There is A God

Con calls himself a Muslim because its on his ID card, even though he doesn't beleive in Allah. Now, if someone who is 13 had an ID which said he was 35, we'd call that a fake ID. If someone who is a Christian had an ID saying he's an atheist, we wouldn't say he's an atheist Christian, cause there's no such thing - we'd simply say his ID is flawed, its incorrect. So Con, your ID is simply wrong. If you don't worship Allah or accept Muhammed as the prophet, nor believe the Quar'an is the word of God, you are not a Muslim, period! You need to get your ID updating to show that you abandoned your religion. I don't even know how you could call it "perfect religion" and at the same time claim its core teaching of Allah's existence is a lie! Con claims he "used to be a true believer" when he was a child, and his evidence for this is that he used to pray, go to the mosque, and "used to get this sense of inner satisfaction and enlightenment" when he prayed. Then he claims that since other people get the same feelings when praying to their gods, this shows its all in the mind, and illusion. But Con's argument is illogical here. First of all, if you thought you had a real diamond, only to find out as you gained more knowledge that it was fake, would that prove that real diamonds don't exist? Of course not! But Con is claiming that because his experience in his religion was not genuine, this somehow shows that nobody else's experience in any other religion is genuine. That's like saying that because one man has confused his lust for love, that therefore everyone else has confused their lust for love, and love is therefore just an illusion. If your experience was not genuine, fine, but don't assume the same is true of everyone else. Secondly, Con assumes that all other religions are using this same fuzzy feeling as the criteria for proving their experience of God is real, but this isn't so for all Christians. For example, unlike Mormons who claim to get a "burning in the bosom," Christians in my church and many others I know don't believe you can prove if God is really there by feelings alone, or even by feelings at all. We believe that God is quite capable of literally speaking to His people, and performing miraculous works. I have heard God's voice. I saw a vision one day in church, and my Apostle saw the same exact thing at the same exact time. I was literally healed of injuries. People have spoken prophecies into my life and I have seen them come true. So the fuzzy feeling you are arguing against is not the gold standard of God's existence. When I was first doing prophetic training I told my apostle the exact time of day and the amount of money her shop would make by that time for the following day, and I was correct to the last penny. Was that an illusion in my mind? Was my pain going away through prayer to my God just some trick? Are you saying the pain didn't go away? I was only pretending not to feel it? And as for other religions who have success praying to their gods, all this shows is that there is more than one source of miracles. (1) regarding the previous points : * So you don't understand God's motives for creating us, how does that prove that He didn't? If we have the murder weapon with the accused fingerprints on it, eyewitnesses who saw him commit the crime, and he has no alibi, do you really think the accuse will get off easy just because we haven't established motive? Not knowing the motive for someone doing something doesn't show that he didn't do it. What a shallow argument against theism! You don't see why God would want to "share" life, just like some egotistical, stingy, greedy millionaires don't see why anybody would want to feed the hungry and give away to the poor.Just because they don't "see" a reason they consider "good enough" doesn't mean these acts of selfless generosity don't happen. "If we are created to mirror the aspect of himself why aren't we just a man and son like him in his case." Actually, God isn't just a man and his son, He's Father, Son and Holy Spirit (three persons), and it takes a father, mother, and child (three persons) to establish the full immediate family unit. Also, just because God wanted us to mirror certain aspects of himself doesn't mean He wants us to mirror every single aspect of Himself. I would want my son to be like me in certain ways only, but I still want him to have his own personality - I don't need him to be exactly like me in every single way. Why should our heavenly Father want any different for us? * I totally agree with you, respect is earned, and God has earned the respect of those who have heard his voice, who have experienced his presence, who have seen appearances of Him in the earth. You claim you would respect the Creator if He does things your way, but He doesn't have to, does He? This debate is about God's existence, and you can't show that someone doesn't exist by arguing he hasn't earned your respect. My father has not earned my respect, he doesn't even call, but that doesn't show he doesn't exit, so your point here is mute. You seem to be dwelling on random questions about God that don't amount to evidence against his existence, and such red herrings only distract needed space from the topic at hand. But to satisfy your craving, let me also say that you can't assume God doesn't have good reasons for not directly speaking from the sky to you. Surely an hamster in a lab doesn't understand the experiment of the scientist. He may wonder why he has to be running about in this cage all day. But his ignorance of the scientist's reasons doesn't prove the scientist therefore cannot and does not have good reasons, or that he doesn't exist at all. Yet you seem to be implying that if "you," who are more limited and more ignorant compared to an all-knowing God than that hamster is the scientist, are ignorant of God's reasons for operating the way He does, that He cannot and does not have good reasons for so doing. You are not in a position to make such a judgment. It may very well be that even if you accept God's existence, you won't agree to follow his ways. Many who believe in God still prefer to live a life of sin, thinking that God's laws are too restrictive or unfair. Some people actually hate God for not giving them what they want in this life. As if He is under obligation to obey them. Or it could be its just not yet God's time to reveal Himself to you the way He has done to others. It could also be that you already heard from God but rejected Him. Either way, I don't see how this proves He doesn't exist. I never saw anti-matter, but that doesn't mean others have not seen it. So just because you claim God has never spoken to you, doesn't mean he hasn't spoken to others. * Just because we are made in God's image doesn't mean God is made in ours. So we have the ability to reflect God's qualities, that doesn't prevent us from adding our own sinful qualities that God doesn't have. Jealousy isn't always bad. There is good jealousy and bad jealousy. If a woman sees her husband kissing another woman, she has a right to be jealous, to feel like her territory is being breached, as well as her trust. If God sees us worshiping stone He has a right to feel betrayed. We should only worship Him who made us, knowing too that the stone can't do anything for us. Jealousy is natural and normal, but there's another form of jealousy that is too possessive and controlling. * "If a rotten tree can't produce good fruit, then we all humans are doomed to fail in the test of his." If we rely on our own efforts alone. Thanks for His grace, which is a free gift, we are not saved by works, but by faith alone in Him. *You claim that "It's a presupposition when you talk about existence of something that it as well has a beginning." That's simply not true. Just because something exists doesn't mean it has a beginning. Personally, I don't believe in a beginning of time, and nobody can prove time began no matter what, because no matter what even you think of, your mind can still conceive of a state one second before that event. So even the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe, has a period of time before it BEFORE whatever it was that went "bang!" went "bang!" Energy also cannot have a beginning because energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one state to another, and that is a fact of science. So no, all existing things don't need a beginning; but all those things which do have a beginning do have a cause - as is seen in every single thing we know of that we know began to exist. So since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. God, on the other hand, would only need a cause if it can be shown that he began to exist. Like time, and energy, I see no evidence that he ever began to exist. So if you want to provide that evidence, go right ahead, but you'll be admitting that He exists, and I'll win the debate. * Con says "Nature ISN'T written in language of math , but we humans and specially scientists has decided to read it that way." So scientists have read the Fibonacci sequence into organisms in nature that do not follow this sequence? The scientists are just imagining things? They are reading in a way different from how it actually is? That seems to be what you are saying, please clarify. The examples I gave show that many things in nature grow according to this specific sequence. Scientists didn't impose this sequence into these plants, they "DISCOVERED" it. I would agree that E=mc squared is a description, but the Fibonacci sequence is an actual PATTERN occurring in nature which cries out for an explanation. You don't see the narratives of other humans as evidence, so a police report which narrates the eyewitness report of an incident isn't evidence? I gave 4 facts agreed on by most historians about Jesus, you didn't do the same for Muhammad. More on Jesus in the next round, I'm out of space.