God is the Most Logical Conclusion for our Existence

"If god have us free will, why am I not able to do the things my will desires?" This argument is flawed. What you will and what is logically possible is very different. God gives us the ability to choose what choices we make--That is free will. He did not create us so that we could do everything. Therefore my argument still stands. "That is also not the argument I use by the way. Usually one would use pain and suffering as evil." If Con had read the argument immediately after, he would have seen that I refuted this. Therefore I will show it to him again: 3) Refutation 3: Pointless Suffering Disproves God The essentials of this argument are simple. While God might tolerate some evils for a greater good (such as free will) there are other evils that seem to serve no greater good and are not a result of free will, such as Cancer, Hurricanes, and other things that kill millions a year. Therefore: 1. If pointless evils exist, then God does not exist. 2. Pointless evils exist. 3. God does not exist. Answer: God has good reasons for allowing natural evils to exist. This is not to assume that we always know reasons that a particular evil has occurred. There are general reasons that show why God cold have for allowing us to suffer. Examples include building our character and developing virtue, something that is impossible in the "toy world". Many virtues that make the world a better place are practiced in responses to evil. Consider: Courage: Doing what is right in the face of danger Compassion: Suffering alongside someone Love: Putting your own needs ahead of your own Some refute this way of thinking by saying, "Saying that God hurts me because he loves me is exactly what battered wives say when their husbands beat them." This analogy does not succeed. An abuser hurts his spouse with the intention of causing her pain, because he enjoys the pain he causes. God does not desire the suffering of people on Earth just so He can watch them suffer. Rather God uses the suffering in our lives because he desires the greater good that can come from the suffering." Next: Con misinterpreted my "arguments that took up to much room" That was a title that contained what was below. I did not explain in detail the argument from design, and I was going to post a brief argument below that from Morals, but there was (literally) no room. This was not a reference to not brought up arguments, but an explanation of the brevity of the below argument(s). I merely had to remove one, making the statement awkward. I apologize. "I will address your last arguments however, about how the only thing that could have caused the universe is god. Why accept god over simultanious causation?" "The universe's precision can also be explained. The multiverse: This is the idea that we actually have multiple universes, rather than just one. Many of them are created, with different combinations. One day of course, we had perfect conditions for our life. This would explain how exact the universe is. Although it really isn't perfect for our life, considering the end of the world will happen in about a billion years. Also, why assume we can only have life in Carbon Based forms? Maybe if the universe was different, we could have a different life form arise." Other than Carbon Based life forms: My arguments from design was not based on only carbon based life forms. If those were tweaked NOTHING could live. There would be only Hydrogen, Helium, or and evenly spaced layer of atoms/big chunk of atoms compressed into a point the size of a period. Next, if Con would have seen that I addressed the first bit in my first explanation. I quote: "Remember that the universe is just the total collection of all space, time, matter, and energy. Any explanation outside of the universe that involved more time, matter, space, or energy, would just involve the same universe whose existence we are trying to explain. BOTH MULTIVERSE THEORY AND SIMULTANEOUS CAUSATION ARE BASED ON TIME, MATTER, SPACE , AND ENERGY, and therefore don't work logically. Therefore any explanation beyond the universe must be beyond space, time, matter, or energy"or what we call God. In other words, if the universe has an explanation, and cannot explain itself, it follows that God explains why the universe exists. Since this logic is deductive, it means that if each of the premises are true, then the answer must be true with 100% accuracy. By the principle of sufficient reasoning, the universe does have an explanation. To say that the universe explains itself is to make the strong claim that the universe doesn't just exist, but that the universe has to exist as a result of its own nature. Tow look further into this, look at God"s nature. SOME SAY THAT GOD NEEDS A CREATOR, WHO NEEDS A CREATOR, WHO NEEDS A CREATOR, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. THEREFORE GOD DOES NOT EXIST. THIS IS NOT