If God Exists

Thank you for that clever response, now for my response. Rebuttal: “demonstrate how true morality, meaning, and purpose can exist in a purely random and natural world. There can be no objective purpose or moral truth in the world if there is no source of objectivity.” So your argument was that morality, meaning, and purpose can’t exist is a random world, which is a very good question that you raised, and I applauded you for that. I will thus defeat this argument, by showing that in no way, the Bible shows true morality, meaning, and purpose. “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. If you believe that morals and purpose have to come from God and the Bible, I’m sorry to demonstrate to you, that this is incorrect. The very book Christians get their morals from is in fact very immoral, as described in the previously given quote. You get your morals from a God that says, “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) “As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) So your; loving and holy God gives descriptive instructions on how to pillage villages and how people are property. I will assure the voters that there are many, many, many different verses in the Bible that show the true morality in your beloved God, but I believe I have made clear what the Bible’s ‘true morals’ are and do not want to waste more space with thissince I have defeated your argument. Many Christians’ excuse for God demanding Abraham to murder his own son more God’s pleasure, and other acts of ‘true morality’ is that; the Bible is not meant to be taken ‘literally’ or, that it was only the Old Testament and things were ‘different’ back then. I will then inform these believers that the whole foundation of the New Testament is that; Jesus is the son of God, and he is redeeming humanity from original sin, and the only way to redeem this is to have the horrible death and torture of his son. The very thought that we humans, are born into sin, is a sinister idea. This, thus concludes my point on how humanity does not account their morality on this God, and therefore defeats your entire claim. “I again submit that the universal appeal to morality and meaning (which Con makes themselves) is enough to concede that a god is possible.” Moving on… “they are technically correct that neon astronaut teddy bears cannot be disproven simply through a lack of observation. Making a claim of certainty from the absence of evidence is called an "argument from ignorance," and it's a logical fallacy. My rebuttal still stands.” Okay, what I don’t get about religious people is that, they choose to base the foundation of their whole life on the chance, that in an alternate reality, God could exist, and he can never be disproven since anything's possible. Even if God somehow existed, why any intelligent person would base the foundation of humanity on this slim chance is beyond me. My point in mentioning neon astronaut teddy bears was to try to help religious people realize the absurdity of their belief, by proving that neon astronaut teddy bears have just the same amount of possibility to be just as real as their God, and to show them the logical reason. I absolutely agree that, “Making a claim of certainty from the absence of evidence is called an "argument from ignorance," and it's a logical fallacy.” Since that is exactly what I am trying to portray! Religion is exactly, “Making a claim of certainty from the absence of evidence” since, what evidence do you have that God exists? You have given none, and you continue to elude that answer. I agree with you that this is, “a logical fallacy” since it absolutely is, as I have stated previously. I will prove that, as you said, religion is a “logical fallacy” since the definition of faith is, by Merriam-Webster, since you apparently only approve that one, is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” So when God says ‘have faith’ he really only means; believe strongly in me, but never listen to science, for they have proved I don’t exist. This is why so many religious people hate science, it makes me very sad. “Faith is the surrender of the mind; it’s the surrender of reason, it’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It’s our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something. Of all of the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated.” Christopher Hitchens. “I submit that Merriam-Webster is probably a more accurate source for definitions than google.com. Anyway, this argument is purely semantic and contains very little, if any, substance.” This is merely an opinion; this debate is over God’s existence, not different definitions of words. It is unfair that you get to pick and choose your own definitions to help your debate. And actually interesting enough, you lie. By Merriam Webster, the full definition of magic is: “an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source” The fact that you would lie about definitions and facts to prove your debate saddens me. “I am unaware of any theories, even theistic ones, that claim the universe is one week old, so I'm not sure where my opponent is going with that.” I can understand how you were confused with this. I was referring to the world’s creation in the Bible, in which God creates the world in one week. I apologize if this was made unclear. But then you go on to say: “My simple counter to this is perhaps god created the universe 13.5 million years ago.” Well according to your own Bible, the universe is 6,000 years old, “the Bible indicates that the universe is about 6,000 years old. For those who claim to believe the Bible, this difference alone should be sufficient reason to reject the big bang.” So, for God to exist, the universe has to be 6,000 years old. But there is scientific proof and evidence to show that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, as even you mentioned. So therefore God cannot exist. I hope you respond to this, and do not evade it. “UV light is harmful in some circumstances, but it also has many benefits.” This whole paragraph that you made was how UV rays help us. This was a response to my claim that; if God is perfect, why did he create imperfect things, example: UV rays that cause cancer? Your response was saying that UV rays actually help humans, which is correct, but if God created all the laws of the universe, then why did he have UV rays cause cancer, why did he created cancer in the first place, for all it does is end lives and cause despair. You never defeated my argument, merely gave information on the sun, please answer why God created cancer in your response. “If the Bible is a credible source, then it proves god exists, and if it's not a credible source, then it cannot count as valid evidence for Con's argument! So which is it?” This is a very clever response, very clever in deed, I compliment you for it. I obviously do not believe that the Bible is a credible source since it contradicts itself, much more than 143 different times, and its explanation of the universe is inconsistent with everything that we have observed in the universe. So yes, you are correct in that the Bible is not a credible source at all; I am astounded in why people base their lives on it. So the question is why I use it as evidence, well I use it as evidence to show that God and the Bible are not credible sources, and to show that God doesn’t exist. I am using what God apparently said in the Bible to prove his nonexistence. I believe have defeated all arguments and proved God’s nonexistence, look forward to the results. http://www.evilbible.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... Bible King James Version https://answersingenesis.org...