Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

No, 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.He was making the point that religious people will bite into dogma that promises big things but overlook small details.God is hardly responsible for diseases. Since not everyone is allergic to them, you could say that God made them hypo-allergic.Did god make the universe (according to you)? Yes. Does the universe contain disease? Yes. Then god is responsible, as the maker and final authority of everything.Also, why should an all-knowing god make something that produces a protein or chemical that makes some people break out in allergy?Bare statement. Tell me how. What's the central point that I miss?God being neglectful is the fault of god, not us.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.That's not what I said. I said these experiences are independent of religion.The formal ontological argument, yes. The argument has been revised and refined since then.Which doesn't matter because the argument will always be a bare assertion.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.If flat earth was obviously wrong, people would have dropped it long ago. Oh wait:http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/Fair possibility doesn't make it so. Sorry.Didn't say it did. Just that it's a good argument and you're poking it for not explaining everything at the moment, as if science is a finished work.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.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Very_early_universe 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.You're cute for shoehorning god into speculation, as if "god" is a concept coherent enough and established enough to be in the same league as physics speculation.A circle has no beginning. That's the point.And the question about entropy is a good one, guess we'll learn one day won't we? That's because science is good at answering questions.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.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Very_early_universe Also remember that this discussion is entirely speculation and educated guesses until we build some really big particle colliders.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?Sorry, stating that the laws of nature are god's laws is a bare assertion. Unless I buy into it your sentence makes no sense.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?My point is that your definition of murder isn't very useful in the debate. Also, it was probably wrong of him to use "murder" as the verb, he should have used "kill." It would be more defensible.What point I am missing?That irregardless of whether you define god to be magically unaccountable to morality, the fact remains that god (if it exists) has been indifferent to us, negligent.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?Seeing as I never cast anyone into hell, sentenced a world's inhabitants to death, condoned wars in my name, encouraged misogyny and prejudice towards countless groups, and so on, I can indeed claim higher moral ground than your god.But seeing as your morality comes from obedience to an authority, you cannot understand the moral sense that I have and so it confounds you how the authority of your morals can be immoral.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?It really all depends on how you choose to measure morality. However if we exit the land of idle speculation for a moment and look at the real world, we see that man has erected courthouses in an attempt to answer this question, and I guarantee you that there isn't a human court out there in the civilised world that would acquit your god of atrocities.Are you really that egocentrical that you deem your own sense of morality to be flawless?I never claimed it to be flawless, I do believe however that I can defend the claim that I have an exceptional sense of morality in spite of being an amoral person.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.I wasn't talking about peer pressure.Now you owe me two appologies for the offenses.The truth is often offensive.