God probably exists

Argument from awareness This is mostly original so I’m just testing the water with this one. Simply speaking, without God, humanity and the universe would exist simply as a world of natural reactions and chemicals. In this world the substance of all creatures would be that of only natural chemical matter. If life did begin to exist we would only be in a sense like machines or robots. Robots and machines are obviously not aware of their existence. They cannot think, reason, imagine or exist more than just a compilation of different parts. Without God we would simply be an arrangement of various substances of naturally formed matter. This would not account for any ability to be self aware of our existence. Moral argument The representation of the moral argument that I will be using is derived from various moral arguments, but the formation is self devised. P.1 In absence of God, naturalism would be the next possible cause for morality. (By lack of other cause) P.2 We possess a moral code in which we discern moral facts by intuition or sense. (By observation) P.3 This type of objective morality requires a basis or source. (By necessity) P.4 Naturalism could not account for this source. (By definition) P.5 God can be the only other explanation for objective morality. (P.1) P.6 God is the only possible source or basis for objective morality. (P.1, P.3- P.5) P.7 God is the best explanation for objective morality. (P.1, P.3- P.6) C. Therefore God exists. (P.1- P.7) Naturalism co-existing with moral objectivity, SB-P Naturalism cannot account as a basis for morality. Keep in mind that I am talking about a morality in which we naturally posses, within our being. The very idea of naturalism accounting for this type of morality refutes the whole basis of what objective morality is. No moral code as such can be naturally formed, because the very premise "natural", refutes the whole idea. This type of moral code needs a basis. In fact it necessarily requires it. Every part of our body therefore would have had to have evolved, which would include our minds. In other words naturalism would have to entirely create us. With this fact in place there could be no way that objective morality could exist. For why would it? We would lack the necessary tool to make right/wrong judgments. Naturalism could be the only possible source, and naturalism is not a valid basis at all. Thus morality would be subjective. If there is no greater power, than there is no basis for this type of morality. [1][2][3] Existence of objective morality, SB-P problems with naturalism and our moral sense. Let me make it clear that by objective morality I do not mean all moral facts are objective, but that a basic moral code exists and that some objective moral facts do indeed exist. I think it has been established that naturalism and this moral code cannot co-exist, so now the only thing to do is prove that more than likely a moral code does exist. By observation, moral objectivity is evident. Morality is not something that is flippant in nature; it is polar. Certain actions are blatantly obviously wrong, such as shoving shards of glass into a two year old babies eyes simply out of pure delight. Human beings possess advanced cognitive faculties, and observation prima-facie suggests that we possess the natural ability to differentiate between right and wrong. We can deduce certain facts, not logically but naturally. I can recognize signals from my sense of smell, and touch, just as I can recognize facts that my moral sense gives me. We cannot hold the view that our senses are incredibly untrustworthy. In fact to deny a moral sense would be to assert that we, for some reason, own a natural intuition that is entirely and completely flawed. The naturalist needs to answer the puzzling question, why do we have such a strong moral perception if it is entirely untrustworthy? In fact would not the naturalist believe that evolution would have by now eliminated this hindrance? Instead we would be left perplexed on why we as humans reserve such a deceptive and useless natural sense. It is probable that objective morality, if caused by God, would be something that humans are naturally in-tune with, and that is the exact type of morality that is evident in observation. Denying this fact only brings up opposing questions. For to negate this you would have to argue that we possess a highly, unreliable, deceptive and useless natural instinct, when there is no explanation through naturalism as to why it naturally exists within us. [4][5] We can also derive the fact that naturalistic theory does not correspond with the moral sense we currently posses. While I did partially address this in the previous paragraph I will do so more directly here. Evolution postulates a survival and logic based thinking. Our moral senses do not correlate with such a theory, for many facts our moral sense tells are contrary to such an assertion. For example we are generally highly sympathetic to the feelings of others. Most people are reluctant to cheat and hurt other less superior people for own personal benefit, and those that do are labeled as corrupt. Naturalism assumes a survival of the superior. Genetic inheritance has not formed us into this way of thinking however. Certain facts that are more logical we conceive of as barbaric. It should be morally acceptable to torture people considering this view, but very few people would advance such a proposition. We also make efforts into preventing certain actions as being labeled as torture so that they are not viewed as un-justified, such as water boarding. Our moral sense strongly dictates that killing those who are weak and un-benefical to society in order so that the superior may survive, is wrong. However this would be directly in line with survival of the fitness and thus our moral senses dictate something that would be contrary to what a naturally formed moral intuition would dictate.[7] Morality is something that humans are naturally in-tune with Hence "moral code". This sort of objective morality is somewhat analogous to sense perception. There is not much of a categorical difference between moral and sense perception. Our intuitions are often prima facie reliable. They allow us to perceive facts and make judgments. Hearing a sound behind me allows me to reason that someone is approaching. My sense perception allowed me to perceive a certain fact, just as our moral sense allows us to perceive certain facts. There is no reason to believe moral and sense perceptions are non-comparative. Our sense perceptions are within a reasonable amount accurate and our moral perception would have to be greatly skewed if we do not confirm to the fact that they are analogous [2][7] Prophecies The Bible amazingly foretells events years or even centuries before they take place. According to one source, the Bible contains around 2,500 prophecies. With our current knowledge about 2,000 have been accurately fulfilled.[8] If the chance of one of these prophecies being fulfilled were one in ten; the odds of all these prophecies being fulfilled is 1 and 1 followed by 2,000 zeros.[8]Just to give an example, Daniel prophesied the coming of the Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman empires, Alexander the Great, the details of many military battles and the exact date Jesus would enter Jerusalem."The Bible is like no other book in the world. It is filled with internal evidence that it is the Word of God. No other religion has a book filled with prophecies fulfilled one right after the other. The few books that have even attempted this have been proven to be written by false prophets who cannot foretell the future. But you can trust in the Bible, which is the true Word of God, who proves that He is the Author of it by fulfilled prophecies. As He said more than 2700 years ago:"[9] Sources are in link.http://www.debate.org...