IN MY OPINION, God does not exist.

Okay, this time around I am much more calm and tame. My apologies. Finals week is an exciting week for me. I tend to get really pumped up. But anyways, now that I am calm I hope I can come with a more respectable way of speaking. The Standards of Logic: First of all, I would like to mention that no, I was not trying to borrow from the non-theist paradigm. I am not borrowing from ANY paradigm because our logic and reasoning abilities as human being are not that black and white. I was explaining to you that logic and reason is a part of our cognitive abilities, life experiences, personalities, emotional reliance, and so on and so forth. Every single human on planet earth is so varied in so many different ways that you could not possibly see our logic and reason so simple as that. Because it is not. The analogy I was trying to make was to demonstrate how absurd it is to assume that only a God with a specific agenda could give us the ability to trust our rationality. And bear in mind, I'm not saying that we should not trust our logic. I am merely saying that it is all we have to trust as human beings for our life-long decisions. And no, of course the world is not equivalent to a broken sentence. That's why it is called an analogy. A persuasive tool used to put thing into simple, understandable perspectives. Therefore, it doesn't matter if you are religious or not. We all have a logic and sense of rationality to rely upon. Theism does not define a trust in our logic. And neither does non-theism. It is -as human beings- our only way of observing the reality of which we occupy. It is debatable between human to human if something that happens is illogical or logical. It is not as black and white as my opponent seems to believe. Miracles: For your first three paragraphs I still see no difference between what I said and what you referred to. So I am going to try to go off this instead: "The bible says miracles exist, so this proves they exist. I argued that because the Bible states that God grants miracles, THEN IF we see miracles today, we can logically induce that God does exist." Okay, NOW I sort of see where you are going with your argument. I believe you are saying that God grants miracles, so if miracles do supposedly occur, that that is proof that God exists. Got it. NOW I get it. So, I believe that still doesn't make an automatic direct link to the existence of God because miracles are an interpretation of what we see. And we as humans beings do not know everything about the reality of which we occupy yet. What we defer as miracles usually or any doctor would usually refer to as a miracle is usually just something completely rogue and foreign to us, so we automatically assume a miracle. Or it is just sheer luck. That's all it is. To say that miracles exist just because things happened that we cannot conceive is ridiculous. Let's say that I am walking down a street in a shady part of a city. Multiple gunman in a vehicle along the road drive by me with their firearms out and open fire on me. I run over in panic to some nearby cover, and every one of their bullets missed me completely. A common religious person would instantly assumed a miracle occurred that I was not harmed at all by anything by the grace of God's protection. Now let's change the scenario a bit. Let's say while I was running for cover that my knee and shoulder was shot and wounded. A common religious person would still assume "Miracle! God saved his life and at least prevented him from such a death so he can still live his life on earth." Now let us change the scenario one last time and say I was killed in the driveby. The religious person would still assume that a miracle took place. Like "It's a miracle that nobody else got hurt at least." You see where I'm going? Miracles can be put in any scenario. Your next argument: "The argument is that we have testimonies from reliable sources who admit to having seen events that defy natural human biology. You bring in Biologists to the argument, which is irrelevant, because they do not spend their time in hospitals were miracles are said to occur." You claim to have testimonies from reliable sources. I'm assuming this means from doctors, yes? Well, if so, did you not say that 3 out of 4 doctors believe in miracles? Of course your sources would most likely claim to have seen a miracle because 3 out of 4 of doctors believe that. Doctors are people who are meant to save peoples lives, and during those situations where they have to save the life of someone on a seconds notice, they only can think about saving the persons life, and can get flustered, overwhelmed with stress, et cetera. Therefore, of course someone would assume a religious miracle if they had saved the life of someone without even knowing what they did. For two reasons: 1.) You did say yourself that 3 out of 4 doctors believed in miracles. 2.) Like I said before, we humans have not discovered everything even about ourselves. Until we know everything about well, everything. We cannot assume that a religiously inspired miracle occurred and have God take the credit for it. "Only an idiot would believe that." Yes, it was a little blunt, and I apologize. But I do believe that if someone automatically goes to the conclusion of a religiously defined miracle because something of unknown origin occurred, then that is a very terrible assumption to make in claiming it as truth. NOW the argument that "reliable" doctors has been refuted in much better conduct then my last argument. Resurrection of Jesus: For your first sentence, that is false. I had never said that. I said that the chances of it being so was incredibly low. Evidence for people dying for a lying cause? You got it! 1.) World War 2. 2.) The Crusades 3.) Native-American conflicts with Americans (some of them.) Shall I go on? Adam and Eve: Why would God wish to do that to us? I thought he made us PERFECTLY in his image with no flaws at all. That we were his perfect design. If he had to get rid of our sexual reproductive system, then we were not perfect to his design. And my argument still stands, because I could have debated with anyone. It just so happened to be you. I figure I could be debating with the entire christian population of the world. But let's both be honest, that would be overwhelming to anybody. Which is why debates are done person to person. Not people to people. So I am debating against the christian faith for which YOU represent. And you are debating against the atheist philosophy that 'I' represent. Conclusion: I came off as blunt, but basically my argument still remains strong. Vote for whoever you agree with by the end of this debate.