God exists.

"To begin my case I ask the question: what was it that God revealed to man? He did not reveal science as the whole structure of physical science as been gradually built up by man. He did not teach man geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology nor did he teach man how to cure disease. God did not teach man agriculture, mathematics or any form of the arts. Solely, man developed the steam engine, the aeroplane, the submarine, the telegraph and the wireless. These things are indispensable and without them- civilisation would be impossible. These advances made by men are behaviours that would have taken place whether man had heard of God or not." (Opponent) Firstly and primarily, whether God has revealed anything to man has no finality on whether he exists or not. God could exist and willingly choose not to reveal things to men. The point my opponent is trying to raise is extremely weak. It is also a logical fallacy, specifically an argument from ignorance. Even if I chose to debate this further, even though it clearly does not affect my argument or create one for my opponent, I could easily say that God inspires some people to discover things, which is a reasonable assertion that could be supported. In short, this argument is fallacious and thus can be disregarded. ""So, what is there left for God to have originally given men? The affirmative states that is morality; the ten commandments. (I am sorry, but I am sure I did not mention the ten commandments.) God told man not to steal, commit murder and for children to honour their parents. In upmost importance though, God told man to honour him above anything else because without their loyalty- decency would disappear from human society despite the many advances that men have made over their generations of existence. The Oxford Dictionary define morality as: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Some examples of morality (as explained in the ten commandments) are the love for a child by their mother and the idea that murdering another human is an evil doing."" (opponent) I agree with this, for the most part. ""In frankness, I do not understand how the affirmative can believe that man (inventor and discoverer of so many great feats) would not be able to discover these traits sowed deep into our society for themselves. Today, a non-Christian mother can love her child more than a Christian one does. The reverse is also true. If we are to use the affirmative's 'game analogy', although the creator of the game can be placed in an amoral state- the players of the game are powerful enough to sense an evil within an unjust set of rules and, if given the power to adjust the game code, CAN create a more 'moral' version of the game where all players benefit."" (opponent) Interestingly enough, my opponent again opts to apply another fallacious argument. He crafts an argument from personal incredulity, saying, ""I do not understand how the affirmative can believe that man (inventor and discoverer of so many great feats) would not be able to discover these traits sowed deep into our society for themselves."" However, he does not actually provide any sort of evidence that man is able to discover morality himself. He just asserts this, and implies that I am clearly wrong, all without evidence. My opponent also seems to be building a strawman, because he makes it seem as though I said non- Christians cannot be moral, even though I said no such thing. Again, if I were to continue with this fallacious argument, I would say this, "Yes humans can innately sense morality, but what if God put it there?" ""In summary, a person can be moral without religious beliefs and this can further be proved by the fact that animals of a different species to us have a sense of right and wrong without being Christian. The alternate world that the affirmative persists that I create is not alternate but in fact that one in which we have and continue to live in today."" (opponent) Once again, the objective of my opponent was to either create a reasonable argument as to why God does not exist, or to reasonable disprove my premises. My opponent chooses instead to continue his straw man argument, making it seem as though i stated that non Christians cannot be moral, even though I stated no such thing. In addition, my opponent also appeals to nature (also fallacious), in order to "prove" that people can have morals without being Christian. No one was disputing that. In summary, I have made arguments, my opponent has made logical fallacies, so I will wait until my opponent either rebuts my claims or premises, or makes a valid logical argument.