There is no such thing as God

1# Rebuttal If you cannot rely on logic then how can we even Debate the topic? If we cannot rely on testimonies the judicial system in every known country falls to pieces. Science is supposed to be based on logical principles and if it is true we cannot rely on logic then we can also not rely on science. You basically just lost the debate by that statement. My faith is based on the Bible and not just any Bible. History reveals that there is a corrupted and un-corrupted text. Your assertion is disproved in that Christian's through the centuries on DIFFERENT CONTINENTS was able to read the Bible and come to the same conclusions to believe the same doctrines. Some may vary a bit based on interpretation but they were all able to comprehend the essential doctrines. "It is because the rulers of those countries enforced or increased the influence of those religions". I agree with this statement but not the conclusion. The Bible is the standard by which their actions are judged and based on that they stand guilty and not justified. Their actions do not overrule the Bible but must conform to it. The RC Church try to overcome the Scriptures by saying the Pope can overrule written revelation. That is an obvious fallacy because the standard you claim gives you authority can be overruled. To deal with why they had many wives will require more than an 8000 character limitation. I have dealt with this point in other debates and the comments sections and so will only mention that God allowed things although he did not condone it. It was not intended for man to have many wives but God allowed it the same way He allows evil to continue until it's appointed time. The same goes for slavery. "Why one country such as France believes in the String theory and Germany doesnt? thats because scientific theories/assumptions are tested and doesnt rely on testimonies and distorted logic." I agree again but not with the conclusion. The reason why some scientists reject something and others believe it is because the "evidence" allows different interpretations. Science is not so secure to be an authority on everything and most people fail to notice that. Hawking's theory of Black holes was proved to be wrong after 30 years when everyone considered it a fact, something to think about. The excuse that that science is always correcting itself and can admit when it is wrong is hypocritical. I have never heard "science" apologize to anyone for being wrong. Darwin's theory of evolution is considered incorrect in the details by many current scientists but the school textbooks still present his theory as if it was a fact. There is no disclaimer saying: "Darwin was wrong, modern scientific theory says so" or something to that effect. In fact, no one with a sane mind can label themselves "atheistic" under these unsure conditions caused by science refuting science. For example: Perhaps tomorrow "science" can find proof for the afterlife (for instance). At best one could claim agnosticism. 2# Rebuttal: You stated: "My perception is that there is no absolute morally right authority". If that is the case then you have no standard to judge what is correct and wrong. It becomes a matter of personal opinion and since we are all animals your opinion is not worth more than mine. If I am immoral according to you then that is your opinion. There is no standard to back you up. The question then becomes meaningless whether God is morally good because who says your definition of morality to label God is the correct one? You can study Psychology all you want, I have too, and without moral absolutes Psychology also falls flat. What you might deem immoral is moral in another society and therefore who cares what you have to say? If there is an absolute standard then people need to pay attention because that entails accountability. Psychology generally only succeeds by providing excuses for those who can't handle the fact that they are actually not as good as they would like to think or subscribe drugs that suppress their ability to deal with the problem. A honest Psychologist should tell people to get of the drugs and buy alcohol if they really wanted to help, it's much cheaper but have the same effect. They will probably object to that because you cannot charge $500 dollars and hour for that simple but true advise. By your own admittance you have no moral authority and have no moral STANDARD. So leave God and the religious types alone. At least show some respect to others consistent with your personal ideology. If there is no afterlife then sentencing someone to life imprisonment for rejecting some law is the same as eternal punishment. Is it morally permissible to imprison someone for life (basically an eternity if there is no afterlife) but not for God to do the same? You conveniently dodge the question regarding this point and for me it is obvious why you did it. 3# Rebuttal: Genetics can point to but not proof the actual location. Genetics cannot tell what my ancestor looked like, what he liked, how he talked etc. The only LOGICAL fact is he existed. They determine genetics based on what they found. What they find is INTERPRETED and this is where so called science becomes shaky because the genetic origins cannot satisfy the scientific process based on a simple principle that you and everyone else cannot falsify their own existence. That is why you atheist's fail to convince us religious types and cannot produce FACTUAL data to make us believe otherwise. There are many holes in science like dark matter, dark energy and so on. Nobody knows what it is or has observed it. That is the definition of faith in the Bible - Believing in something not seen directly. If you are HONEST you will admit that, if you are only out to proof what you WANT to believe you will deny it. I have debated on this site and many Atheists have admitted everything is not "proof". They were honest enough to admit it. How do you know the universe was created 13.8 billion years ago. Are you aware that dating is circular? In order to make the formula work you have to ASSUME a age for the universe to begin with. No one knows how much radiation was present to begin with when the universe was formed or carbon and and and. So if you ASSUME a young age the formula gives a young age. If you ASSUME an old age the same formula gives a old age. So basically, you enter a old age based on assumption and then the formula confirms an old age that is supposed to prove your original assumption is correct. The problem is that you follow only human opinion and fail to distinguish theory from fact. Thanks for the debate!