There is a god

Thank you for your thoughtful response! "but it is not so the resolution stands on its own so my opponents introduction shall be considered invalid" I would like to respectfully disagree. My introduction was meant to be just that--an introduction. But if you truly were disappointed with my introduction, I will now proceed to give you some arguments which should be much more in depth and to the point. First of all, we are, of course, not just talking about the Judeo-Christian god. And then that brings me to my next point. What makes your god (or any god) more valid than any other god? There are a lot of belief systems in the world, and they can't all be true. Doesn't it seem a bit naï¿½ve to say that yours is true and all the rest are wrong? It would seem to make the most sense to reject religion and only look at scientific conjecture, which does not suggest the existence of a God, as I described in my introduction. As Stephen Roberts once said, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." I think that that exemplifies this argument. I think we can agree that Athena and Zeus are myths and just that, but many of us still believe in god(s). So my question to you is, how can you flout all of the other gods while you so proudly accept your own? "If, for example, I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise." Is it not also true that no amount of evidence could convince a believer that there is not a god? As Carl Sagan once said, "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe." I feel like that has quite a bit of truth to it. People cannot accept that something hasn't been explained, so they make stuff up. 2000 years later, and those ideas are so established that they are still widely believed. "First, the non-existence of God cannot be proven. One cannot prove a universal negative. Alternatively, the existence of God is provable." I agree, but you're going to have to do more than just say that it can be proven if it exists. If you don't know about Russell's teapot, basically his idea is that he can claim that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. Obviously, we know that this isn't the case, but there is no real way to disprove it. That's basically what you're saying. So, we agree that, since I can't prove that there isn't a god, but you can prove that there is, the burden of proof is yours. "The concept, design, and intricate details of our world necessitate an intelligent designer." Obviously, if I agreed with this claim, I wouldn't have started this debate. Please try again. "Jesus" I agree that Jesus Christ was a very good person. I agree that he did a lot of good things. I agree that people think that he was the messiah. But I don't agree that there's anything supernatural about him. I don't agree that he was a virgin birth, as that is not biologically possible. If you disagree with that statement, you might want to go back to the Carl Sagan quote. "He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection." Once again, resurrection is not biologically possible. Ferdinand Magellan once said, "The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." Obviously the church no longer believes that the earth is flat, but the point still stands. The church says that Jesus was was resurrected, but I know that that's not possible, and I have more faith in basic biology than in the church. "C. S. Lewis stated that He couldn't have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. He didn't even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so He had to be God." And since when has C.S. Lewis had the authority to take an incredibly complex situation and unequivocally reduce it to a trinary decision? "Consequently, with Jesus Christ, we have an eyewitness to the truth of the Old Testament." So this guy claims to have seen something and it's now scientific truth? Who does he think he is, Jesus Christ? (That was a joke. Lol.). But in all seriousness, I could claim to have had a heated argument with a banana, and if I was adamant enough in my claim, I could get people to believe me, and it could snowball. Now, obviously that's a stretch, I'm not going to deny that. But it also seems a stretch for someone to say that God is their very own dad. Yet there are a ton of people who believe that. "If you talk to God, you're religious. If God talks to you, you're probably schizophrenic." "God's interaction with man in the Old Testament was often and powerful." As I made clear in my introduction which you rejected, I find it crazy that people unequivocally accept a book as the truth, no less a book that is many thousands of years old. Therefore, this argument is absolutely meaningless. "In addition to Jesus' testimony to the truth of the Old Testament, ancient manuscripts, archaeology, and internal consistency also testify to its truth." Ah, I am convinced now (in a very sarcastic fashion). Doesn't the bible claim that the earth is 6000 years old? Then explain Carbon dating. If you're going to make claims like that, you're going to have to back them up. "I will also argue inelligent design and extend my arguments." I would be very happy to argue evolution, and I enjoy that particular debate very much. But this is a debate about the existence of a god. So save that for another debate, if you would be so kind. Thank you. I apologize that this argument took a long time to post, and I am looking forward to your response! ---"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and Christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd." -Anonymous---