The abrahamic god exists.

"Sin is evil in God's eyes, yes that is true, and God does control all the evil that happens in this world, it would be impossible for evil to exist without God or anything evil to happen without God. So in that sense God does control all the sin in the world and has even predestined each and every individual sin to happen." Here you say that sin is evil and that god allows it - therefore saying that god allows evil to exist. This means he cannot be all good and so is not the abrahamic god. "At the same time we have free will and every sin that occurs is a human being's fault NOT GOD'S even though God predestined all sins to happen." God is all knowing and therefore he knows every action we will take as soon as he creates us. This means (essentially) he made the choice for us. If we sin or do any evil he created us to do so and so he made us sin. This again means he cannot be all good and so not the abrahamic god. "Now that I have explained the issue of free will vs. God's sovereignty I believe that we should start debating about the actual existence God!" If sin exists and free will does not the abrahamic god does not exist so i am arguing the existence of god. You insist that i do not understand the subject but it seems to me that you do not understand my arguements. This is evident when you say "I mean, what you're debating is a totally different issue compared to the physical existence of God." "God says not to murder but murders happen every day. This doesn't mean that God is evil for this since all sin is purely man's fault." I will reiterate this point because it is very important. God knows all and can control all. If he does not have control over mans actions then he cannot control all and so is not the abrahamic god. This means free will is not compatible with the abrahamic god. If you believe in a similar god that is not all powerful then it is not the abrahamic one and that is a separate debate. 1) This argument (as any logical person can see) has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of god. Even if it would be BETTER if he did exist that does not mean he DOES exist. But even though this has nothing to do with the debate (again something you accused me of) i will refute it. Morality: there are many effective moral systems such as utilitarianism that provide fully objective morals. And -as a personal note- I was once a christian and followed the ten commandments to a tee. Currently i am a utilitarian and i am much more moral now than i ever was as a religious believer. 2) A philosopher can prove that the idea of god is logically flawed and so can disprove his existence. For example you cannot disprove the idea that there is a pink elephant somewhere in the universe but you can disprove the idea that there is a square circle invisible pink elephant (because it cannot exist.) This is exactly what i am doing with the abrahamic god because -as i have explained- he is self contradictory. The fossil record is not complete YET. but we have a huge portion of it. 3) Even if this was true it does not prove the existence of a self contradictory abrahamic god. Is it not possible they saw someone that looked like Jesus? There are so many possible explanations and to assume resurrection is simple illogical. 4) matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but they can be converted and shaped by forces such as gravity. The big bang was the expansion of this matter and energy(nothing was created). Matter and energy have always existed and require no creator. Even if your point was true this does not prove the abrahamic god which you must remember is your goal. Thank you for your response and i look forward to continuing the debate. I also ask that we bring up no new arguments in the last round as the opponent would not have a chance to refute them. Thank you.