"God exists" is true

I will attempt to refute your arguments to the best of my abilities. My opponent wisely used a priori arguments to attempt to prove a godlike being (not necessarily the Christian god) exists before attempting to prove that that specific god is the Christian god. I could grant my opponent those arguments without directly granting the position but I also believe these arguments have flaws so I will try and refute them first. A Priori ArgumentsMind Over MatterMy opponent stated that information requires a sender but provided no argument to support this. If my opponent adds the attribute "requires a sender" to the definition of "information" I have no problem with using that specific definition of the word "information" in this debate but than I simply would not see genetics (for example) as a form of information because it has not been proved that it has a sender. This very argument tries to prove that there is such a sender. To summarize: Either information doesn't require a sender (refuting P2) or it does (by definition) but than information is not the underlying principle of reality (refuting P1). The Prime MoverWhile I am personally not yet convinced that there necessarily exists a first cause of everything I will grant this for the sake of brevity within this debate. Although my opponent's explanation of boundaries and complexity is a bit simplistic (Cells within cats cannot simply "be formed to exist in other animals" for example) I agree with the general idea I think is presented, which is "simpler patterns of building blocks have less attributes and therefore less boundaries". This idea however doesn't support the idea that the most simplistic pattern of building blocks is free from all boundaries. In fact, all boundaries of complex patterns come forth out of the boundaries of simple patterns. The movement and arrangement that cells are forced to be in because of the boundaries of cells are the direct cause of the fact that a cat is a cat and not a dog. If cells where completely limitless than the cat would be completely limitless as well. The boundaries of the cat are defined by the boundaries of the cell. The boundaries of the cell are defined by the boundaries of the atom, etc. The boundaries of everything will eventually be defined by the boundaries of the prime mover. The fact that the most simple of patterns possible is limitless is therefore unsupported. The idea that it can interact with all of reality is equally unsupported. But even if I would were to grant both of those statements (the prime mover has no boundaries and can interact with all of reality), the idea that such a prime mover can only be an eternal mind does not necessarily follow from those statements. IntentionalityMy opponent states that "no purpose can ever derive from contingent accidental causes. ". If we define purpose as "the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists" than indeed purpose cannot be without intent. If God doesn't exist than the human race is indeed a collocation of atoms without purpose. However individual humans do have intentions. Therefore purpose can be derived from contingent unintended causes if God doesn't exist, refuting the statement made by my opponent. Such unintended causes can eventually cause intentions, including my meaningful arguments. A Posteriori ArgumentsEven if all my opponent's A Priori arguments are successfully refuted it is still a possibility that the universe was created intentionally by a mind. So if my opponent's A Posteriori Arguments are not refuted they could still support the initial position. Therefore I should refute these arguments as well. The Historicity of Christ. There is much debate and disagreement amongst scholars on the details of the life and death of Jesus Christ. The statement that "most scholars agree to the 12 mentioned historical facts" is highly disputed. (1)Furthermore if one of these facts states "The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. " outright than the scenario "The early disciples hid Christ's body from the tomb, spread the lie that he was resurrected, and were tortured and killed to protect that lie" is logically impossible because if the disciples knew it was a lie they did not believe their experiences were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. This tells me that this particular historical fact is either poorly worded within this source, or not a statement that scholars agree with as historical fact. As a side note: I would also argue that the complexity of the topic (the historicity of Jesus) in itself is a sign that this is not a good way for a god to provide evidence for it's existence. For such evidence would in that case only be available to learned scholars or people that happen to believe the correct learned scholars. MiraclesCraig S. Keener has published a book with many examples of miracles. Not having read the book I cannot go into detail about the credibility of such miracles. But the sheer number of these miracles is not really a factor in this debate, a credible miracle would trump any quantity of incredible miracles. So I invite my opponent to pick one or a handful of the miracles in the book to debate their credibility in detail. In general I can state that eye-witness reports alone are one of the worst forms of evidence available for such cases. Rumours and reports of UFO's and the Loch Ness Monster would have the same credibility. My opponent also provided a source that states that 73 percent of American physicians believe in miracles. That same source also states that 80 percent of the US population believes in miracles. To me this says physicians (those that should, if they exist, by merit of their profession come into contact with miracles more often than the general population) are actually less likely(! ) to believe in miracles than the rest of America. I do not think such arguments from authority should hold much weight in such debates but if readers of this debate are intrested in counter-arguments from authority: Most scientists have a personal disbelief in god. (2)1. . https://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://www.stephenjaygould.org...