God Must Exist

I see the debate has truly begun now. Bravo.Atheism's Irrelevance to This DebateWhile your argument was truly heartfelt and even deserving of a rebuttal, it is completely unrelated to this argument. However, I very much wish to talk about this for a moment.You claim that it takes a great amount of faith to be an atheist. This is not true. What takes faith is believing in a being that has never been proven, never manifests Himself, never defends His name from blasphemy (I'm talking about now, not the stories in religious texts), never attempts to stop evil in the world, goes against His own moral code which He Himself designated, and never provides mankind a SINGLE concrete reason to believe in Him (religious texts aside). That, my friend, takes a very GREAT amount of faith. In fact, it borders on ignorant (no offense here) to deny every single fact that I just stated.But this is not relevant to the debate, and I digress.Morals? God Doesn't CareNow, your argument this whole time has been based comfortably around morals. But why, might I ask, does God not intervene on Earth? I will address the Christian God first and then go on to Allah.In the Bible (which you admittedly have not referenced), God sets out basic rules and morals for the people. One of these is "Thou shalt not murder." However, it is shown again and again in the Bible where God destroys entire cities of people. Take, for instance, the city of Sodom. The people there were highly immoral. Despite the fact that God had EXPLICITLY stated that murder was wrong, He levelled the entire city. Every man, woman, and child was destroyed. How can a God claim to be moral when He cannot even abide by the moral code which He gave to His own people? [1] If that's not bad enough, God Himself gave a set of rules to His people which treated slaves as less than human; they were the equivalent of property. How can this God claim to be moral? [2]As for Islam, why does Allah not directly prevent evil from occurring in the world? After all, He is all-powerful and all-knowing. He thus has the power to stop suffering on the planet, yet He chooses not to. Surely He chooses this, because He has the ability and does not use it. If He refuses to prevent evil from happening on Earth, then why? Why would He stand by and watch the people on earth kill each other and do a variety of other horrible things? Could it be that He simply does not care? Or does He not exist?Now, your continued downing of moral relativism philosophers. The ideas of those men are still relevant today and are frequently taught in classrooms, as I already stated. As a matter of fact, R.M. Hare was a moral relativism philosopher who died about 10 years ago. He was very well-known and wrote arguments which can be found in the books "Essays on Political Morality" and "Essays on Bioethics." Therefore, the subject of moral relativism is still used and relevant.Hitler was an extremely devout Catholic. He truly believed that God wanted him to kill the "undesirables." If you read his book "Mein Kampf," there are multiple references to the will of God. [3] Also, Saddam was a radical Muslim and believed that the people of Kuwait should be destroyed and used the "will of Allah" as part of his reasoning.You refer to the "logic of the atheist," speaking of morality, yet you say that there cannot be morals without God. Thus, you are inferring that I have no morals. I believe you would find that I do in fact have them. Your reasoning and argument are flawed. As I already proved, Hitler thought that his orders came from God.And to counter your statement "An idividual [sic] cannot determine what is right and what is wrong,His thought may come into conflict with with [sic] another indivdual [sic](like Me and You) and then how do they determine who is right," that is why each person has their own idea of morality. There are no actual conflicts because your morals do not necessarily apply to me, and neither do my morals necessarily apply to you. That's the beauty of moral relativism.Aside from this argument, I would like to quote Christopher Hitchens, who said, "Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."As to your attack on my statement, there is no reason why morals must come from God. No reason whatsoever. That's the key here. Morality can just as easily be derived from the fact that we are (for the most part) a sentient and civilized species. I do not derive my morality from God and, in fact, reject Him as the Lawmaker of morality.Cause and Effect (Without the Cause)As I said before, why can this singularity not be infinite as well? Can only your narrow idea of God be eternal and infinite? I think not."And Again,His proof is our very existintance [sic],with out [sic] a Creator,the circle of cause and effect would go on for ever [sic] and nothing would exist." Our existence most certainly is not in any way proof of God. As they say: no way, no how. All our existence is proof of is our existence (and possibly a beginning to it).The singularity had always existed. No need for the wheel to go round and round.Final ConclusionI find your closing statement particularly interesting considering that most of religion is built upon nothing but blind faith. Not to mention the fact that you supported your position with an admixture of blind faith and poor reasoning (no offense).Regardless, it should be evident to the voters that I presented a sufficient rebuttal to my opponent's arguments. He did not uphold or meet his BoP and thus, the win is mine. I urge a vote for CON.1- http://www.biblegateway.com...2- http://www.religioustolerance.org...3- http://www.humanismbyjoe.com...