Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

The reason for those small details ceased to be. The reason for the big details didn't.He was using examples of small things, there are plenty of others that are relevant but ignored, like the rules that say we must punish a rapist unless it occurred in a city in which case we must punish the rapist and the woman. How about more sections from leviticus that demand garments not be made of mixed materials, and crops not be mixed? There are hundreds of rules.Maker, yes. Final authority? Hardly. We still have free will. Lots of things happen that God is not responsible for.Disease isn't an issue of free will. A disease exists independently of us and irregardless of the choices we make, it also doesn't arise because our will made it come into existence.He isn't being neglectful. We refused his aid.You can spin it however you want so you can have peace of mind, but neglect is neglect no matter what you call it.And I said that you can't affirm with all certainty that all of them are independent of religion. You can only affirm that there are some experiences considered 'religious' in nature that are not religious.I believe I just made that affirmation. If religion A leads to experience A and religion B leads to experience A, and religions A and B contradict each other, then experience A must not be because of the contradictory parts, if it were we'd have experiences unique in their mechanics to the religion.Yeah, I know. Those scientists never give up when they believe something, even when proven wrong over and over. Like those evolutionists guy that are still at it, even after 150 years of being proven wrong over and over.Evolution is a fact, flat earth isn't, and you changing the topic doesn't make your reasoning any less faulty.Oh, yes, you did. Your sentence was, "We have now discovered that other planets and moons may indeed have life on them, albeit not the kind that you see in the movies."Argento said that, not I.Showing what happened planck time after the Big Bang already happened is reason for the Big Bang to have happened how? You completely missed the point.Knowing how it unfolded will allow us to know how the laws became as they were.I am not entirely sure of what fallacies you are commiting in this sentence. It is certainly an ad hominem with absolutely no substance behind it, but is there anything else as well. This sentence will be an interesting case study. You are cute for shoehorning ad hominem into nearly every sentence of yours, though. You can certainly type a lot and write nothing.I like to deride people who deserve it.And that applies to the question at hand, how?Moreso, a cyclical Universe only moves the answer to what started the cycle.A circle cannot have a beginning. If the universe is cyclical it has no beginning or end.No, we won't. We won't be alive to see it happen.You don't know that. We could find the answer in twenty years.We already have very big particle colliders. What we need is particle colliders that are as big as the Earth radius. We ain't getting any of those anytime soon. Anyway, thank you for confirming my argument that the only laws that appeared after the Big Bang are the ones reigning over the four fundamental forces. All the others were in place from time 0, thank you.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Very_early_universe Read that. You're speculating.You failed to address my point. Answer it.In the real world you get punished for breaking rules. There isn't a god enforcing them,You said: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?You asserted without justification that god backs rules like gravity.