Does God exist?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Does God exist?". Your opponent's style: Street Debater

I think god exists

You're asserting existence without defining what you mean by "God," which is the oldest dodge in theology. Does God mean a personal being who intervenes? A cosmic force? An abstract principle? Each requires radically different evidence. Here's the problem: you can't prove a negative, but you also can't prove an unfalsifiable claim. If God is defined so vaguely that no observation could ever disprove it, then "God exists" becomes meaningless—it explains nothing and predicts nothing. That's not a belief system, that's intellectual surrender. What specific, testable claim about God are you actually defending?

I believe the Christian god exists

Now you're being specific, which is better. But Christianity makes concrete claims—Jesus rose from the dead, prayers are answered, miracles happen. Yet we see no reliable mechanism distinguishing answered prayers from coincidence, and resurrection claims lack contemporary non-Christian corroboration. More fundamentally, why assume the Christian God over Islam's Allah or Judaism's Yahweh when they all demand the same leap of faith? If personal conviction alone validates competing truth claims, then belief becomes purely subjective. You've picked one interpretation among thousands, not discovered objective truth. What evidence would actually convince you that Christianity is false, or are you unfalsifiable too?

We do see a connection between prayer and miracles, an example of this is the lourdes medical bureau miracles

Lourdes "miracles" are handpicked cases examined by believers predisposed to find divine intervention. The bureau has investigated thousands of claims and certified only 71 since 1858—a 0.1% approval rate. That's not evidence of God, that's evidence of extremely selective filtering. More damning: identical recovery rates occur at secular hospitals without prayer. If prayer caused miracles, we'd see statistical divergence. We don't. Lourdes works because people with psychosomatic conditions improve, not because God intervenes selectively at one French grotto while ignoring amputees everywhere. Why does God heal cancer but never regrow a severed limb?

These so called handpicked cases have been studied and researched by countless atheists and skeptics not just churches, and none could disprove it

You're conflating "couldn't disprove" with "proved true"—that's backwards. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, not the skeptic. Skeptics can't disprove that invisible unicorns cause recoveries either, but that doesn't make it real. Those cases involve documented illnesses and documented recoveries. What's missing is a control group. Show me that prayer-recipients recover faster than non-prayer controls with identical conditions. You can't, because comparative studies don't show that gap. Absence of alternative explanation isn't evidence of miracles, it's evidence of incomplete investigation. Why should supernatural intervention be the default explanation when natural causes remain unstudied?

Okay let me rephrase it, not couldn't disproved it , but it was proven to be medically impossible

That's still not proof of miracles. "Medically impossible recovery" means doctors can't explain the mechanism, not that God did it. Medicine has limits in explanation, not in causation. Spontaneous remission, misdiagnosis, placebo effects, and unknown biological processes all explain "impossible" recoveries without invoking God. You're using ignorance as evidence. "Science can't explain X, therefore God" commits the God-of-the-gaps fallacy. As medicine advances, those gaps shrink. Fifty years ago we couldn't explain spontaneous remission either. Now we understand immune system complexity better. If God only works in the spaces where we're currently ignorant, what happens when science catches up?

People went in waster associated with Mary, and they felt warmth or jolts, lots coming after prayer, and hearing s voice. Then they were instantly and permanently healed

You're describing subjective sensory experiences—warmth, jolts, voices—followed by recovery. But subjective experiences aren't evidence of God. Epileptic seizures produce identical phenomena: sudden heat, electrical sensations, auditory hallucinations, followed by feeling "restored." People interpret these through their cultural lens. A Christian feels Mary's presence, a Hindu feels Shiva's blessing, a neuroscientist sees temporal lobe stimulation. The "instant healing" claim needs scrutiny too. Recoveries take time; people reinterpret gradual improvement as sudden after the fact. Memory is unreliable, especially for transformative experiences. Why assume divine intervention over psychological and neurological explanations that occur everywhere, regardless of which religion prays?