It is Logical to Assume That a God Exists

"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." >>Complete argument failure. The only logical position in this circumstance would be to either assume it does not exist or remain agnostic to the existence of a 6-legged horse until in has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that one actually exists. Arguments that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Further more, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Which actually brings me to my next argument. ===Next argument=== Burden of proof. Even if you managed to dismiss all my arguments why it's impossible for a God to exist(which you did not, and I'll get to that) it still doesn't affirm your case. I actually don't need to do anything. I might as well post nothing each round. The only one who has any burden to offer an argument here is you. You must prove that it logical to assume the existence of God. ===reply to argument-rebuttals === " I prefer C.S. Lewis response to this supposed paradox, 'nonsense is still nonsense, even if your talking about God' " Another quote from my opponent in the comment section: "the stone paradox is joke, and an embarrassment for all who take it seriously. can you make a stick with one end? draw a square circle? a triangle with angles that equal something other than 180 degrees? make a pentagon with 9 sides? thumb wrestle with arms or legs? all these things are non-sensacle statements, yet for some reason a person try's to take them seriously when talking about god." >>You fool, these are not statements. It is nonsensical to say a question is nonsensical because it is not asserting anything. Only statements can be nonsensical. "Can you make a stick with one end?" is a perfectly acceptable question. It is only the answer "yes" to such a question which would be nonsensical. The paradox still stands. "All nonsense questions are unanswerable." >>Intellectual laziness. I can easily answer all the "nonsense questions" you provided in the comments. "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." >>This is blasphemy to rationality. I know this logical-fallacy, but I can't remember the name. Could someone please point it out in the comments? To say that we just can't understand it so we might as well accept it is not only wrong but makes absolutely no sense. "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." >>No, again, you fail. The very definition of perfect is that it cannot get any better. My argument still stands. "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." >>My opponent assumes there is such thing as free-will in saying all this. But what is free-will? How is it even possible? No matter if you believe our thoughts and personality come from a soul or from chemical reactions in the brain, it still follows some kind of bound system and sequence of events which lead to producing each thought. It's the domino effect. What my opponent fails to see is that if a God started everything and knew what effects they would have then he would have absolutely in effect made all our decisions for us. Even if there isn't a God, this is true for nature. Free-will is logically impossible. Whatever happens in the future, whether by human action or not, must happen that way due to the sequence of events which lead up to it. My argument still stands. " 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. Indecently some people cant get enough (see video)." >>No, it's not the same. It comes to the same conclusion but by a different means. If you don't attempt to refute it you are essential forfeiting the debate. My arguments still stands. My opponent have made absolutely no progress in this debate. He now has the floor.