There is a God.

I will begin by going through each of your points in order. Your first argument on omnipotence- can God create a rock that He cannot lift? What you have done in asking this is argued with the logical fallacy of begging the question, based upon a misunderstanding of what omnipotence really is. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything, it is the ability to do anything THAT ONE SETS OUT TO DO. What you have assumed in this argument is that, if omnipotence is the ability to do anything, then omnipotence allows for failure, as that is anything. Thus, using your assumption, we arrive at a paradoxical conclusion. See, you have begged the question by making that assumption. The reason we arrive at a paradox is that YOUR premise of allowing failure is incorrect, NOT the premise of omnipotence, or an omnipotent being. An omnipotent being can do anything he sets out to do. But an omnipotent being cannot set out to fail, as that is a contradiction of his omnipotence. Likewise, God cannot set out to not-exist, as that contradicts his infinite existence; nor can he set out to change any of his characteristics, as that contradicts his immutability. It is for this reason he cannot make a rock too heavy for him to lift- it would be like asking him to make a square rectangle. God cannot set out to fail, as that would contradict his omnipotence. Please refrain from making assumptions and not pointing them out- you might confuse people. I also believe you have misinterpreted the wine argument. The wine is a mere example of how judgments can only be made based on previous interactions. In the case of tangible objects, like wine, we can make judgments according to the ability of our senses, yes. However, when we come to something intangible, like beauty, etc. then we require a previous interaction in order to make a judgment. Like I have pointed out, we observe something to be more beautiful, or as the most beautiful thing we have seen, by comparing it to what we have previously seen. What I am trying to point out is that the first interaction with beauty also involves a judgment, and so it must be based on something. Taking this idea to infinity, we reach something of infinite goodness, and we call that God. You also claim that beauty is based upon our love of symmetry, derived from mathematics. I wish to point out that mathematics is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT. All laws we have, all evidence of formulae or symmetry that we discover in nature, is based upon something that we have manifested. We can construct laws that define natural functions as linear relationships, or discover the Fibonacci sequence in the leaves of plants. But in the end, we created the mathematics used to discover these things. We use a base-10 system for out mathematics, and from here all our laws and discoveries use base 10. But if we had chosen base-9 or base-13 originally, then we would have different laws and mathematical discoveries in nature. We could find an equation for ANYTHING if we really wanted to, in all different bases if we so wished. We could find patterns in chaos (Chaos theory is purely based on finding order in the unordered). Mathematics is a human construct, as is symmetry. And yet a new born child is able to appreciate the beauty of his mother without exposure to mathematics. How can we explain that without my argument of degrees of beauty? And concerning the first wine glass as a standard, I did not say it was infinite. I was showing that it's taste had to be based on something which, when examined, is taken to infinity. The first wine glass is not infinite; it's basis of taste is. Here is an interesting idea put forth by you: "My claim is that anything that exists has been or can be 1. demonstrated 2. replicated 3. used to make accurate predictions about the nature of the thing being demonstrated." And yet science's substitute God, Evolution, does not fit this model. It has been demonstrated, yes, but can we REPLICATE IT? No we can't and are yet to do so. Can we make ACCURATE PREDICTIONS? Evolution is a probability game, and so no predictions based on evolution and observation can ever be accurate. If you ask me, scientists and atheists put as much faith in the existence of evolution as theists put in the existence of God. Neither of us, by your definition of proof, can really PROVE OUR BELIEFS, so what makes yours any more legitimate than ours? And then we have an interesting comment of yours upon the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Once again, you have begged the question, beginning with the end rather than the start. "I would then ask you, what evidence do you have that things that don't follow the laws of thermodynamics exist? You need to demonstrate how god or how anything can be unlimited or infinite before just saying god is unlimited/infinite." You see, you have actually began with the 2nd law rather than with what we are concerned with, God. A characteristic of God is that he is infinite and unlimited- its part of His nature. Following from that, we see that He cannot be limited to the laws of thermodynamics, as that would contradict his unlimited nature. You have once again altered the order in which we should be structuring the question. And note that my burden of proof is not to prove that God is unlimited, but to prove He exists. It follows that if He exists, as I am demonstrating, then He must be unlimited. The problem I have isolated with your case rests with your final statements: "How about the claim that there are microorganisms. Can you demonstrate them (effects or logic or contingency on reality)? Can you replicate this demonstration? Can you use this demonstration and subsequent replication to make accurate predictions about the nature and behavior of microorganisms? Do this with god, and you have proof." God cannot be compared with microorganisms. He is not physical, and thus cannot be proven by any physical method, such as the scientific method you are arguing with. We cannot look towards using our senses to either prove or disprove God, as you are doing. The only way we can try to examine the question is simply by using logic. Your whole idea of using the scientific method, therefore, is fundamentally flawed, as it is a method that is inapplicable to something beyond the boundaries of science. I would ask that you use logical arguments as your proofs, and ones that do not commit logical fallacies either. Further you claim that "If god exists then demonstrating him by way of effects or logic should be much easier." Once again you seem to assume that if something exists, then we should be able to physically detect it. I question your understanding of the metaphysical, as you are purely using the physical. I will now look at truth. Imagine an alien that has come to Earth from a distant planet, one that has lived on its planet alone and isolated for all its life, with no interaction with any life form, intelligent or otherwise. Now imagine that alien came to Earth in 1930s, and witnessed Hitler's rise to power, his genocidal acts, and the war in general. Would this alien, who had never been in contact with anyone, never witnessed good or evil, be able to realise that Hitler's actions were wrong? For some reason people refuse to believe in objective truth- they claim that truth is 'relative'. Using the above example, they believe that, if they were that alien them self, they would not know that Hitler was committing a great evil. I ask whether or not this is the case. Throughout history it has been observed, when looking at the laws and rules of different cultures, both geographically and through time, that many cultures have very similar laws. REMARKABLY similar laws, in fact. While there are differences on, for example, social classes, deities, and other issues like human sacrifice, the general rules are the same. Essentially, cultures that have grown INDEPENDENTLY of others, or have grown in isolation from others, end up with the same ideas that actions, like murder, theft, etc., are indeed wrong. I ask how it is that so many tribes were and are capable of reasoning such facts for themselves without external influence. Let me take this a step further. The generally believed opinion in the scientific community is that most of our actions, thoughts, moral ideal, etc., are governed and decided by evolutionary instinct. People believe that through evolution we have learned of survival, relationships, the importance of mating for the continued survival of our bloodline, etc. People tend to reduce most of what makes us human down to simply animal instinct. While I question this attitude, I would like to examine it in relation to, as an example, murder. Almost every culture through time has abhorred the act of murder- it is one of the most primal and animalistic acts that is practically universally accepted as morally wrong. And yet, if we accept the evolutionary stance, one would think that murder could be justified. If you believe in evolutionary instinct, and in relative truth, then it follows that you must believe that murder is morally alright if it serves an evolutionary purpose (like gaining you a higher level of power in a corporal business, for example) and that, relative to your own desires and, thus, evolutionary needs, it is perfectly fine to kill the guy above you on the corporal chain. I doubt that people accept this, and if that is so, then we must accept that there is objective truth, or that we have our own perspective, independent of evolution, of what is right. The conclusion we must draw from both is that there is a source of this truth, and the only way it is possible for us to have an intrinsic moral compass is if we were intelligently designed to be that way. As the alien believes that Hitler was wrong, we must, therefore, accept that there is a God. For further explanation of the heavy rock paradox, see the below link. Sources: http://www.godandscience.org...