Religion (Christ)

Thanks Con.Rebuttal"So this whole debate is on whether God is real or not. So in this paragraph I will show how this is impossible."I'd like to note the severity of this claim. You're not merely saying that you don't think God exists, you're going as far as to say that it is impossible that God could exist. This is a radically bold claim."So if nobody created God, and God existed then he would have to be eternal or therefore infinite."This is a pretty common misunderstanding with regard to the eternal nature of God. God is eternal in the sense that He exists outside of time. It is not as if God has an infinite past and an infinite future, but rather He has had no past and has no future because He is not constrained by time. He is beginningless and endless; He transcends time itself. But an eternal universe would result in an infinite regress of past events (as time is clearly a component of the universe). Does this help? It's a tricky subject, but the key lies in recognizing the difference between God (who transcends time) and the universe (of which time is a component)."But Jesus, in his teachings believed it was literal so you disagree with the very person you worship."This is false. Jesus by no means took every Old Testament story to be literal. Here are two sources which examine alternative explanations to Jesus' references to these Old Testament stories:http://www.godofevolution.com...http://scibel.com...The idea that Jesus took each and every one of these stories to be literal is pure speculation. The Christian is not constrained to this sort of fundamentalist ideology, but is apt to take a more rational view of these stories if he or she so wishes. I think it is far more likely that these types of stories were not literal, but were instead figurative and meant to make a point (theological, moral, etc.)"I’ve noticed that you seem to water down religion so much to fit reality."If you mean to say that I've "watered down" fundamentalist Christianity, then I suppose I'd have to agree with you. But I don't believe that the fundamentalist view is true! For this reason I don't think that there is any sort of issue. To give an analogy, consider two different ideologies, ideology A and ideology B. Ideology A is radical and full of things that contradict our own personal knowledge and experience with the world. Ideology B, however, fits perfectly well with our own personal knowledge and experience with the world. You might be accurate in saying that ideology B is a watered down version of ideology A, but that does absolutely nothing to show that ideology B is therefore false. It could be just as plausibly argued that ideology A is just a radical, nonsensical version of ideology B. But you don't seem to have any sort of issue with those who take the more rational ideology. Perhaps this is because you've only interacted with individuals who take this view. But as I said, just because one view may be a watered down version of a more radical view, it obviously does not follow that therefore the more radical view is more probably true. "Contradict so many facts about religion to make it the object fit reality and truth."Are you arguing that stories like Adam and Eve are "facts"? If so, this seems to contradict your own view. If not, then there is no inconsistency between my own view and Christianity. Furthermore, I would argue that it is the atheist who has tried to change the object to fit it through the hole (to use your analogy). Atheists maintain that the universe is either eternal or else it caused itself, that the initial conditions of the universe that support intelligent life came abound by random chance, that there is no such thing as good and evil, and that the very idea of God is incoherent. Atheism blatantly contradicts both modern science and elementary logic. It is a prime example of a view that must drastically alter reality in order to remain relevant. "God is supposedly a spirit or invisible so he can’t think."Who's to say that a physical body is required for thought? We know that animals can not be intentional (they can not think about something, say they're future plans) whereas humans can be intentional. This would suggest a different between animals and humans, a difference beyond the physical (a soul). If God is a soul, then we can reasonably conclude that He, too, can be intentional. For example, if animals have property A (a physical body) and humans have properties A and B (a physical body and a soul) and humans are the only ones able to be intentional, then it is reasonable to conclude that any being with B (a soul) can be intentional. Thus, God's immaterial nature presents no issue."It is impossible for Him to exist."Wild assertion? Atheists have been trying to show that God is impossible for thousands of years without the slightest hint of luck. I'm happy to see you're confident enough to make such a radical claim (that has absolutely no justification) but unfortunately it seems that you too have failed to disprove the existence of God. "I did not agree at all at what you said when you labeled all atheists... This is stereotype, labels people and tells them what they have to believe." These are not stereotypes at all. Rather, they are beliefs that must be held if atheism is affirmed. To give one example, you cannot affirm both atheism and the existence of objective moral values (right and wrong). You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to call yourself an atheist, then you must hold to atheistic beliefs. If you want to believe in things like objective truth and morality, then you must abandon atheism in order to avoid holding contradicting beliefs. From what you have told me in this debate, you do not seem to be an atheist at all, but instead some sort of anti-Old Testament theist/deist. "If you think that I have to believe these all to be atheist, then I shall change to whatever suits my thoughts and interests."I think Christian theism is much more compatible and suits your "thoughts and interests" much better than atheism does. I'd encourage you to continue researching Christianity as I think there is great potential for common ground."I believe morality comes from human nature not gods."If morality is a mere by product of human nature, then you have no ground to tell anyone that their morality is right or wrong. The man who rapes and tortures children is just as "good" as the man who is kind and generous under that view. This is the issue with atheistic morality- it leads directly to nihilism. "Atheists don’t need religion neither does anyone else." We're not debating whether or not atheists (or anyone else)"need" religion, we're debating whether or not a particular religion is true. Whether or not you think you need religion is a matter of personal opinion. "As I was reading the Bible, God did many… stupid and contradicting things... This is very wrong since if he created everything why did he create diseases."First of all, there is nothing contradictory about the existence of God and the existence of diseases. Second, I don't believe God "created" diseases. "God calls his creation an intelligent design? Then why are there more than 4,000 genetic diseases, war, greed, death, girls can’t be educated, children dying of hunger, think about all the things that are wrong with the world"This is critical- each of the things you listed (war, greed, etc.) are a result of human nature. It is irresponsible to blame all of these human errors on God. Do you really think that God wants war, greed, death, lack of education, hunger, etc.? Really? Are these not each examples of human selfishness and evil?I'm out of room for now.My opponent has failed in his attempt to show that the existence of God is impossible. He has also failed to knock down the arguments I gave in the opening round.