It is Logical to Assume That a God Exists

Before Rebutting my opponents points, I shall set up a case of my own. Is it logical to assume the existence of 6 legged horses? Probably not, but bear with me a minute and pretend all the facts I tell you about them are true, I promise this has a point. One could argue forever about the apologetics behind is it even possible for a 6-legged horse to exist. Points like 'there are no documented mammal species with 6 appendages' on one side and the other 'creatures with extra legs or arms are born sometimes, though its uncommon for them to survive' for the other. At the end of the day you might be left thinking 'well, I suppose its conceivable one could exist' But you've never seen one and a man with a camera has never been lucky enough to be there at the right place at the right time to take a pitcher of one. In lack of being able to definitively prove them or disprove them what should believe until proof can be provided? What should you assume? Here are those facts that can help you decide what to think about 6 legged horses. You may have never seen the 6 legged horse but I, along with other friends of yours have. You know us well enough to understand were not liars, when we play poke and try they don't fly by you anyway. Also, unless your judging with a biased view towards the belief in the 6-legged horse no one would ever call us crazy. In fact there is a very long history of people who seem to think they saw a 6-legged horse, some of the personal accounts vary a little in description but you would expect that to a small degree even if the accounts are true ones. The option robbed from you to explain it all away under, 'crazy people' and 'liars' Its going to take really abstract reasoning to explain why their still false by psychology. Or you can take the simple explanation that takes less assumptions about these sightings and believe their true and there must be some breed of horse out there with 6 legs. How does that pertain to this debate? well though none of that may be true for horses it does hold true for a God. I am not afraid to testify I have a personal relationship with him and know he exist. You may have no experiences to let you know there is a God yet but you know many who have, and the fact is this goes back a long way into history, the phenomena is not new. beliefs about god vary some but again, even if God is real you would expect that. In most instances, calling the believers 'liars' or 'crazy' can not be justified. Given all this data it is going to take way less assumptions to explain how God is real than it will to explain how he is not. Occam's Razor tells us that makes the assumption that God is real most logical. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be... Now for my rebuttal. 1) Stone cannot lift. I prefer C.S. Lewis response to this supposed paradox, 'nonsense is still nonsense, even if your talking about God' * o H. S. Leigh (1837-1883), The Twins * Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. o C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed, Part 4 (1961) * No one is exempt from talking nonsense. The great misfortune is to do it solemnly. Consider this; if a scientist cannot create a robot that is more perfect than he does that make him a imperfect scientist? No. If something is truly the limits of power can ever be then to propose the notion that something greater can be made means you don't truly believe in the first place that what you recognized as 'all-powerful' was actually the limit. Just because you can use grammar to state an unfathomable thought doesn't actually challenge the concept of all-powerful, Its an attack on logic itself to even take it seriously. 2) perfect god wouldn't create. My opponents reasoning or point number 2 is based purely on cynicism. saying things could only get worse means your taking the position that an all powerful being remaining the lonely single existing entity existing in oblivion. things can only get better from that situation. God could have only created Hitler to exist with him and it would still be a better situation. 3) Suffering; all righteousness My opponent is mistaken to think being all righteous would mean you decide to personally stop all suffering in the world. All-righteous naturally includes all-loving and that kind of love would make one choose to allow its creation to make its own mistakes for I think we can agree free will itself is a good thing, though like many good things can be used badly. Besides the problem of free will it still important though that God not only allow us to suffer, but perhaps even provide the trails for us to endure himself. the fire of suffering helps forge you into what you are today or will be tomorrow. If you wish to grow to be perfect, then you should hope you suffer during sometime in your life so that you can become so. plus listen to what butters say's about to good part of suffering at 19:25 or this South Park episode http://www.southparkstudios.com... 4) foreknowledge of suffering This argument is just a continuation of y opponents 3 point, and thus has all the same incorrect prejudices against suffering. so I give a continuation my arguments for point 3; pain is part of the thrill of being alive. http://www.youtube.com... Indecently some people cant get enough (see video).