Does God exist?

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

I will argue that there is evidence such as a formal argument that makes the God proposition more likely than the non God proposition

You're assuming formal arguments can bridge the gap between abstraction and reality. They can't. A syllogism about God proves nothing about existence, only about logical consistency. The Cosmological Argument, for instance, merely shifts the problem: if God needs no cause, why does the universe? You've simply renamed the mystery rather than solved it. Every formal argument relies on premises you've smuggled in without justification. Which specific argument do you think avoids circular reasoning or unprovable assumptions about causality, necessity, or being itself?

Sorry mistype I meant there is no evidence that makes the God proposition more likely than the non God proposition

Now you're claiming absence of evidence equals evidence of absence, which is logically backwards. We don't need positive evidence for God to make theism rational, only for naturalism to explain why consciousness, mathematical truth, and the universe's fine-tuned constants exist without intelligent design. Atheism isn't the default position just because you can't prove God. You're smuggling in an assumption that physical evidence is the only valid evidence, which itself is an unprovable philosophical claim. Why should we accept that burden of proof lies exclusively on theists rather than on your worldview to explain these hard problems?

Am agnostic so am not in favor of ethier atheism or theism as I don't see any compeling evidence or argument that make one more likely than the other

You're hiding behind "I don't know" to avoid the real question: which worldview better explains what we observe? Agnosticism dodges this by treating theism and atheism as symmetrical, but they're not. One posits an intelligent designer who accounts for consciousness, intentionality, and order. The other offers no explanation, just matter in motion. You claim equal evidence, but you haven't actually tested whether naturalism can solve the hard problem of consciousness or why mathematical reality governs physical reality. Agnosticism sounds modest, but it's actually lazy epistemology. What specific evidence would move you one direction, or are you genuinely indifferent to which is true?

I dont see why athiesm cant ground consciousness and order in our reality. Through natural processes like evolution it can explain why minds came to exist, and the order of the universe can be grounded in other necessary grounds that arent God like the wave function since athiesm can also be neo platonism. To move forward give me an argument that would make theism more likely than athiesm.

Evolution explains brain structure, not consciousness itself. Why does physical process produce subjective experience? Naturalism has no answer, only redescriptions. Your neo-Platonism move is revealing: you're smuggling in abstract necessary entities to do God's explanatory work. The wave function isn't less mysterious than God, it's equally mysterious and explains less. Here's the real argument: theism posits one unified explanation for mind, order, and existence. Atheism fragments into multiple unsolved mysteries requiring separate unprovable solutions. Occam's Razor favors the unified account. Which requires fewer unexplained brute facts: one designer or countless disconnected necessities you can't derive from anything?

A physicalist would say consciousness just reduces to the brain structure evidence by how whenever we affect or remove a region of the brain we also affect and remove from our consciouse exprience. And I dont know why you are dismissing explanations to reality like the wave function which would explain the order of the universe as well as God. This shows that atheism has as much explanotary power as theism thus why am agnostic unless you can form a formal argument proving one over the other

Brain dependence proves correlation, not reduction. Aspirin affects headaches, but that doesn't mean headaches are aspirin. You're confusing causal interaction with identity. The wave function doesn't explain order, it describes mathematical patterns without explaining why those patterns exist or why they govern reality. You've just relocated the mystery to physics. Theism offers unified explanation: mind, order, and existence all stem from conscious design. Atheism offers fragmentation: unexplained consciousness, unexplained mathematical structure, unexplained existence. Equal explanatory power is false. One system answers three questions, yours answers none. Which requires fewer blind faith commitments: God or three separate brute facts you accept without justification?

Taking aspirin to heal headaches do reveal our conscious expriences are phyisical as they are affected by chemical reaction, or any other phyiscal phenomena that affect our brains. wave function monism would claim that every mathematical pattern or mathematical objects are necessary and are not contigent to be a brute fact. Necessary things under psr are the explanation of every other contigent thing and dont need an explanation otherwise they are also contigent. So consiouness, order and existence aren't brute facts in the athiest world view just like the God worldview

You're equivocating "physical causation" with "physical identity." Aspirin affects consciousness through physical means, but that proves consciousness depends on physics, not that it is physics. Wave function monism doesn't solve this, it just relabels the mystery as "necessary mathematics." Why are those specific mathematical patterns necessary rather than others? You've pushed the brute fact back one step. And here's your fatal move: if the PSR demands explanation for contingent things, it demands explanation for why those particular mathematical necessities obtain rather than none. God at least answers that. Your system still leaves the deepest question unanswered. Why does anything necessary exist at all?