If God Exists

== Response == Con continues to press their point that God is a "magical creature" according to their google definition, and is therefore impossible. I have already shown that there are multiple definitions for "magic," and Con has given us no reason to accept their single definition while rejecting all others. I submit that Merriam-Webster is probably a more accurate source for definitions than google.com. Anyway, this argument is purely semantic and contains very little, if any, substance. The universe being 13.5 billion years old does not disprove god's possibility whatsoever. I am unaware of any theories, even theistic ones, that claim the universe is one week old, so I'm not sure where my opponent is going with that. My simple counter to this is perhaps god created the universe 13.5 million years ago. UV light is harmful in some circumstances, but it also has many benefits. For example, UV light is responsible for the formation of vitamin D in the skin [1]. If god exists, then he did invent UV light.... but he also invented an atmosphere containing ozone that protects the earth's surface from its harmful effects. Under a healthy ozone layer, dangerous levels of UV radiation do not reach the earth's surface. Besides ozone, UV light is easily blocked by hair and clothes (which are made from plant and animal fibers.... which god also created). God never commanded us "thou shalt take thy shirt off at the beach!" I'm a bit confused why Con is using so many Bible verses as proof that God cannot exist. This is a catch-22. In order for a Bible verse to serve as valid evidence, my opponent must accept the Bible as a credible source. If the Bible is a credible source, then it proves god exists, and if it's not a credible source, then it cannot count as valid evidence for Con's argument! So which is it? I will not admit that God has never answered a prayer, and Con cannot prove otherwise. However, I will still entertain this idea. It is well known that Jesus often spoke in figures of speech called parables. Parables are metaphors, they are not meant to be literal. So Jesus is not literally advocating throwing mountains into the sea. They key here is context - scripture must always be interpreted through the broader picture of scripture. Yes, there are time where Jesus encourages people to pray with great faith and confidence, as if to move a mountain. But Jesus also gives an example of exactly what a prayer should sound like. This is often called "The Lord's Prayer." "This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation,[a] but deliver us from the evil one." - Matt 6:9-13 So Jesus says prayers should consist of worship, asking for god's will, asking for provision (daily bread), and forgiveness. No mention of turning people into birds or granting random wishes like a genie. Moving on.... Even though my opponent gives an extreme example, they are technically correct that neon astronaut teddy bears cannot be disproven simply through a lack of observation. Making a claim of certainty from the absence of evidence is called an "argument from ignorance," and it's a logical fallacy. My rebuttal still stands. The final point - morality, purpose, meaning. Con continues to say things like "this is scientifically proven..." yet still refrains from actually explaining or citing such scientific "facts." I challenged Con in the last round to specifically cite all these facts they are alluding to, and they did not. A random survey (that also has no citation) does not demonstrate how true morality, meaning, and purpose can exist in a purely random and natural world. There can be no objective purpose or moral truth in the world if there is no source of objectivity. Nature cannot be a source. I agree that only a crazy person would deny the evil of slaying millions of people. But let's take it a step deeper - if there is no god and the random natural process is all there is, then what exactly makes killing intrinsically evil? I again submit that the universal appeal to morality and meaning (which Con makes themselves) is enough to concede that a god is possible. I would list more arguments, but I don't believe Con has successfully refuted my original 3, so I will stop here. Looking forward to the concluding round. [1] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...