RESOLVED: Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist

Rebuttals: "That is a fallacy of no proof and of circular argumentation." Con doesn't state the fallacy that i committed, doesn't acknowledge my source, and doesn't demonstrate why it's circular reasoning. "If I said "Jack and Jill went up the hill but only Jill climbed the hill, does that necessarily affirm the proposition? Or if I said, "my homework exists if I did it and saved it on my computer" but in fact, I did do it, but forgot to save it on my computer, then isn't the proposition negated? This seemingly proves that existence, accordingly to definition, is dependent on the attributes of conception of the concept, or ways of perception." It doesn't because no where are there any attributes describing them as the "great." Existence is entirely based on your observation of Jack and Jill and your homework. "How can the opposition simply believe that my arguments are refuted by what the scripture says?" Your resolution is "Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist", therefore we are forced to understand God through the Christian perspective. If you wanted no Scriptures, you should have stated so or otherwise simply state that "God" exists. Con commits the strawman fallacy (1). No where is "because the Bible said so" in my set of logical propositions. "Existence is built upon attributes" Con provided no reasoning for this case. He ignores the other arguments refuting the problem of evil. " I have indeed experienced the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but how is that enough proof to say that He exists? Experience is not existence." Science isn't meant to discover the existence of things, but to learn more about the universe (2). If the Flying Spaghetti Monster is supernatural then Science will not be concerned with it. "If the anecdote proves that God exists to the opposition" Con falsely accuses me of anecdotal evidence when the resolution is "Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist." I am not giving empirical evidence for God, simply stating why he exists. "we live is objective" Con gives no logical reasoning to deduce our existence. We live is an assumption that we hold. "Yes, it is true than some people do believe in ghost, others do not" Con already agrees with me that humans can reach different conclusions and that those cannot be affected unless one takes certain other axioms. The rest of his points are irrelevant. As i said, using logic and science wisely, we can calculate that God most likely exists. Before i get into that discussion, i must clarify a few things. All religions cannot be true at once as it would violate classical physics. Science cannot "prove" God's existence. P1: Science is concerned with what's physical P2: God is spiritual C: Science cannot study God Does that mean it cannot be known that God exists? Not necessarily. What would be required to acknowledge the existence of another being? By simply examining how we treat other concepts. For example, how do i know that you exist? P1: Knowing requires objective observation P2: Objective observation leads to Reality P3: I can objectively observe you C: You exist Truth does not only consist of empirical evidence, but also experience and logic. I'll give an example. P1: There will be consequences for your actions P2: I rob a bank P3: The police are after me C: Therefore, there are consequences to my actions Abstract concepts such as love also cannot be seen, but somehow believed on. In fact, cognitive scientists have found that even atheists believe in things you might consider "supernatural" (3). In a scientific setting, Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is often the correct one (4). If all other possibilities for other candidates of God can be ruled out then the God of the Bible can be demonstrated to be the true God. Is the God of the Bible a human invention? No psychological, historical, or archaeological evidence would indicate so. Branches of science such as neurotheology do not attempt to explain his existence, but rather how religious experiences work (5). You could logically infer that God is simply a product of the brain, but the religious person is equally justified in arguing that God hardwired our brains to believe in him. Who is right? Scientifically, it's inconclusive. It's easier to approach the monotheistic concept of God than polytheistic ones as they speak in absolutes. Textual critics have found that very little changes have been found in the Old and New Testament of the Scriptures that do not affect a single doctrine (6). How is this possible? How is it possible for mere humans to write about specific concepts consistent with each other throughout time without any bias or corruptions introduced? What are the implications of this? That some form of intelligent being must be behind all this. Now it doesn't imply that God exists or that he did it, but other possibilities are less likely such as aliens. for example biblical prophecies are precisely accurate predictions of the future. Aliens could not cause everything to happen in the Bible as it would require the ability to foresee the future which they don't have. Furthermore, there's alot of psychological factors in the Bible which directly relate to human nature which is something that aliens probably are unaware of or if they are, how did they become aware of it? How could they come to the Earth without us noticing? There are many possibilities which makes it extremely unlikely for aliens to have caused the Bible. According to a mathematician, prophecy are mathematically very unlikely events (7). Thus, it's very unlikely for humans themselves to fulfill them alone and also for aliens without risking a time paradox. That being said, once we analyze each possibility going against God and rule them out, the explanation of God becomes the simplest one. Sources: 1. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 2. http://undsci.berkeley.edu... 3. http://www.science20.com... 4. http://science.howstuffworks.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://irr.org... 7. http://sciencespeaks.dstoner.net...