Is it advisable to believe in God

Before beginning the argument, I concede to the addition of the Negations definition ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ The question of believing in a God has enticed arguments through the 21st century. Many people believe that God is imaginary and it would be illogical to follow a path of religion. I am here, on the Affirmative side, to tell you that that assumption would be wrong. A belief in God is highly logical and can be proved through many aspects of mathematics and science, as well as philosophical reasoning. My first contention is that the idea of a god is logical, regardless of what other people may have said. My first point of evidence is a mathematical proof created by a man named Kurt Gï¿½del. This mathematical proof, called Gï¿½del's Ontological Proof (1), is most easily summed up by the statement below. "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." Further proof stems from the scientific field with the disproving of Abiogenisis. Abiogenesis is the theory that a collection of matter grouped together in a "biological soup" and that under the right conditions can come to form life (2). This theory has been proved wrong several time and each time the theory of biogenisis (the theory that life can only arise from life) is proved true again (3). The Laws of Thermodynamics are also usable in the argument in the affirmation of God. A formal definition of the second law of thermodynamics is "In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (the entropy) increases." In other words, in any closed system, the amount of disorder always increases with time. Things progress naturally from order to disorder, or from an available energy state to one where energy is more unavailable. A way to imagine this is like a hot stove in a cool room, as heat is released, the heat is not lost, but simply expands into the cooler air, making the room jus that much warmer. As the air gets warmer, the stove will eventually become less and less needed until the room temperature and the stove temperature become the same.ï¿½Now consider the entire universe as one giant closed system. Stars are hot, just like the cup of coffee, and are cooling down, losing energy into space. The hot stars in cooler space represent a state of available energy, just like the hot coffee in the room. However, the second law of thermodynamics requires that this available energy is constantly changing to unavailable energy. In another analogy, the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable energy, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning! (I.e. someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by the second law of thermodynamics. Only the creator of the second law of thermodynamics could violate the second law of thermodynamics, and create energy in a state of availability in the first place (4). Further scientific proof can arise from the laws of thermodynamics. These pieces of evidence and more make up the debate that proves the existence of God, which in turn, makes it advisable to believe in God. My second contention is that wether or not a God exists (despite the evidence given in the first contention), believing in a Religion would reasonable and logical for a person to partake in. My first piece of evidence comes from a genius mathematician by the name of Blasï¿½ Pascal. Blasï¿½ created a benefit chart that showed the possible outcomes and your benifits (1). The benifits for a religious person if God existed would receive a ranking of 4, since they receive eternal bliss. Benifits for an atheist if god existed would receive a ranking of 1, since they would experience eternal pain. If God did not exist, atheist would receive a ranking of 3, since their beliefs were proven and religious people a ranking of 2 since nothing after death is better than hell. Through the logic of his benifits chart,ï¿½Pascal reasoned that a belief in God would be overall better for a person. On the philisophical side, religion gives a person strngth and morals that they need in life. It helps guide people to make ethical decisions in life. It also gives people the strength to make the decisions that otherwise may have been tough for a person to make. As seeing, per my debate, that religion is both logical and ethical, it would be in the best minds of eveyone to believe in some sort of Religion. I now turn the debate over to the negation and wish the negation the best of luck. Sources ï¿½ï¿½ The Paradox of God: The Science of Omniscence; Pickover,ï¿½ Clifford A.; Published in 2004 http://www.allaboutscience.org... http://www.trueorigin.org...; http://www.personal.psu.edu...