same thing.Adam and EveYes, sex feels good, but if Adam and Eve had never sinned, they would still be completely obedient to God. Had God wanted sexual reproduction to have stopped, it could have happened. Again, you are debating something that is a popular belief in America, which for one, does NOT encompass the entirety of Christianity, and second, as I have already stated, you are debating against me. Continuing to debate outside of my arguments should cause the voters to sway from giving you points for arguments. If this matters to you, I suggest you start arguing against me, not a straw-manned version of my arguments, which is a fallacy.