Existence of God

Hello.Indeed, the burden of proof lies on the one making a positive assertion (and that would be me in this case [i.e. 'God does exist]). Can I technically prove God exists? No, no one can, but neither can we disprove God's existence (and before you jump on me for saying this, please, keep in mind, the burden of proof is on me). Therefore, we must search for evidence and see if it is reasonable to agree with the assertion, 'God does exist'. To address your comment on being brainwashed: If this is to be a mature discussion, you must refrain from baseless assertions and ad hominem logical fallacies. Thank you.Sir/Ma'am, before we address if the Bible is illogical, we must first provide a foundation for the laws of logic. Ironically, you are presuming the existence of these immaterial laws to make such objective claims - unfortunately for you, the laws of logic cannot possibly exist in a materialistic worldivew as they are immaterial. And before you say 'How do you know?', it's because they contradict the very definition of the worldview. It would be like saying God can exist in the materialistic/naturalistic worldview - it is just not possible. So I ask, where did the laws of logic come from, and why does the universe *have* to obey these laws at all times in all places?Sure, I understand your comment. But I don't agree with it. I do not believe the Bible has contradictions. And let us be hypothetical and say it did: why would this be a problem in your worldview? You fail to offer an explanation for why the 'law of non-contradiction' exists in the first place - this specific law, the law of non-contradition, cannot exist in a worldview where only material nature exists - for the law, and all other laws of logic, are immaterial.What in the world are you talking about, friend? Yes, there is a Christian worldview - the viewing the world through the eyes of a Christian. I'm not seeing the point of why you used a quote from Dillahunty; I have yet to claim, 'God exists because he says so in Scripture'. I have addressed the burden of proof statement above.What God are you speaking of? I believe in the Christian God who has revealed himself. To offer a brief summary of who God is, and what Christianity is: He is the unchanging, infinite, eternal Creator of the universe, whom is immaterial, timeless, and spaceless, as he created time, matter, and space. He is our Maker, whom we have rebelled against. He is merciful, in that he sent his Son, Christ Jesus, to die on the cross to save us from our sins, and be resurrected three days later for our justification - proving himself to be the Son of God; if we admit we are a sinner, and believe Christ came to save us through his death and resurrection - accepting him as Lord - we are forgiven of our sins, and find ultimate satisfaction and joy in God - in whom alone we can find supreme happiness. And through our enjoyment of him, we bring glory to him.Genesis 1 speaks of 'us'. You see, Christians believe in the Triune God - that is, God exists as three persons, who are one in essense, nature, and being, and therefore, one Triune God. Each member is fully Divine and to the utmost God - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.Would the universe be in disorder if there were more than one authority? How could we know they all cooperated together? And how would polytheism offer a foundation for the laws of logic? Would not logic be subjective to each of the gods? Sure, you cannot disprove polytheism, atheism, monotheism, etc.; therefore, we must conclude which is most reasonable - and which I would assert Christianity.Physical evidence? If that's what we are looking for we are quite narrow-minded. For God is immaterial. God is not made of matter, for he made matter. Faith is based on evidence, friend (e.g. laws of logic, uniformity in nature, laws of mathematics and nature, complexity of organisms, origin of universe, conscienceness, life, design in organisms [e.g. elephants, lightning bugs, seals, butterflies, worms, cats, dogs, the human brain], etc.). Faith comes in because even if we have overwhelming evidence for God, we still cannot technically 'prove' him. So we rationally accept his existence. Atheists, of course, have faith indeed. For example, they have blind faith in the laws of logic existing; they completely lack a foundation for them. Therefore, they must assume they exist from the start apart from no foundation, even though these laws contradict a materialistic/naturalistic worldview. And again, I would assert there is overwhelming evidence for God, and I would agree with Saint Paul in Romans 1. For he informs us that the eternal power and divine nature of God is clearly seen by all, so men are without excuse.We can speak over each of these examples you mentioned (concerning the verses), one by one, if you desire to, but ultimately, your assertion is very, very ironic - such so as I am surprised you did not catch the irony. For if atheism is correct, morality is subjective. For example, to claim 'Murder is wrong', is a mere opinion if there is no absolute standard of right/wrong - rather, murder would be one chemical reaction acting on another in a 'dog-eat-dog' world.We must remember that God is just. 1.) He is the Author of life, and being omniscient, knows fit when to give in take. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God, therefore, ultimately, when one dies it was because the LORD willed it. And when one is born, it is because, ultimately, the LORD willed it. God does not murder, but he can kill, and when he does, it is just. The Canaanites, for example, continued in their wickedness for over 400 years (e.g. they offered child sacrifices to false gods).God did not command rape, rather they were taken as wives. They had to be married, and the wife had to observe a period of cleansing and mourning. Wrong is subjective in your worldview.Also, again, are you trying to claim since evil exists, God doesn't? Well, if God doesn't exist, evil doesn't either, as morality is mere opinion - we would all soon cease to exist remembering absolutely nothing, anyways. And finally, I noticed you most definiely ignored a lot of my previous arguments - which you are free to do so - but of course, one can not win a debate if they refuse to defend their self.