Does God Exist?

N ow that I have voted, and that this debate really was never a debate, I can now render a comment in the Description that takes a matter-of-fact view that it appears most Christians believe, if they really think about it, and much, I think, is drawn from John 4: 24: "God is a Spirit..." Well, that sounds pretty definitive, but note the elipsis; there's more to the verse than that truncated version. The rest says, "...and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." So, how does a person, a mortal being, worship in the spirit, and might the same attitude be descriptive of God? Not that God is physically a spirit, only, but that he is spiritual; i.e., of a religiously contemplative attitude. Consider the commentary of the resurrected Lord, from Luke, speaking to his apostles: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Luke 24: 39 Jesus resurrected as a glorified being having a perfect, physical body, which he maintained for the few days he spent among his disciples even as he ascended to heaven. What, we explain this away by claiming he reverted to a spirit upon ascension? Why? Because, we think, a physical body cannot ascend into heaven? Gravity, and all that? Then how did Jesus walk on water? Even Peter managed to do it until he let fear overwhelm him. Physicality must have capabilities we don't imagine, because physics gets in the way. Holy science. Well, science changes its mind all the time, or did we forget that just two centuries ago, we still thought Earth centered the universe? You think maybe Christ has a handle on other laws of physics than those we know?
So, since Jesus said on several occasions that he and the Father are one; see him, you've seen the Father, this doesn't mean they are one and the same person. Jesus did not pray to himself; absurd. They're separate individuals. And both are resurrected, physical beings. Not that this changes the debate, even as it will be argued in another format. Just that I rankle at such a definition of God.
Pro's source, William Craig, with whom I disagree all the time, draws upon the doubtful expertise of Swinburne, who not only thinks God is a spirit, but that God is his personal name. No. Even the term we have in English is drawn from the Hebrew, Elohim, which is not a personal name, either, but a title, and, as well, happens to imply multiple gods, not just one. As in Gen 1: 26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:..."

It probably didn't happen.

I'm curious. What platform is your new debate going to be on?

"A person"

God is not a person, supposedly God is the one who created the people and the idea of 'a person'.

"Perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good"

God cannot do something and do nothing at the same time in a way normal humans can comprehend, nor can he do anything unjustified. The definition itself is rigged.

By your definition of God, I, a confirmed theist, would meet your definition of an atheist; that God, as defined, does not exist. It's an odd position for me, as I totally disagree that God is defined as you have; without a physical body. Yes, I am fully aware of the various scriptures that say God is a spirit, and some of them even add that to properly worship God, we must worship him in spirit. Tell me how we do that as physically embodied, but not just spirits. We are physical bodies and spirits. In my view, God is no different, except that his physical body is perfect, as ours will one day be. Perhaps there is an interrupt here the scriptures do not adequately explain. Maybe they once did, and those explanations were removed in translation from Hebrew and Greek in order to convey an agenda to explain how God can be everywhere at once. There are other explanations. With technology, we see dignitaries and celebrities on TV around the world. I'm suspicious that God's tech is superior to ours.