It is likely that God exists

"Of course this does not deductively prove that the premise is correct, but as this is an inductive argument, the premises need not be deductive." - We are both fighting a losing and winning battle because OBVIOUSLY it it about belief and no other way of disproving belief is with evidence. This then means that because we both believe our evidence is stringer that the other there will be no definitive proof of the existence of god. What frustrates me is no matter what has been proven by science, there is always a way to say that god was a contribution towards it. Which does not make the likelyhood of god any higher than not being a god. Coming from this, I feel that no matter what, there is always a way of replying to what ever science has to say about the disproval of god. I know that we both know about the metaphorical and literal issues within the bible, but this doesn't concern me. What concerns me is the fact that how do you or any other religious person know truly what was intended to be the literal truth and what is just metaphorical poetry. I would have to say, I do agree that there are SOME intentions as to the metaphors, but, the issue which I just said was how do we know it was intended to be read that way? As you have already read in the comments, why are their so many objections amongst the religious group? Surely they should all believe in the same thing or am I missing something? If you believe there to be a god, what about the gods before the god? To science, it has been proven that God was not the first to be written about, and so we know that the greek gods and Pagans were written about, which we now take to be myth. Continuing with the them of other gods, Jesus has been thought of to just be a copy as through biblical accounts from Pagan gods such as Horus, Mithras, Krishna, Dionysus and others. This can say two things, either it is coincidence and all gods are too exist, or that the likelyhood of being a god is just based on patterned story telling through the ages. What do you think of other gods? And the near perfect scenarios within them? I would just like to note the similarities between them: [1] - Born on 25th December - Born a virgin ( I know...We all are...) - Attended to by Shepard's - Wise men came to adore the saviour - Child prodigy teacher at age 12 - Dead for three days, resurrected - Had 12 Disciples By giving definition and one's own reason to the view of a god is no evidence or proof of the existence of god. Also by referring to the argument, stating that if my evidence does not prove god exists, then your evidence cannot disprove him either. Which I respond, Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence? Where is your list of evidence that points towards a god other than logical arguments that don't prove anything. Have you heard of Newtons Flaming Laser Sword? A brief summary for this debate, "what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating" [2] As argument follows, will be at a recurrence of stating that we cannot prove god, but cannot disprove. "Consequently, atheism must exist as the necessary consequence of God giving us the free will to chose to be in a relationship with him." - You suggest that it is Atheism necessity at the consequence of God existing, this can be turned around. God is the consequence of not knowing the answer, hence making a falsified belief that fills the gaps to be at some ease. "Why do you believe 'pure ignorance' should be used?" - This was also a case of not taking something to it literal state, as to show how a sentence can be misinterpreted. by pure ignorance, I mean by getting rid or anything you know to be able to see with full open mindedness of any situation. Make your OWN assumption and not to be suggested by either the bible, or Atheists. But this is not really a statement in which deserves a reply. 'what is it about our theories of God not existing you don't or wont understand?' "I understand them, but I do not take them to be valid." - Why?.. 'I would say more Atheists have read into the theology of religion than those who are religious and have read into Evolution.' "This may well be true, but I very much doubt it applies to myself, and so this statement is not relevant to this debate." - It may well and be irrelevant in your case, but we are on speaking of religion as a whole, which makes it relevant. '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.' "Most religions maintain the view that God works through people. For example, God would help victims of hurricanes by inspiring people to donate money and do humanitarian work. Just because he does not show himself does not mean that he is not helping." - This is in no way God helping with victims, Just because money has been given both BOTH religious and non-believers, which makes charitable favours irrelevant. He does not use any magical powers to help. Is this because he wants cause and effect? Giving money doesn't help the ACTUAL victim, only a prevention. "the existence of the stone is NOT logically possible." - But this is also a contradiction to what all powerful can do, logically anything. This is starting to get repetitive in a sense of not being able to prove gods existence, but can prove his existence. Obviously we have to stick with them main objective of the Question which was the likelyhood, but again, either way with what evidence we may think we have brought to the table is no way going to change the mind of the two of us. They are both suggestive in the plausibility of god's existence but I would deter saying that religion can only use logic based argument which can be used with anything (Ontological Argument) - No point getting into that. [1] http://beginningandend.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...