God is real

"Nail in the Coffin of the Cosmological Argument." I was not arguing that there was not a Big Bang. This is not really a nail in the coffin because the fact that there was a Big Bang (again which I believe occurred) does not disprove the existence of an ultimate causer. I would argue that this causer exists outside time and creation, and therefore would not need to be created. Argument from Morality The argument that humanity moved past evolution to somehow create their own sense of morals does not help your argument at all. You argue that "we have now moved past evolution and have constructed more elaborate systems of morals based on universal liberty's and attempting to construct a system from the outside in...". However, how did we get those universal liberties. In the end, we keep on going back to the fact that there is something universal outside evolution, and you have yet to explain how this happened outside evolution. I feel that god better explains "universal liberties" than an evolutionary process that occurred across many different species and cultures of humans. You somehow believe in a world where sometimes there are objective morals that better fit your argument and that there are subjective morals that support your argument. I would say you need to choose whether you believe in subjective or universal morality, because you seem to believe in both at the same time. I suppose since you did not address the problem of moral accountability and as you would say, I think we have a nail in the coffin on that issue. Self Sacrifice This social setting works if our conscience declares that we should only care for our family members. However, there seems to be an intuition to care for all humans, instead of just the humans that are passing down our own genes. It does not help the passing of genes to run in a burning house to save a random human. This would dictate that the humans who did that would have less of a chance of passing down their genes because they would die sooner. Once again, this points to a causer who created the system of morals we live by, not that our moral system was created to protect the passing down of our genes. Please do not think that I do not believe in evolution or in the passing down of genes. I just think that certain moral stances are engrained in us, and I believe the best explanation for that is a god. Ontological Argument I think you misunderstood this argument completely. 1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone. What I am saying is that real beings are greater than imaginary ones because they have one thing that imaginary ones lack: real being. What has more power in the mind: a real god or an imaginary one? This is what I mean by greater. 2. God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought." You misunderstood this too. Can you think of a greater thing than "the supreme being" or "the creator and ruler of the universe"? 3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality. Let me reword this for you: "Suppose God is imaginary but not real." Since it is greater for something to exist in the mind and in reality, saying God does not exist in the reality implies that something greater than God could be thought. This is impossible, since God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought". It is a little confusing at first, you are failing to see the logic behind it. The Christian God You note that there is nothing out of the ordinary about Christianity or the belief in a monotheistic god. However, the belief in a monotheistic god was quite out of place at the time period. You mention the Greeks, who had a system of polytheistic gods. and there is also the Egyptians, and the Canaanites, who had a skewed view of God that is nowhere endorsed in the Bible. In fact, God condemned the Canaanites to die for their sinful ways, so I will take any connection to Yahweh to the Canaanites with a grain of salt. You point out the cruel God of the Old Testament, and that is a legitimate concern in light of Christianity. God as you know from your former Catholic faith, is a God who detests sin. This God so commonly shown as bad in the Old Testament was simply punishing the people who sinned against him. While the death of Christ later prevents the need for God to punish so harshly for sins, God was trying to establish a land and home for his chosen people. His methods were no different from the other warring peoples at the time. The 1 John verse is different from the rest, because through the death of Jesus, sins are forgiven to those of faith. Also, as many atheists and theists alike do, you avoid verses that show God's love in the Old Testament. Of course you stay away from the books in Psalms and the Songs of Solomon, because they refute your point. You also declare the Bible as a group of stories written by pagan people, but this is not the case. In the resurrection of Jesus it says in Matthew 16:1, "When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him." This references who Mary is the mother of, so that one might go and find her to hear what happened. This Bible references people who witnessed miracles with their father's name, so that one might to and talk to them and verify what they saw. This does not point to a bunch of crazy stories, but a book biased on real persons experiences. Thank you so much for this argument. It was nice you hear your opposing viewpoints, and I hope that one day you will come to Christ. I have some suggested reading for you, if you could list some literature that I might read that influenced your position. Reason for God: Timothy Keller Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth: Reza Aslan