Does God exist

"Just because we haven't seen anything immaterial create something material doesn't mean it can't happen, also Con missed the point why God is immaterial, which is so He could be infinite, because matter can't be infinite because it is made up of parts, only God can be infinite because He is immaterial and indivisible." Just because every event that I have seen has a cause, does not mean an event can happen without a cause. Did you see what I did there? Both cases are correct in their manner " that every event should have a cause and that an immaterial object should not be able to create something material. You"ve said it yourself, that logic is absolute. So don"t go picking and choosing where you can apply the logic to your benefit, and choose not to use it lest it"d be harmful. Just because I didn"t speak about your point of why God is immaterial, isn"t because I failed to recognize it, it is because I regarded it as nonsense, due to the fact that nothing immaterial can create material. A cause does not have to be conscious in order for an event to happen. When an apple falls from a tree and hits the ground, what object is conscious to allow this event to happen? I have presented a case where no object is conscious, yet a cause and an event is present, therefore it is logical to conclude that a cause does not need to have a conscious in order for an event to happen, therefore it is unreasonable to absolutely conclude that the cause of this universe has a conscious, therefore it is also possible that the cause of this universe is not a single object like a God, and possible for it to be abstract. You did not prove anything. It is highly possible that the universe has a cause, but it"s not for certain. Your claims are based on assumption, that everything in this universe has a cause, therefore not absolute proof. Occam"s razor states that the claim with the least assumptions is usually the truthful one. Occam"s razor is not an absolute rule, therefore, although unlikely, my assumptions are still legitimate. We have identified that smoking tobacco causes those around the smoker harm, therefore we have concluded that it would be harmful to smoke in most places where nourishment and education is key, therefore is considered immoral. We also have identified that killing people causes society harm, and that it wasn"t religion that taught us this, it was society. "Morality is but a herd-instinct in the individual." " Frederic Nietzsche "If morals are relative then killing people is ok, also who cares about a civilized society when we are all going to die." Yes, in certain cases, RELATIVE TO THE SITUATION, killing people would be justifiable, and I care about a civilized society because it was what was taught by my society unto me, and because I believe that society has treated me justly, I will then proceed to be civil. If you believe that you do not need to be civil with society, either, because you lack the education to comprehend why it would be wrong to turn against those who supplied you with clean water, schooling, parks and protection, or because you"re just stupid, without the idea of a God, then, there"s no reason to believe your case. CONCLUSION 1.I have never seen anything immaterial create something material, nor is it reasonable that anything immaterial is potent enough to create something material, like a number "3" would create a desk. Therefore, I do find it reasonable that if our universe has a cause (although reasonable, still also an assumption), it is of material. 2.Society shapes our morals, not God. We are taught that killing is wrong in most cases, not absolutely all. Killing can be justified in a hypothetical case, which I believe you can concoct with ease. 3.Quranic argument " this is an argument composed of garbage material. Just because something is complex, never gives a good foundation for a God. If I found a computer desktop in the middle of a street in the 1800s, it would be more reasonable believing in time travel than it would be believe in God. 4.Transcendental Argument " the laws of logic do not give a foundation of God, because logic is uncorrelated with the concept of God. Logic, is simply the application of the knowledge we ascertained, it is of elementary apprehension that the concept of God and the concept of how we can apply knowledge are two completely different things, and to tie them together would be ridiculous. You are unable to present a demonstrable nor not even a clear rational argument for your God, and therefore it is unreasonable to believe in specific causes of the universe without proof.