TRUE, HOWEVER. GOD DOES NOT NEED A CREATOR BECAUSE OF HIS NATURE. GOD IS A BEING WHO EXPLAINS HIS OWN EXISTENCE. ASKING WHAT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS LIKEGod IS LIKE IS SIMILAR TO ASKING WHAT CAUSES FIRE TO BE HOT, OR WHAT CAUSES TRIANGLES TO HAVE THREE SIDES. THE ANSWER IS EXPLAINED IN THE NATURE OF THE THING. FIRE HAS A NATURE TO BE WARM, TRIANGLES HAVE A NATURE TO HAVE 3 SIDES, AND GOD HAS A NATURE TO EXIST. Now consider the question: Why does the universe exist? Does it more closely resemble the question "Why is a triangle red?" or "Why does a triangle have three sides?" We can imagine that triangles aren't red, but trying to imagine a triangle without three sides is impossible. Because of this, the universe is more like asking why a triangle is red, since we can imagine a blue triangle as well as the universe not existing. Since the color of the triangle is explained by something outside a triangle, and the existence of the universe is as contingent as a triangles color"it follows that the reason the universe exists must be found outside of the universe. Note that explaining why each part of the universe exists, even in a "circle of explanation" (SUCH AS THE MULTIVERSE OR THE SIMULTANEOUS CAUSATION THEORY), does not explain why an entire universe exists at all. That would be similar to trying to explain why a baseball game is being played by explaining what each player does. Does the Explanation have to be God? Well, if the explanation were another contingent object that existed in space and time, such as a parallel universe, then the explanation would itself be subject to the contingency argument. This is why MULTIVERSE THEORY, and other theories like it cannot work. This leaves the most logical explanation to be God. This refutes both of your arguments: until you can prove that my logic is faulty, my premise stands as true. "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." I dismiss other arguments for 'their' gods because they are not logically sound. Is mine logically sound? So far, yes. Also, remember that just because some concepts of God are fictional does not mean that they all are. It is akin to stating, "we are all anarchists. I just reject one more form of government than you do." "We actually have Pro doing nothing to prove god here, all he attempts to do is reference some book for random arguments I never made." Random structure? I first proved God can exist, then that he is the most logical explanation using various arguments. I reference these arguments that you didn't make to prove my point that it is logical that God CAN exist. I then show that it is also the most logical explanation that he does exist. Answer to the videos: Video (Conversation with Yahweh) This argument of parody incorrectly highlights several aspects in the ignorance of the person who created it. Catholicism believes that 1) Genesis is not a literal book 2) The first sin merely made our race 'fall', therefore unable to attain heaven. 3) even without original sin, we all sin, therefore we are unable to attain heaven. 4) The reason that we need to follow his commandments is because we agreed to a covenant with God 5) The reason most laws 'contradict' each other is because when Jesus completely fulfilled the covenant, he instituted a new covenant that supersedes the first. 6) We go to hell when we do not partake in the second covenant, which is required through the receiving of Baptism and Eucharist If I missed something, please point it out, and I'll point out the flaw. Other video: points: 1) We are justified by works AND faith, and neither on their own 2) God does not tempt. He tests. There is a difference. 3) Yahweh's anger as an emotion does not last forever, but anger in judgement does 4) God's face: Genesis is not literal, Moses' eyes were shielded/God turned his back, No man has seen God in all his entirety, 5) Speed Round: Yahweh delights in burnt offerings offered with pure intent to repent, evil is better translated as disaster, Genesis is not taken literally, Same story two different opinions/story sides, Ecc 1:4 references judgement, not the end of the earth, John 3:13 :No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven, Deut. 5 9: the entire family is affected--even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me, and so one. I don't have enough room to paste the entire NLV translation. Con's biggest problem is that the Bible Con is using is not the correct translation. DON'T USE NIV! Until Con provides evidence that my logic is flawed, my argument stands as valid. He has not yet done so, but merely ignored my argument and insulted my structure while attacking the Catholic Bible using a translation that we don't believe to be correct. As of this point, God's existence is the most logical explanation for our existence. While it is not the only existence, it is the one that is most likely and the most logica