God is the Most Logical Conclusion for our Existence

"Nope. It's like asking how the fire/triangle got there. It's not in anythings nature to just "exist"... If you do not have a logical flaw in my argument, then you cannot prove me wrong. Just saying I"m wrong is not enough. How do you know that it isn"t in something"s nature to just "exist" as you put it? That is part of what we believe about God. It's like saying that nothing has a nature to have three sides. That's what we believe about triangles. There must be proof against it. Then it's not free will... Because I cannot do whatever I want... Thank You." Con misunderstands. The definition of free will is to make a choice to do what you wish. It does not state that everything you try to do will be feasible. Example: I can jump off the building in an attempt to fly, but flying is physically impossible to humans and ILLOGICAL. Please stay within the bounds of logic. God is logical, the world is logical, and so must be free will. You are saying God made us all-powerful by giving us free will. This is untrue. He merely gave us the freedom to choose what we try to do. Answer: God has good reasons for allowing natural evils to exist. This is not to assume that we always know reasons that a particular evil has occurred. There are general reasons that show why God cold have for allowing us to suffer. Examples include building our character and developing virtue, something that is impossible in the "toy world". Many virtues that make the world a better place are practiced in responses to evil. Consider:" "Courage to do what's right in the face of danger" "So according to you, these deeds are justified in a way for they will give the other person "Valuable" attributes to help them in their future. Notice that god does not just put these traits inside of us, avoiding the countless of human's mass murders, wars, torture, r*pes, slow deaths... God allows these things to happen because he thinks it is the BEST WAY to give us these traits! Even though the people involved in each of these will either be scarred for life or mercilessly killed, so therefor even though they had to go through all that suffering they do not receive anything, it is for the greater good of someone else! So... That would mean that god values others lives over everyone who has pointlessly died. Is that correct pro? Do you actually think that these deeds people commit give us courage? Consider: Ridiculous, sickening, and immoral. "Suffering alongside someone" Oh yes, clearly. God wants us to suffer alongside someone, that gives us a "Greater good" You see it was bad enough when it could have just been one person, but god decides that both people need to suffer. So that they can be scarred for life together. Really? Is it true that someones love for one another increases when you and them both get tortured and starved to near death at some war camp? Is it a greater service that god is doing us there? Why not have the two people bump into each other and start talking, rather than having them both suffer? "Putting your own needs ahead of your own" I don't know how exactly one will succeed in putting their own needs ahead of their own needs, but let's move on. I think Con doesn"t understand the basis of this argument. In the so-named toy world of no free will, We would not be able to exhibit these emotions or qualities. Are these emotions/qualities bad? No, actually they are considered very good qualities. While I did not state that it was fun, or pleasant to have these emotions or qualities, I did say that these emotions/qualities allow us to EXIBIT (not give, this is very important) these traits, thus allowing us to show the higher quality that we can be if we try. We don"t need to succeed, but instead try to make the world a better place, or impact someone"s life in a good way. "No. Let me show you something called retro causality: This is the idea that the effect can happen before the cause. Such a thing is observed in quantum mechanics [http://arstechnica.com.........] [http://arxiv.org.........]. Why couldn"t this be the cause? Why accept God over retro-causality?" First point: neither of your links led me to the page necessary to explain it, even after searching them. Second Point: After examining the theory from another source, this jumped out at me. I quote: "You wouldn't be able to talk about altering, but you could talk about causing or affecting," says Phil Dowe, an expert on causation at the University of Queensland in Australia. While it would mean we cannot change the past, it also implies that we cannot change the future." While this might appear to say that you could cause the universe into existence, this is not the case. That would be altering the time-stream in which there would be no universe. You would not be able to change the past in which there would be no existence of the universe. Furthermore, to cause the past to create a universe, you would have to create matter, which, unfortunately, is impossible. Therefore, my good sir, you are back to the drawing board on this argument, while I have not yet changed mine. Source: http://www.sfgate.com... "Also, about the greater good: Some evil is actually greater than the "GOOD" ahead of it. There are better ways to achieving that good rather than killing people off." Like what? I understand that people dying isn"t awesome, but are you considering permanently maiming people for life to be any better? When does something become "better" in terms of evil? So in your terms if natural disasters just blinded everyone for life they would not be evil? It isn't logical. "ANOTHER VIDEO: https://m.youtube.com...; Refutation: 1.God can exist outside of what we consider "reality". We can only observe space, time, matter, and energy. The video does nothing however, to prove that something cannot exist outside of what can observe. See my argument from empirical evidence. 2. God did not create us primarily to worship him. He created us to share in his being (love). By worshiping, he shares his being with us, thus sharing his very divinity with us. It"s quite the gift. 3. God explained himself to us in the best way we could understand him, but if he made it completely apparent that he existed then there would be those who would revolt because of his apparent "dictatorship". He does not want to be an absolute ruler, but merely for us to share in his grace. He wants everyone to choose him, but doesn"t want people to deny him for something that He isn"t (a dictator). 4. Prophesies are only true if they come true. While I know Con does not believe that the New Testament"s prophesies were fulfilled, I believe they were in Jesus. Con has no evidence against Jesus at this point, and there is evidence that they exist. If necessary, I will bring this up. 5. Deeper into prophesies: If wars, famines, and mockerers are common, then it would be reasonable to assert that the prophesies are referring to an abundance that has never been seen before. Or, if you don"t accept that answer, consider that God might not have been prophesying, but merely reminding/warning them that it will not be easy, nor has it ever been. I enjoyed the video. Even though I disagreed with it, It was funny :) Merry Christmas!