Is it advisable to believe in God

He takes pride that his argument is to only slander the bible since he is so blind to the interpretive side of the bible. His attacks on my side of the argument are half baked and in some cases irrelevant to what is being said. With this last argument I hope to illuminate whom it may concern on my argument and in what the oppositon may say. Con: The Laws of Thermodynamics scraped the bottom of the barrel, here's the source proving it! . http://www.gate.net... I would actually suggest you to look at your own source, now if you read or even skim over the article, you will see that it is referring to Biologists and Geologists! Now i may be a litttle rusty on my sciences, but last i checked the Laws of Thermodynamics were classified under the Physics Department. Your source does literally nothing to shake my side of the argument, therefore it continues to be valid. Also, it only referred to creationist Biologist and Geologist. But there is a larger group of scientis who believe in both evolution and non-creationism ideas(such as me) and in a God, up to 40% of scientists and mathematicians, and other polls that play down the polls shown have been biased towards non-belief(1). So no, my scientific, mathematic, and philisophical proof is sound, more than I can say for the arguments my opponent presents. Con: abiogenisis is irrelevant I would like to point out to my predecessorthat abiogenisis is provably impossible. Yes, they try to teach in college courses that abiogenisis exist, but only because those who experimented early on, who tried over and over to find a worthwhile outcome, placed the molecules needed for the creation of amino aicds in the atmosphere of the test, making the experiment work so their hypothesis was right, which is the exact opposite of what science should be. (2) Now the quesiton is, how is it possible to create life if you cannot create life out of nothing, simple, somekind of intervention from a power we do not know of, fitting the definition of God as previously created. Con: Ontilogical proof that god does not exist In opposition to this argument, there is Alvin Plantigna to provide another modal logic proof of god (3) 1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and 2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. 3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise) 4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists. 5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. 6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. Alexander R. Pruss comes also to provide further evidence with logic as well if something is impossible, we cannot have a perception (even a non-veridical one) that it is the case. It follows that if we have a perception that p, then even though it might not be the case that p, it is at least the case that possibly p. If mystics in fact perceive the existence of a maximally great being, it follows that the existence of a maximally great being is at least possible. Now if my opponent even tries to negate these, he only becomes hypocritical to his "logical" approach by deny logic even further. Con: Pascal's Wager In this argument, I will concede that it leaves out some much needed variables, but the observation of the bible can provide these variables that are missing. If we are too look towards flaws in the benefit chart i have provided, the negation must concede those that are provided. Con: Does not provide the right strength and morals I would rather tackle these individually "religion can certainly give people the strength to act outside the realms of reason and, ironically, morals. One only has to look at the actions of a number of Islamic fundamentalists or Christians in the crusades. " If you are too look at the Catholic Church at the time and those leading Islamic Fundamentalists (I think you spelled extremist wrong), You see that these actions are not guided by Religion, but by corrupted people who believe that the religion is only leverage to gain power and wealth. (4)(5) Religion gives people the strength to get through the hard times, moral and philisophical strength, rather than social and corruptive strength that my opponent ignores in his claims. Morals: It does not display we break the morals in the pursuit of religious advancement, but in the case of good and evil. Now let us say that you are in 1930 and you (theoretically) knew what Hitler was going to do, and that you knew there was no way to change his mind (Hitler was extremely stubborn if you look at how athouratative he was. ) would you think that it was best if he was killed, of course you would! Good and Evil is the main base of religion, and exceptions under the right situations apply. Women have also been gaining more rights in religion (6) so the argument of the objectivity is undeniaby being proven false. As for the rape in the bible, I do not know of where that is explicitly said and encourage the negation to provide the evidence. Logic and Reason are present both in religion of the past, today, and likely tommorow. Con: Attacks of literal definitions of the bible This is where many atheist have become as bad as the mis-informed religious people. The Bible was not meant to be a completely literal work of literature, rather, it is a mix of both literal and philisophical, as well as interperative parts. Examples are parts such as the VIRGIN Mary. Atheist have attacked that part of the bible and put it at the front of the non-religious campaign. The true identity of that was to be interperative, that instead of being an actual virgin, she had the purity of spirit that a virgin possess. Intelligent Design also has its interperative meanings. The bible should not always be taken at face value, but sometimes different that what it may seem That is the end of my argument, but rather than spending 1000 letters trying to convince others, i would like to share my own interperative view of god Creationism of the universe:False God is infinite, and if his being also created the universe then the universe is also infinite Evolution:True Evidence tells us the truth, and Atheist slander the bible on the (interperative) use of intelligent design I truly do thank the Negaiton for entering this argument, he has been a worthy opponent and I am glad we could share this debate, I wish him the best of luck in his final argument Sources . http://www.nytimes.com... . http://www.studytoanswer.net... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://thirdmill.org... . http://www.islamawareness.net... . http://bic.org...