God is real.

Thank you for taking this debate. A sentence from your first point: Just because God as he is defined transcends our own comprehension does not negate his existence. My retalitaion: From a secular stand point, there is flaw in this statement. That statement could be taken as, "Just becuase it may be impossible for us to understand, it doesn't mean it's not true." If something is beyond our own comprehension, therefore beyond our own intellectual ability, we cannot understand it, or, for that matter, make a declaration of its validity. To reiterate what you said, "Can YOU, personally show me the reasoning and evidence behind it? no, of course you can't." You stated that as he is defined transcends our own comprehension, therefore you are stating that you cannot give any proof or evidence as to his legitimacy. In your following paragraph, you made the assumption that I believe in the Big Bang Theory, which is incorrect. Therefore, there is no need to argue voided information. I also see no need as to present my reasoning for the creation of man--seeing as that is not the debate. Your second point: Well your first make a generalization that religion is for the fearful, and that people who believe in religion are inherently fearful. this is obviously not true for every one and it cannot disprove God. My retaliation: I am not making a generalization but instead an observation. People worship their respective Gods because, as previously stated, they fear the consequences (e.g. Hell, eternal damnation, etc.). Your point that that statement was not true because everyone and it cannot disprove God, has flaw because--neither does it prove God. As stated before, humans fear the unknown. Something that cannot be proven nor disproven is unknown. I would like to reiterate that people worship their Gods under the assumption that he does exist. Them not known whether or not he exists validates my point that they could be worshipping through fear. A sentence from your third point: Just because we have the free will to chose how we want to believe in god, does not disprove his existence. My retaliation: I would like to reatliate at that point with a question: If God was real, wouldn't he decide how we believe in him? If God, the all powerful, all knowing, does not have the ability to define himself in a way where everybody can worship him in the correct manner, does not that negate his abilities? If God can't decide under which form he wants people to worship him as, or what way to praise is the right way, he does not exist. Your fourth point is under the same principle as your third, but you do introduce the senctence, "Freewill does not negate His existence" Never once did I state that freewill negates God. I said that it is God's lack of defining himself that negates him. If there are so many religions, so many Gods, why can't the all powerful "real" God just pop down for a few days a let everybody know that he's the real one? Your final point questions my comparison between God and the government. I would like to state that I never said God was the government, or government was God. I was simply making a comparison. This comparison was to put in perspective the "fear factor" or worship. Borderline royalists during the old monarchy days in England, would not defy the king, no matter what. They would have faith in the king no matter his choice, because they were afraid of paying the price. This comparison was simply there to expand on the idea from my second point, that people worship because they are afraid. SUMMARY: I would urge anyone and everyone to vote "Con" for this particular debate because I have introduced numerous explanations that dispel God. All of my information presented can lead to the point that: God is a creation of the human mind; thus not real. However, my opponent has only introduced points that lead to the conclusion: Well you can't disprove him. However, I have disproved him by finding the flaw throughout history and the current day contradictions set forth by multiple religions, including Christianity. I have enjoyed this debate and appreciate my opponent's willingness to attend.