God Most Likely Does Not Exist

Acceptance of Occam's razor requires us to be blind to the empirical evidence God has left behind. I will address these points in my post. To quickly quote C.S Lewis: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."The idea of vicarious redemption is an evil and immoral preaching of Christianity, as it places all of the punishments from ones sins on somebody else. One must accept the consequences of their actions in all cases, putting it on a mythical man who nobody can prove is the son of God is ridiculous. If this teaching was true then I could rape whoever I want then ask Jesus for forgiveness and be ready to do it all over again. This example may seem farfetched but it seems to be statistically prevalent among priests (http://en.wikipedia.org......). Many people do not even acknowledge the fact that Jesus died on a cross, was born of a virgin, or was resurrected. There is no evidential basis to assert these claims but even if I granted them as true it would still not mean that his teachings were morally correct, that he was the son of God, or that God exists. It is much more likely that these teaching are man-made just like every other religion. You also assert that having different cultures and religions is preferable because it helps diverse people relate. What about religious wars and controversies? It is much more irrational to let people remain hostile and divided over one of the most important questions to mankind then to unify humanity and reveal indisputable proof.I argue that vicarious redemption is contrary to evil and immoral. It is loving and self-sacrificing. The only gain made by your sacrifice is to help someone else. God knows your heart, so if your heart is evil, then God will know. Hypocrites have existed for thousands of years, as the Bible talks about the priests who were hypocrites back then too. Wars that ignite are not always of God's will. Human error and evil in the hearts of men will prevail if they do not truly follow God.I would agree that many extraordinary and improbable events occur every day. I mean what are the chances that the fly in my room is at exactly that one position that it is in? What are the chances that I sit next to exactly six distinct individuals of all possible people in the world? Point is, these probabilistic scenarios are impossibly rare but occur every single moment. They mean nothing. Improbable coincidences are too often confused with miracles. It is much more likely that human perception is fallible than the suspension of the natural order (a miracle). If you consider that an all-powerful being may exist, it is impossible to discount the notion that our mind is affected by God and therefore affects our actions. If your action is affected by your conscience, and that led to saving someones life, who or what led you to act on your conscience to be in that place at that point in time? The difference is atheists do not believe things based on faith, theists do. Atheists are the skeptical ones. Theists claim to know things that are impossible for any human to know in this age and time. Theists claim to not only know that a God exists, but that they know the mind of this God, and how he wants us humans to act. The atheist does not say that God does not exist absolutely 100%, rather that there is no evidential basis to support belief in a God. Therefore, the atheist has the more likely and realistic worldviewThe beginning of your post began with the indoctrination of religion by parents to their child. The same idealogical transfer is true for atheists too regardless of thought process. Christians are people of religion who are skeptical too. Nobody can say with certainty that God does, or does not exist. However, we can believe that He is likely to exist given the empirical evidence (see bottom of post). "1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving. 2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur. 3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs. 4. No perfectly loving God exists. 5. Hence, there is no God."1. God is perfectly loving, and He is also a perfect judge. 2. Nonbelief occurs, but God says that He reveals Himself to all people.3. Therefore, rejection of God occurs despite His evidence.4. Therefore it is possible for God to exist because He is perfect love and also perfect judgement. "The omnipotence and omnibenevolence arguments are not semantic arguments in the slightest; they are logically sound deductions and consequences"I still argue that it is a semantic argument. The logic behind this: If God cannot do something, he is not omnipotent. The answer is: God could not do anything that would make God non-omnipotent, because in doing so, He would not be omnipotent. I reference my example of drawing a square circle. By drawing a square circle, it is not a circle. Humans have free will because it is evolutionarily beneficial to a species, not because God granted it to us. It is nonsensical to say that humans would not have free will if it wasn’t because some God granted it to us. It is equivalent to say that all humans would act as robots without any choices, this claim has no merit and I challenge Con to prove it without reference to scripture. How is free will, our conscience, and our mind evolutionary beneficial to a species? Paraphrasing C.S lewis, why would we have eyes if there was no light? Why would we question Gods existence if there was no God? The question of Gods existence doesn't further the human evolutionary purpose. Con: I do not believe in evolution. Why not? It passes all the criteria for a scientific theory, it has passed many rigorous experiments, and it is actually the only game in town with accurate predictive power and explanations for various features of various organisms around the world. Creationism is a joke in the scientific community as it should be. One weeks’ worth of peer-reviewed evidence/articles for evolution trumps all the peer-reviewed creationism articles ever published.Science is biased when scientific researchers become convinced of their ideology, in this case, evolution. 1. No bone evidence of missing links, despite dinosaurs pre-existing missing links.2. No explanation for the matter that caused the big bang3. Mutations are overwhelmingly harmful, by probabiltity, mutations enhacing species for billions of years could not have occured.4. Morality is only decided for the purpose of furthering existence of the species, a species devoid of purpose. Con: We know that matter is not created nor destroyed. The logical explanation is that God created the matter that makes up the universe. Here you make a typical logical fallacy. You say that matter cannot be created then you say it was created by God. You can’t have your cake and eat it too sir. You did not even explain why this is the most likely possibility of the four I have listed. I have given you reason to believe that the creation of a universe without a God is more likely due to Occam’s razor. You have avoided this point completely. My point is that the logical explanation is that if things cannot be created or destroyed, they must have originated from a creator. Again, please give me a good reason to believe this scriptural nonsense, you do realize I am an atheist right? I require proof of such claims. I have also responded to how the Christian way of handling sin is reprehensible (vicarious redemption in a response above). Evil is evident in society today without having to quote scripture. If evolution is true, then a woman who bears 5 healthy children but in doing so, requires organ extraction from 5 unhealthy children and kills them in the process, is not evil because the point is to evolve the species and that is the purpose of morality.1) So what if hydrogen in the universe is decreasing? How do you know that the universe did not exist in some other form before the big bang? Why couldn’t the big bang have occurred through naturalist causes or uncaused causes? I find it interesting you would assert that a foreign existence of substances, one that does not comply with the scientific evidence we have today, as an explanation of the big bang.2) I would agree that evidence shows the universe is expanding and that it has a beginning. This does not mean that God did it however, it could have been created naturally. It is more logical to assume God did not create the universe because God is more complex than the universe (Occam’s Razor). If God can be eternal than so can the universe. God has said in Revelations that the world we have now will end someday. The question of the beginning and ultimate end of the world poses the question: Why? What for?3) Entropy in the universe disperses energy into different forms. I do not see how this supports the existence of a God in any way. Because since the energy would be taken from a finite form, it would be unsustainable to have this energy last forever. It is currently this way by design.1) How can this universe be intuitively designed if you just agreed that stars will eventually reach a “heat death” meaning that energy would not be available for humans to live in the future. Seems like indifferent design. The end of humanity is prophecied, and was designed this way intentionally. The earth was not meant to last forever. 2) Beauty does not support the existence of God, you could have argued for it if you like but you didn’t. Beauty exists, but some beauty serves no purpose. Like the masterful design of complex architecture for example. Why is this necessary if there is a more useful design?3)"[argument of mathematics] How do you know that other life forms cannot and do not exist in a universe with different parameters?" It could, but this doesn't further your case that God is unlikely to exist, since it defies mathematics.