Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

They can't make the statement that there is no God because they look riduculous.Just as ridiculous as you look to them. If someone truly believes in something, they don't feel that they look ridiculous, and wouldn't care if someone told them they did.What you talk about is what agnostics believe. They admit that they don't know.This is true. But there is no law that says an agnostic can't also be an atheist (or a theist, for that matter). Agnosticism deals with knowledge, theism and atheism deal with belief. I am an agnostic AND an atheist; agnostic because I don't make truth claims about God and an atheist because I don't believe in him. In my experience, this is how the majority of modern atheists view this subject.Atheism says there is no God. Dictionary.com:atheist: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."Denies OR disbelieves. Obviously, those who deny will also disbelieve. But one DOS NOT HAVE TO deny to disbelieve. You talk about providing evidence.....you would have to know everything to say for certainty that there is no evidence for God.Sure, but there is a foundation for belief. So you probably believe there is evidence. So offer it up to scrutiny, but don't be surprised if someone finds a whole in it.Science can't address the first cause so we are left with what?A reason to continue investigation. To invent new technology, to keep thinking about it until everything makes sense. Every piece of current scientific understanding we have was once unknown. You keep pointing out how we don't know everything, why do you assume that any of that is unknowable? Plus, assumptions that there had to be a first cause is based purely on the linear nature of time as we know it. If time were a loop, there wouldn't necessarily need to be a first cause, at least not in a linear, three-dimensional sense.life coming from nothing?You seem to be confusing "life" with "universe". Life came from already existing matter. So how did we get here?There a few different possible answers, which are currently being investigated. But abiogenesis is perfectly viable in certain conditions. We just have to figure out if those conditions existed on Earth 3.8 billion years ago. So far its looking like undersea volcanoes could give us what we need. intelligent designer or random chanceYou aren't listening. SCIENTISTS ARE NOT CITING RANDOM CHANCE. It is cause and affect based on the inviolable laws of physics. Thing happen because they can. The most likely occurrence is the one that manifests. the universe and how it works perfectlyEverything breaks down. How is that perfect?And no life anywhere else that we know of in our solar system.Do you have any conception of how small our solar system is compared to the minimal known size of our universe? Smaller than a molecule of water in the ocean. Even if we were the only life in our own galaxy, that would still be nothing. There are countless other galaxies. It takes faith to believe that something comes from nothing. Is that possible?  and later So what was the very first cause...the one that most atheists refer to as the Big Bang. What caused the energy to cause it?I don't claim something came from nothing. I claim we don't know what got the ball rolling yet. Just because we don't know an answer does not mean we have to fabricate one that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy.And do tell me how peacocks tails appear the way they do....randomly? That the beautifullness of the tail, just evolvedFirst off beauty is subjective. As far as we know, only two creatures on this planet find peacock tails beautiful, humans and peahens. As far as humans go, many animals have mating adaptations that we don't find at all beautiful, some are downright nasty. But it serves the species pretty well when mating season comes around, especially since the those with big, bright tails are likely to be among the most fit. It also makes the bird look larger than it is and appear to have eyes on the their hindquarters, so predators rarely attack them. There were most likely thousands, maybe millions of variations on that tail before we got to see it. This would appear to be the one that worked best for them, and they might just keep getting more and more glorious through the successive generations.that the eye just evolved perfectlyYou keep saying "just evolved" as if this were some simple matter. No. It took many, MANY years and a lot of poor organisms died young because they got the design variation that wasn't all that great. Lots of teeny, tiny little alterations that gradually formed a gestalt product that serves us. And optometrists have been telling us for years that our eyes are anything but perfect. We have blindspots in our vision that don't need to exist. We could see more clearly and accurately if our blood vessels in the eyes were arranged differently. If simple humans can catch these design flaws, how could a perfect being allow them? Physics and chemistry cant answer those questions.Well, in this case I had to use biology. Although there was some physics in the eye problems...Just because you don't know anything about science does not mean you should be so arrogant as to assume that nobody does. My pastor is not rich....he lives modestly and not lavishly like you are saying that all religious leaders do.I did not say that. However, the earliest leaders of any religion had something to gain. They didn't all get it, but that doesn't mean that they didn't hope for it. But if you follow what Christ said, and you center your life around Him....you would treat people with love and respect. People of faith do a lot for humanity.I treat people very well. Much of what I do is in the interest of trying to make the world a better place. You are right, (some) people of faith do a lot for humanity. Some do not. And some who have no faith do great stuff too. Ever hear of secular humanism?Tell me.....without God, who gives moral law........do we just all live according to what we think is right, what society says is right?First off, atheists are very underrepresented in the prison system. It seems we do a pretty good job living on what we think is right and what society says is right. But you are correct, there is a bit more to it than that: morally is programmed into our brains. It is genetic, and has evolutionary advantage. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=3&ref=science. You are a relativist. And from all you have said here, you believe that what is true for one person or group is not necessarily right for another.Give me examples. Because, for the most part, I am no relativist. Especially:Your brand of relativism says that no truth is universally or objectively true or false.That's not even close to anything I have ever said. Indeed I debate with people who feel that way. You appear to have put me in some atheist stereotype mold. But you are reading into my words things that I'm not even coming close to saying. That is kind of rude. For you no religion is truer than another.... NO MORAL ABSOLUTESReligion is not the only source for morality. I am sure you oppose slaveryAbsolutely I oppose it. I would die to stop it. You know why? Because I have empathy. I would not wish to be property. Therefore I would not wish anyone to be property, unless they contractually entered into it of their own free will, no coercion. Slaves have little freedom, and I support freedom for others as much as for myself. This little thing, this empathy, is a huge source of morality. We can’t then condemn then slavery in America, genocide in Africa or infanticide in ChinaYes we can. We don't need God or scripture to tell us right from wrong. You already have faith...try having some for humanity. If you correct me, you assume error exists. And if you assume error exists, you assume that truth exists.These statements are true. But then...Yet truth for you changes because you try to live without God.See, now you are the one who is sounding like a relativist.