Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Superstition is associated with irrationality and magic. A spiritual person wouldn't consider their beliefs irrational, would they?No but most things that are associated with spirituality, are in my opinion, superstitious And as far as magic goes, it depends on your definition.a power that allows people (such as witches and wizards) to do impossible things by saying special words or performing special actionshttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magic  If there is a God, it isn't necessarily magic. Maybe by our standards, because we can't personally create an entire universe, but our human capabilities don't really compare to God's capabilities. He wouldn't think of his abilities as magic, I assume.Did I ever say god was necessarily magic?Don't wait for people to provide you with a reason. Find one yourself.So in other words try to logically justify god's existence... that's called confirmation bias...Well, lets think of it that way for a minute. A continuous chain of intelligence. God gave us intelligence, something else gave God intelligence, something before that gave that thing it's intelligence, and so on and so forth. So when does it stop? Is it infinite? That would mean that intelligence has always existed. Does it stop at something that is unintelligent? Well, that would disprove my argument that intelligence can only come from intelligence. Can it be that the ultimate source of the higher intelligences is an eternal intelligence? Well, then what is wrong with the idea that the intelligence that created the universe is an eternal intelligence?Fair point.If we come to conclusions based on our observations, can we say that we have never seen intelligence come from something that is unintelligent? We have not seen an oak tree drop an acorn that grew to be a talking oak tree, or as far as we know, a thinking oak tree.Yes we have, we have observed intelligent beings evolve here on earth, produced from the earth, and from stars, which are unintelligent. To say that isn't an observance of intelligence coming from non-intelligence, is itself, merely an assumption that an intelligence had to be, behind the things that created us. Observing intelligent things coming from intelligent things and going "Ha, only intelligence can produce another intelligence" and then observing intelligence with no evidence of intelligence behind it, and saying "There has to be an intelligence really far back that implemented this" is confirmation bias, at it's finest.But the computers that we created came from an intelligence, and the intelligence that a computer has acquired is not necessarily real intelligence. Scientists and doctors have found that in order for people to make decisions, they need the part in their brain that creates emotions, to remain functional. A computer does not have any sort of emotion. And the intelligence that is uploaded into a computer, is knowledge that we have, but a computer can process it faster.Considering you are talking about conscious intelligence, which is what produces intention, I concede that to be a rather fallacious argument.If I were to plant an apple tree seed, everything that the tree will become is implied in the seed. I would not see it go from a little tree, to a big tree, and then wonder what the hell happened when it starts growing apples. The seed that had all of that within it came from a full grown apple tree though. This brings us to the question, what came first, the chicken or the egg, but instead of chickens and eggs, it is seed or tree. Well, ultimately a tree came into this world through growth, and then what it grew from ultimately came from the Big Bang. But within that point, was implication of everything. It had the ability to grow into everything that we see today. It is the seed of creation, and what if that seed was planted? However, with God, I do not think that it was a literal seed, but maybe a thought, which is a lot like a seed. If you were to write a novel, ultimately the seed of that novel was your mind.How does this at all prove you point? Yes, things can be a product of intention, but there is no reason that you have supplied here that intention is necessary.You just haven't found a reason.Yes, and until I do come across a logical reason to believe, I don't see the point in believing. Saying things like "You just haven't found a reason" doesn't contribute anything, just highlight why I am not a believer. This would be the equivalent to me saying "You just haven't seen the flaws in your reasons in belief yet" or in translation, and I mean this with all due respect "I'm right, and you're wrong, and you just don't know how". If there is a reason to believe in god, don't just tell me there is, SHOW ME THAT REASON...Yet our population is growing. There are dangers, yes... But if we truly are eternal, like God, then what do we have to worry about?I never said that humans were eternal, if that is what you are getting at. Yes, our population is growing, the world is more convenient for us, than any other animal, because we have adapted to it. It absolutely is convenient. We exist! How can it be any more convenient? Have you experienced anything better? The ego is what makes people look at it as inconvenient.A suicidal person whom hates their lives wouldn't agree, or better yet, some of those whom were tortured in the holocaust wouldn't either. My point isn't that the universe is convenient or inconvenient, bad or good, shitty or wonderful. My point is, our disposition to the universe is rather subjective, and thus not a good argument for a god's existence. In other words, just because you appreciate your existence, doesn't mean that a god exists, your appreciation for your existence, is entirely a subjective disposition.