IN MY OPINION, God does not exist.

Before I go on and post my argument, I apoligize to both my opponent and our audience for taking so long to post my argument. In school, a new semester began leaving my extremely busy on re-organizing, adjusting to new classes, et cetera. Actually good I can even post this argument on the last chance I can! So let's get back to my argument. And to con, you should be able to represent every branch of chrisianity at least in some ways. Because all the branches of christianity match the same belief in God. So you should be able to at the very least propose arguments coming from any branch of christianity. I am covering all of atheism, likewise you should have done the same with christianity. Standards of Logic: Okay. So since this is the final argument I truly hope that I get what you are saying correctly this time. Being the last chance and all that: So yes, that second worldview you listed is truth in my eyes. I have to disagree with you. Not many people like taking the atheistic paradigm because they feel that it would bring a sense of hopelesness and lack of meaning to life. They feel that to live becomes meaningless. Which isn't true, but it is why there are so many religious people on planet Earth. I also disagree with you on your second argument. The atheistic paradigm doesn't say: "Don't trust your logic." It says: "Question your logic." And there is a sense of right and wrong in the atheistic paradigm. Except our sense of right and wrong is not bound by reward of paradise. It is bound by what we feel to do for the sake of good; for the sake of ourselves and our fellow human being. But yes, we do in all reality just exist. For your next couple of words my opponent says from my point of view that: Nobody can believe in God because life has no meaning and we cannot tell eachother what to do. and each person is just as right with their personal lives. One cannot criticisize another person because this would contradict moral beliefs. If I got this argument right, which I doubt (Sorry, it was awfully confusing the way you worded it), then no. That is not a proper representation of what the atheistic paradigm says. The atheistic paradigm in my eyes would be: "We ought to question the belief in God, because in this universe of so much mystery and enigma, we cannot let a man-made religiously inspired faith tell us what is true and what is falsehood, when in fact during the time period that these same ideas were made and that these same texts were written, we had little to no scientific evidence of the reality of which we occupied. Let alone of the world we dwelled on. And to refute your statement of in the atheistic paradigm, life appears meaningless and contradictory, let me give you a quote: "We are travelers on a cosmic journey, stardust, swilring and dancing in the eddies and whirlpools of infinity. Life is eternal. We have stopped for a moment to enounter each other, to meet, to love, to share. This is a precious moment. It is a little parenthesis in eternity." -Paulo Coelho The atheistic paradigm is not as you assume it to be. We have rules. And we have morals. Secondly, you say that an atheist invoking logic is untrustworthy. Already refuted. Not untrustworthy, doubted. And even if it is untrustowrthy, so what? We have our fellow human beings to erode it and smooth it out into its true good ideas. And if the idea just turns to nothing by the waters of skepticism and debate, then it was never meant to be. Create a new idea and improve. And you say that the second an atheist tries to convince people of the non-existence of God, we enter the theistic paradigm. No. We do not. We give incredible evidence towards the conclusion that God does not exist. We do not make instant claims that must not be questioned. So, no. We do not need to invoke anything. If anything, the theistic paradigm contradicts itself by disproving itself. How I make that daring observation? Well, if we can trust logic completely, then why have people disagreed with eachother? And if morals are objective, why has many rules of christianity and theism entirely changed over the years if they were already perfect? If anything, the theistic paradigm is the incorrect paradigm. Miracles: Again, I disagree with this too because doctors, like us, are humans. And humans have not mastered our very own understanding of ourselves. Not one human has, and the average doctor most likely wouldn't either if the top biologists can't. To assume that divine intervention is left when something is seen unknown in science is absurdity at its finest. Incorrect. You did not show me any proof to any miracles. You showed me proof of how many doctors believe in miracles like you do. And in a world where 84 percent of the population of earth has faith and a third of that are christians. Is it really a surprise to have that statistic? Does it really prove miracles? No, not really. http://www.washingtontimes.com... Ressurection of Jesus: Remember, my opponent asked me to list places where people have died for lies. 1.) The Nazis faught back during the opposition. And died for it. Yes, they were willing to die for their lie. And they did. 2.) The catholics did murder others. Mostly with success. But those who did fight against them, they did not bow down to justice. The catholics died fighting to spread their popular terror and bloodshed. Which sadly did not stop them from knowing what they were doing was wrong. 3.) True, I give you that. Not about what you believed in. But you asked not for a belief, you asked if they were willing to die for a cause. Which the americans clearly did when they took the risk of killing by surprise innocent Native Americans that if a few things were different that the americans would not notice due to them being intoxicated. They would have died for their hate and lie all the same. I will say it, I do understand what you are saying. I am saying you are wrong. Adam and Eve: It seems my opponent has completely ignored my argument here. My previous argument in this segment stands strong. Conclusion: I will say this. You should have came into this debate knowing full well that the existence of God covers all of your branches. Something that all branches agree on. I see no boundries. I see no borders. All are the same. And if you wish me to have argued against your arguments; I have. It is my fault I misinterpreted it, but audience, do not mistake confusing wording, or mistaken reading on my part, with actively ignoring his arguments. I hope you are all enjoying the debate. P.S. The belief in God DOES encompass ALL of Christianity.