Imagine someone staring at a night sky full of stars and just feeling overwhelmed. That sense of awe and wonder is hard to explain by chance alone. To me, that feeling points to something bigger behind it all, even if I can't prove it.

You're right that science can't prove God, and that's a fair point. But think about love or meaning—no one can prove those either, yet they still feel real. I just can't shake the feeling that there's something more behind everything.

[No submission - Time expired]

If science can't prove God, why do we accept unobservable things in technology? My opponent says unprovability kills the case. But we routinely infer hidden algorithms from their effects, without seeing the code. Fairness, privacy, meaning; we detect them by patterns and conscience, not direct proof. The other side's standard would erase half of what we know matters. A universe with moral law and awe still points to a mind behind it. So the demand for laboratory proof isn't neutral; it's just too narrow.