God exists

First, The purpose of science is to determine what is probable. There's no such thing as proven in science. You must be mistaken. Science observes the natural world. If we cannot perceive God by observing the natural world then the person is a pseudo scientist. in reality nothing is truly impossible. Squared-Circle? Dr. Who step out of it and hand you a chocolate bar. Does that mean that you would be justified in thinking that this has actually occurred? If that did occur and we had a camera we can document it. If the Doctor allows scientists to look into the TARDIS we can asks questions and answer some of them. God has no such documented evidence since we cannot perceive with any of our 5 senses. We're dealing with the same sort of probability with the universe existingYour argument still boils down to probably God exists. I can ask where is your evidence? Instead without me giving the question you gave me probability arguments. This argument for atheism is akin to betting everything you own on a lottery ticket except it's literally almost infinitely impossible for you to win. The argument from a theist is akin to betting everything you own on a lottery ticket except it's litreally almost infinitely impossible for you to win. This works for a theist because there are countless Gods and atheists, Agnostics and non-theists for the most part reject one more God than you. ignores the fact that objective morality needs to come from somewhere. Objective morality doesn't exist. You are basing this on a assumption that your God exists and at best you gave probability arguments. A serial killer has a different form of reality then an average person. Humans are different from one another and some even have a vast differences in what they consider immoral and moral. For this reason objective morality cannot exist due to the differences in human beings and stating since we have an assumption of God's existence we have objective morality is a lie. Might makes right is the only way objective morality can exist. The problem with this is that the actual morality doesn't have to be right instead the person who is the most powerful gets to decide morality. He's already conceded that objective morality exists by saying slavery is bad. We have to agree on the same principles like slavery is bad because you are own a human as property. If we do not then we have Nazi Germany gassing Jews. If there was objective morality where was it when the Jews were gassed? So we can skip that argument. This is an assumption without asking for clarification so that you actually had a good point to make. I am disregarding everything else you said later on in this paragraph since it is based on assumptions that I did not gave. God, Being the unmoved mover, Predates matter and thus must be incorporeal. Thus not falling into the same trap of creation that matter does. How convenient. Instead of giving me evidence for such a thing you instead state it as if I am supposed to understand yes it must be. God would also need to be infinite which as I stated, Ockhams Razor suggests is the most probable kind of being. Another assumption made using a probable argument. You also failed to refute the point that denying an unmoved mover places the timeline into a state of infinite regression. God is not all those things you have mentioned. Instead you assume it as the only possible answer. We have yet to gain information that can even hypothesize how the world came to be yet you are so adamant on God being the start. However, Since you can't name an alternate unmoved mover you have this regression. Which unmover is it? The Christianic one Islamic one? Surely you know which God it is so your are not upsetting by following the wrong Religion right? God does not fall into the same line of requiring a creator because he is not finite or made of matter. Everything else is. I would put this down as convenient rather than actually giving an answer. As for Pascals wager, Right now let's just focus on A god. We don't need to pick one yet that's a whole other debate. Right now, Let's just recognize that as an atheist there is a 0% chance of anything good upon death. Even if you can't be sure which god is the right one to pick you at least have a chance. At least you have a chance? The problem with this is that as of yet there is no evidence for a such a being to exist at most sums up to probability arguments. I am only going to include 1 God because I am denying the countless God's out there. Yet you seem so adamant in removing them. Wonder why? If you don't budge from this at least tell me which God it is. I think it's supposed to read the laws of the universe are highly unlikely because they're complex. The problem with this is that are you saying God is not complex? Doesn't God have a creator like God supposedly created the laws? it was a view developed over a lifetime of scientific pursuits. No scientific paper to back up his guess why should I take it anything more than a guess? My opponent commits an argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy against Stephen C. Meyer. I didn't. I was being fair. Like I said earlier: "Sure Meyer can have an opinion but it is not a professional/educated opinion that I would consider credible. " You are capable of holding an educated view on something if you didn't go to college for it. You stated this earlier which I disregarded your points but I will specifically what Stephen Meyer stated: "in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content, " experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role. " Science observes the natural world. God is not part of the natural world therefore making a God claim with God is not scientific. If God is part of our natural world where is it? You are capable of holding an educated view on something if you didn't go to college for it. Everyone can read books. The problem with this is that at best Meyer can only hold a view that may seem educated but without the education in the particular it is only an opinion/view. What I said earlier still holds up now:"I am not taking advice about biology from a non-biologist. Holding a degree in physics and geology does not mean you are qualified in discussing biology. "Instead of giving me his thoughts why not give me the papers that support his theory? First, You were wrong about Hoyle. I just read one source which did not mention he was also a cosmologist. My fault. Not my fault is you not showing science papers which support your view. How about the steady single state theory? Meyer is an intelligent design theorist. He is qualified to talk about that, Yes? Therefore we can safely believe that he had done a large amount of research on the topic and those surrounding it. Your stacking ad hominems won't be sufficient to dismiss the point. Where did Meyer get his qualification for intelligence design theorist from? He didn't. He is a qualified in physicist and geologist which does not mean he is qualified in biology. Making biological claims using this made up title which is the first time I am hearing this does not mean he has an educated opinion on biology since intelligence does state claims about biology that he is not credible in talking about it. He does not understand however, That these scientists are not attempting to observe god. They are observing the natural worldThe problem with this is that either it is a falsifiable claim or eventually becomes an infalsifiable one. Either intelligence becomes an infinite regression (Where did this design come? What created this intelligent designer come from? ) or it becomes an infalsifiable claim to state God which cannot be observed. Due to this people who do use intelligence design have either not thought well enough about their own idea or they are stating a being which they have no proof that exists. I always use the same opening arguments and there's not reason to retype them differently every time so I just use the same wording. Okay. Await your response.