Religion is incorrect

Just to clarify, I am not trying to make you change your beliefs, only argue my own. Ok so on with the debate. Your first point shall be rebutted first. .. The Ontological Argument rebuttal. This argument is based on the theory that because a god is the maximal being in the mind, he must also be in the physical world. You said that because no greater being can be conceived of one that fits the title of god, he must exist in the greatest possible world. And because he exists in the human mind he must also exist in what the human mind takes to be the greatest reality. Our reality (tell me if I misjudged your point! ). This whole argument is based on an assumption. That because we conceive him to exist in our mind, he must be real. In my opinion, god is a figure created by humans to give them assurance over the unknown. Most believe it wrong to think we are the greatest beings to exist, and perhaps we are not, but because some assume it, it does not make it true. Science can prove our existence. Science cannot prove the existence of a god. Science cannot prove that on Uranus there is no race of giant smoke breathing dragons, but because it cannot yet be disproven, should you assume it to be true? No. Personally I think one day science will be able to disprove an existing deity other than one created by human thought. Which brings me to a point of my own. The uncertainty principle. I know this is a theory in particle physics, but I believe it describes a lot of the arguments used pro-god quite well. Basically a lot of people follow religion because either they think that because it cannot be disproven, and seems to be logical in some senses, it most be true. Other times devote their life to a religion for more sensible reasons, like the fact that many people are scared of death because they don't know what will happen afterwards. So they give their life over to religion in order to calm that fear. Anyway, my point consists of three main arguments. > If something cannot be disproven, that does not make it true. >Blindly following devoting your life to something is illogical. >Every thing can be explained in the absence of a deity. I think I have already made the first two points, so the third. It can. Everything can be explained via M-theory or Quantum gravity or which ever is ultimately a TOE (theory of everything). I will weave this argument into the other points I make to rebut yours. The Kalam cosmological argument rebuttal. >Anything which exists has a beginning and an end. (Time does not technically exist) >The Universe was created via the collapse of a universe prior to our own. >Therefore, the universe, is the cause of the universe. Explanation: If you are familiar with universal quantum dynamics you will know that a lot of evidence suggests that our universes sudden explosion and expansion was caused by an elastic effect of a previous universe. This theory ties in with string(M) theory and is viable according to all know evidence. It means that before ours, was an infinite number of universes, each of which expanded, reached an elastic maximal, and collapsed in on it's self again. The force of this collapse cause the expansion of another universe identical to it, and so on. effusively, the universe exists to create it's self. The universe was created by the universe, so that it could create the universe. Complicated I know, but viable. Objective Moral Argument rebuttal. >Morality exists because of social ideologies. >God is no matter how you look at it, responsible for murder and theft if he is the only explanation for morals. >Rape has not always been seen as evil First of, morality is not a physical thing. It is an ideology brought on by social and racial influences. At many times, almost no morality existed in many societies. Take Neanderthals for example, killing fellow tribe members has been proven to be a normal way of settling disputes in the tribal yet, according to your argument, god creates morality. If he created morality then murder and rape would be seen as normal now, as he, being all knowing and all powerful, would not change his work nor would he have made those things to begin with. Also, if god is the reason for the creation of everything, then he - no matter how you look at it - is directly responsible for all murders, rapes and thefts ever committed. Thus if your points are true, religion should be shunned as a worship of a criminal. ( again, not being mean, just my thoughts on things. ) Argument from Contingency rebuttal: This point is essentially covered in one of the earlier arguments. What is stated in this point is true. What is assumed is not. The cause of the universe does not have to be a deity of any kind. It could be, and according to all recent evidence is, essentially a loop. I. E. It was created by it's self to create it's self. Fine Tuning Argument rebuttal: This entire argument was based on an analogy. The fact of the matter is you are correct with this point. That is roughly how likely it is to have a universe created. However what you infer from this information is not correct. You say that for existence to be created, some all knowing being must have aligned the cosmological constants perfectly to create the universe. A correct explanation for this is that because the existence of the universe/macroverse is ultimately dependant on the last, the math would dictate that each time the cycle of the universe is completely identical. The time continuum is infinite. It has no parameters and so never began, and will never end. The expansion and collapse cycle of the universe will never cease. Pascal's Wager rebuttal: This argument is not a reason as to why a god exists, it is an argument as to why to be religious rather than atheist. It is just saying that religion will result in a better life style. In many ways this is true, but in more it is not. Devoting your life to something that may, or may not exist. You say that if you are wrong you lose nothing, but you do. You lose a life you could have spent living the way you truly want to. Want to in your unconscious rather than devoting your lives to the teachings of something that has a 99.9% chance of not existing. Thank you for taking this debate, and I again wish you luck. P. S. If I came across as insensitive there, sorry. It's hard to believe someone's religious views are wrong and tell them and be non-offensive while in the process of doing so. But I tried.