Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Which misses the point completelyNo, I didn't. Those kinds of food were prohibited because they would lead to unnecessary deaths. It was a protection measure. Of course, you can keep claiming it makes no sense all the way into forever. It won't change the fact that those kind of prohibitions were necessary at that point of mankind's development and no longer are needed.Also an all-knowing god would make these animals hypo-allergic.God is hardly responsible for diseases. Since not everyone is allergic to them, you could say that God made them hypo-allergic.Again missing the point.Bare statement. Tell me how. What's the central point that I miss?every religion has people who have these experiences, and all religions can't be true, as they contradict each other, so the experience must unrelated to religious beliefs.You're making a hasty generalization. Just because most of them can be presumed false (since all religions can't be true), doesn't follow that all of them can be presumed false.The ontological argument was debunked a long time ago, as just another poor argumentThe formal ontological argument, yes. The argument has been revised and refined since then.I really can't believe you're defending it. It shows how desperate you are to hold onto something so obviously wrong.Actually, it shows your lack of knowledge of philosophy. If it was 'obviously wrong,' philosophers would have dropped it long ago, like they have dropped the 'God needs a cause' argument long ago. In spite of this fact, you seem to be fond of it.He suggested life as a fair possibility.Fair possibility doesn't make it so. Sorry.It's possible that whatever lead up to the big bang existed forever,Mere existence of the 'whatever' is not enough reason for The Big Bang to have happened. There is a need for an explanation for what caused the change of state.and it's within the realm of speculation that our universe is cyclical.If you dare to enter the 'realm of speculation' you have no reason to defy the existence of God, as you will forced to give explanations that are supernatural in nature. Moreso, a cyclical Universe only moves the answer to what started the cycle. It also begs the question of how the entropy can be reversed.Bear in mind that the laws of our universe were formed very early in the big bang, which is why it's basically impossible to know anything beyond it.No, they weren't. What was formed very early in the Big Bang were gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces. A lot of laws very already in place from instant 0. Causality is an example. If causality was not already in place, the Big Bang would have accomplished nothing, since no modification of state can happen without causality existing.That does seem to be how religious people think, especially looking at war.Good, subtle ad hominem. Very well applied, but still an ad hominem. Given the fact that now all wars are religious in nature, I believe you owe me apologies for the ad hominem.In the real world you get punished for breaking rules. There isn't a god enforcing them,Interesting. Have you tried to fly? What? Gravity won't let you? Because you can break any law created by men, and sometimes even get away with it, but what is preventing you from breaking the Law of Gravitation?meaning the supporters of the death penalty support murder according to those nations.And your point is? I am under soreveign of the USA now, and I am subjected to American law now, just because I am human and live on Earth?You're really good at missing the point.What point I am missing? The part where you claim to be morally superior to God, and thus deems God subjected to your own twisted and warped version of morality? Given the fact that I am also human and I deem God to be innocent of any crimes, what makes your version of morality better than my version of morality? Or of any other person, for that matter? Are you really that egocentrical that you deem your own sense of morality to be flawless?Illustrating my point exactly. Your sense of morality has been warped so that you cannot think for yourself but instead look to an authority.Peer pressure has nothing to do with looking to an authority, but with need for acceptance. Obviously, you would know it if you looked at it at Wikipedia or another Encyclopedia, instead of confusing it with peer review.We sane people are much more moral than you could ever be.Now you owe me two appologies for the offenses.