Does God Exist? The proposition is that NO Christian God exists.

I will summarise both mine and your points so far relating to my first argument. My argument was, in brief: God does not want people to suffer, yet by not providing evidence for His existence on a par with the evidence for gravity, many people do suffer. This situation conflicts with His supposedly all-loving nature. Your response was, in brief: Yes, God does not want people to suffer. Everybody sins. Those that put complete trust and faith get to go to heaven because Jesus removed the burden of original sin. I hope you, and all readers of this debate, can see that you have not actually answered or responded to my argument. To demonstrate I will respond to each of your points and then re-write my argument clearly so you can see how little bearing your argument had to mine. I'm glad that we agree that the Christian perception of God is one where He does not want people to suffer. I agree that everybody does wrong (or sins, as you put it). I also know that Christianity teaches that the only way to heaven is through putting complete trust in Jesus. But how does all this rebut my argument? It does not. You use evasive tactics, probably without even noticing it. You have failed to either point out any faulty logic in my argument; you have failed to explain why the evidence for God is not on a par with gravity; you have failed to see any factual inaccuracies in my argument. I hesitate before accusing you of committing the straw man fallacy, because to do that you have to misrepresent my argument, you have simply failed to represent my argument at all. Perhaps in your next post you would be so good as to either respond to my initial argument properly, or agree with my argument and denounce your faith, or to show how I have misunderstood your post, and clarify your rebuttal. Now to your argument for the existence of God. "The late Isaac Asimov, an ardent anti-creationist, declared, "In man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. " It is much more complex than the most complicated computer ever built. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if man's highly intelligent brain designed the computer, then the human brain was also the product of design? " This is essentially the teleological argument. This is disappointing, because, quite frankly, I would prefer to have been given the opportunity to discuss a more interesting argument, such as the anthropic argument for God. But I will address this. "Wouldn't it be logical" Short answer. No. Longer answer, still no, but because you use what Daniel Dennett wonderfully labelled a 'sky-hook' argument. We have one problem - how did something so complex as a human brain, with all its capacity for understanding etc. come to be. And your response is to say something even more complex must have designed it. The 'sky-hook' analogy here shows us the irrational nature of this response, if we don't yet how some building got to be so tall on earth, is it reasonable to assume that a sky-hook, or to slightly change the analogy, a massive hand came down from the skies and moved it. No. We just don't know the answer yet. However, in this particular case we do know the answer, we do know how the human brain came to be. And accept it or not, evolution is absolutely accepted within the scientific community. Among evolutionary biologists it has been estimated that only 1/1000 reject evolution for anything else. Daniel Dennet calls this solution the 'crane'. Instead of a massive hand or sky-hook coming out of the sky, a crane, from earth has, step by step, moved the object to its high place. Evolution has such a wealth of evidence behind it. My grandfather is an archaeologist, and while in Oregon only a couple of months ago, he and his team found fossils of homosapiens from 14,000 years ago. My mother works in a Natural History Museum, in England, where I live, and every day she sees irrefutable proof of evolution. Personally, I think it takes a bit of arrogance on a creationists side to dismiss evolution. And in America, I know that half the population do, in England it is more like 0.5%. You think you know more about a scientific field - evolution, and how humans came to be - than the scientists who have actually dedicated their lives into research. But anyway, now I've strayed from the initial subject, and for that, I'm sorry. Another way in which your logic is faulty is that you think that in order to create something x complicated, you need something >x complicated. However, that is simply wrong. To conclude my rebuttal, your argument is unnecessary (evolution has made it so), is a 'God of the Gaps' argument anyway (we don't know x so y must have made it, when logic dictates that the correct response is: we don't know x. .. yet), and it creates more problems than it solves. Even if your first logic was sound, and to create the human brain required something more complicated, then why could the same not be said of God, He's so much more complicated than a human brain, so something far more complicated than even Him must have been used to create Him, according to your logic. Please don't drop out of this debate, and I'm sorry if you feel I have offended you, I don't mean to, I am just someone who gets heated fairly easily during debate. I look forward to your next response with great anticipation. Many Thanks.