It is likely that God exists

Ok, So you've started this debate off by asking the question "Is it LIKELY, that god exists?", which to me, seems to be an easy and simple question to answer, especially for those who are atheists. But by asking that the LIKELY-HOOD of God, suggests that your views may not necessarily be religious views?, Maybe agnostic? By going on the term likely-hood, we should be ridden of any knowledge that we have for the question and base our answer with pure ignorance and go by our common sense, logic and reason to determine whether or not God is plausible. In simple terms of viewing evidence on behalf of both sides of the debate, the only evidence to what I can see in favour of God is that of an ancient book, with ancient text that has been written thousands of years ago. What we obviously know now is that the science used and specifically their technology for which we love, cherish and take for granted was almost non existent at the time. Another question I would like to ask, and for those who are also reading and religious: What else, if anything do you disagree with science about? You use science in your everyday lives, You touch science every minute, what is it about our theories of God not existing you don't or wont understand?, Have you given science a try?, Have you read about Evolution?, because although I don't want to generalise, I would say more Atheists have read into the theology of religion than those who are religious and have read into Evolution. Science has helped save lives, help prevent lives from being taken. Why is it that we have work to prevent evil from happening?, whilst bent over on our knees, praying to something we are told to be God, asking for love. When he doesn't show himself and help those who need it most if he can't help everybody, instead he hides away whilst all this is going down. To me, I don't think this is very fair, maybe he's not a very fair person if you would care to answer that. Now, as for the LIKELY-HOOD, I want your full attention and full ignorance to really think logically, rationally and with all the common sense that you have to hopefully understand where I am coming from as well, God being proven through an ancient text book that was written in a time of science not being understood, or, centuries of specific research into Evolution of Humans and the world through multiple physical evidence to which I will go through at a later note. To which all evidence points towards the same direction which we can obviously only presume to be correct. I would like to add to this, is by asking if you or any religious person is going to tell me that they agree with some science and disagree with other parts, which, do you know what? Is absolutely fine, but I would like to ask if you would do the same to your own religion. Is there any part of your religion you disagree with, if so, what? and why? Do you take the bible literal to its fullest? To start off, you argue that god exists in ACTUAL reality? What do you fully mean by this? What I can take from that is just logically impossible. Now, without saying that there are subatomic particle's to what can be seen without the naked eye and yet still there and still fact, cannot be said to that of god because there have been no scientific explanations, correct experimentations, that proves god to be real. Then go on by saying God is Omnipotent and Omniscient. have you read or even realise that with in that statement, is contradictory with in its self. Known as the Omnipotence paradox: The paradox is used both as an argument against an Omnipotent God and against the concept of true Omnipotence. "The paradox highlights cases where, in performing an action, an omnipotent being would be limiting its abilities (therefore rendering it very firmly not omnipotent); conversely if it was unable to perform such an action, it would also not be omnipotent. The paradox represents a reductio ad absurdum, with the conclusion that a truly omnipotent being cannot exist. The most classic example of the paradox, a Morton's fork, is the "Paradox of the Stone": Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it? If yes: the being's power is limited, because it cannot lift the stone. If no: the being's power is limited, because it cannot create the stone. Either way, the allegedly omnipotent being has proven not to be omnipotent due to the logical contradiction present in both possible answers. The stone paradox can be substituted with similar examples. E.g. Could an omnipotent being create another being more powerful than itself? Could an omnipotent being destroy itself? Could he create a wall he cannot climb? Could he beat himself at arm-wrestling? And so on. The situation crops up numerous times in different wordings but all mean the same thing. Some variations gives other useful consequences: Can God create a cryptography/key exchange system so secure that he himself cannot crack/bypass? If no: He does not have the ability to authenticate any of his revelations, and therefore he lacks omnipotence, and cannot authentically reveal anything to anyone. If yes: He does not have the ability to bypass encryptions therefore he lacks omnipotence and omniscience." [1] A nice quote by Home Simpson - "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?" [1] As for evidence found by science to prove evolution, here is a little list to what Physical evidence we have: Fossil Evidence - The fossil record provides us with snapshots of the past and when assembled, creates a picture that allows us to evolutionary change over billions of years of the same species, specifically humans. Fossils can tell us about growth patterns in ancient times and how the differ yet hold similarities to animals and humans now. Admittedly, there are gaps in the line of fossils but this can only mean that they haven't been found and not that it is false evidence. One of the complete line of fossil works is for a Horse, We know that over 60 million years (Compared to your 6000 years), Horses have evolved from dog sized creatures that lived in the rainforest, to what we know of them now. In addition, we know that by just looking at the feet of the fossils, it has changed from being multi-toed, allowing itself to walk across the forest floor to evolving a single hoof, more suitable now for it to run in the countryside. [2] From what I hear and read, I know that a lot, maybe some religious people believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. This can not obviously be true if Evolution was to be true. Earth's Age - "The age of the Earth is 4.54 " 0.05 billion years (4.54 " 109 years " 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples." [3] Obviously, if Earth was to be billions of years old, surely what is still on earth, should have been around for billions of years also? Well, that is the case as there are minerals such as Lead in uranium-rich minerals and small crystals of zicron. There are many, many ways of showing different process' of ageing that disproves the 6000 year theory which I will not go all out on but tree's are another simple way of knowing how earth is older that 6000 years old. Just by simple taking a row from any living tree and counting the concentric rings that are within, we are able to know and test the age of the tree. You may find this hard to believe because I know it may sound it, but the recurring testing of the same tree for years have all proven to be correct, knowing that the tree is growing. Without getting into too much detail as I don't have enough 'superior' knowledge on any of these topics, as I am only an Artist and an Auto-didact (Self Teaching). Dinosaurs and the use of analysing their DNA to test how old they are, along with any fossilised plant is also a proof for the Earth not being only 6000 years old. Now, I have gone on a bit about the age of the earth, but if I was to be true, what does that say about God? Or Religion? Surely this is a factor into proving God is not real or even slightly showing that the LIKELY-HOOD of God is even less of a chance. I'm not sure what else I an say other than awaiting your reply :) I want to thank YOU, and those reading because this is a very nice topic...and a lot of writing. http://rationalwiki.org... [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]