Is it advisable to believe in God

I would like to begin by saying that I feel entirely justified with my closing argument being principally a rebuttal of my opponents, as his was principally a rebuttal of my rebuttal. I also feel justified in attacking his beliefs and stance on a personal level, as he himself brought himself into the debate with his closing argument. “my opponent's only argument against my religious stance is the atheist's wager” Firstly, I would like to point out that my opponent has yet to adequately refute said argument (“the bible says so” does not count). Second I would like to remind him of my other principle argument, which is that common sense dictates that the side with evidence is a more likely occurrence than the side without, and as such it is not advisable to believe in god. “I would actually suggest you to look at your own source, now if you read or even skim over the article, you will see that it is referring to Biologists and Geologists! Now i may be a litttle rusty on my sciences, but last i checked the Laws of Thermodynamics were classified under the Physics Department. ” I thought it was obvious that I placed that source to highlight the absurdity of ‘accredited’ scientists believing in creation. I would also like to point out that a large number of the scientists that wrote the book are geologists and biologists. And finally, you completely failed to address my argument against the laws of thermodynamics being used as evidence of god. I would advise my opponent to actually read the paragraphs in question, and see that my argument is not related to this source or the humorous origins of his. “But there is a larger group of scientis who believe in both evolution and non-creationism ideas(such as me) and in a God, up to 40% of scientists and mathematicians” I would remind my opponent that that source is 14 years old, and that the statistic refers to people who believe in a higher being. I would also advise him that a couple of paragraphs under that statistic, it is mentioned that only 10% of top scientists hold similar beliefs. “So no, my scientific, mathematic, and philisophical proof is sound, more than I can say for the arguments my opponent presents. ” First of all, it’s a very big claim to call it proof when you lack evidence, especially when said proof is not sound. Second, you have not adequately refuted any of my arguments. “I would like to point out to my predecessorthat abiogenisis is provably impossible. ” Nothing is provably impossible; need I refer you again to Russell’s Teapot? To quote Thomas Edison – “I haven’t failed, I’ve just found 10,000 ways that don’t work. ” “1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and 2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. 3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise) 4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists. 5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. 6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. Alexander R. Pruss comes also to provide further evidence with logic as well; if something is impossible, we cannot have a perception (even a non-veridical one) that it is the case. It follows that if we have a perception that p, then even though it might not be the case that p, it is at least the case that possibly p. If mystics in fact perceive the existence of a maximally great being, it follows that the existence of a maximally great being is at least possible. Now if my opponent even tries to negate these, he only becomes hypocritical to his "logical" approach by deny logic even further. ” Now this is the one that infuriates me. I would like you to imagine me speaking very loudly when I say this: The whole damn point of my “logical” proof was to say that you cannot poke holes in it without conceding flaws in your original ontological “proof”. Of course my version was satirical, because that whole train of thought is so immensely absurd. How dare you accuse me of hypocrisy without reading what I clearly wrote. “While obviously satirical, the point is that you cannot point out the flaws in this argument without conceding the flaws of the other. ” - Physik The point is, of course my ‘logical’ approach is not logical; because it’s based on your original flawed logic. I would advise my opponent to learn the meaning of the word “satirical”, so next time he sees it he understands the context. "If we are too look towards flaws in the benefit chart i have provided, the negation must concede those that are provided. ” Why on earth must I concede? Once again you have failed to address my argument, in this case against Pascal’s Wager. Once again, the bible is not legitimate evidence, as I have explained previously. “If you are too look at the Catholic Church at the time and those leading Islamic Fundamentalists (I think you spelled extremist wrong), You see that these actions are not guided by Religion, but by corrupted people who believe that the religion is only leverage to gain power and wealth. (4)(5) Religion gives people the strength to get through the hard times, moral and philisophical strength, rather than social and corruptive strength that my opponent ignores in his claims. ” My opponent is essentially trying to justify the phrase “Ignorance is bliss. ” In response to his criticism of the word Fundamentalist, perhaps extremist would be a better choice. However, I would remind you that I have not listed all of your spelling mistakes, and there are a lot of them. “Morals: It does not display we break the morals in the pursuit of religious advancement, but in the case of good and evil. Now let us say that you are in 1930 and you (theoretically) knew what Hitler was going to do, and that you knew there was no way to change his mind (Hitler was extremely stubborn if you look at how athouratative he was. ) would you think that it was best if he was killed, of course you would! Good and Evil is the main base of religion, and exceptions under the right situations apply. Women have also been gaining more rights in religion (6) so the argument of the objectivity is undeniaby being proven false. As for the rape in the bible, I do not know of where that is explicitly said and encourage the negation to provide the evidence. Logic and Reason are present both in religion of the past, today, and likely tommorow. Your argument of morals is absurd. I turn your attention to Deuteronomy 7:1-4, which clearly endorses genocide for religious advancement. And I would remind my opponent that the Roman Catholic Church endorsed Hitler. Also, here is the requested evidence of rape: . http://www.evilbible.com... “This is where many atheist have become as bad as the mis-informed religious people. The Bible was not meant to be a completely literal work of literature, rather, it is a mix of both literal and philisophical, as well as interperative parts. " I’m against the bible because it endorses numerous atrocities, has numerous contradictions, and has very little historical accuracy. Your right in saying the bible was not ment to be a literal work (I agreed with that previously), it is ment to aid in indoctrination through fear. "Atheist slander the bible on the (interperative) use of intelligent design" The bible uses creationism, not intelligent design (a subtle difference, yet important). Also, slander implies that I'm making things up. Read the old testament, and look at evidence. In closing, I think it’s very clear that as he failed to refute any of my arguments, accused me of false hypocrisy and barely read my post that he does not deserve a win.