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

I can't expect everybody to have original thoughts but at the very least you could cite your sources. The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved.See my post above, which addresses this issue.The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6).And without the proven existence of God, why should we trust what the bible has to say about the matter?If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists.All the more reason we should doubt his existence.But if He did that, there would be no need for faith.So?There is not a single advantage of Faith over evidenced belief, not one. The only reason Faith is considered important because it is the only way "holy men" could convince us to believe their unproven nonsense.A Benevolent God would value human life above faith.That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence.This is Christians wanting it both ways. If you have evidence, then you don't have faith. If you have Faith, then you don't have evidence. Faith by definition is belief without evidence or proof. So you cannot claim to have both faith and evidence, you would be contradicting yourself.The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.The bible says it, so it must be true, right? With arguments like this, you don't need counter-arguments.In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument.The ontological argument is bullocks and philosophers have known this for hundreds of years. Using the concept of something as proof that the concept is true, just smells like fishy logic. The argument just falls apart when you remove all the elements of equivocation that's going on.A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer.This is even worse than the ontological argument. To even call what we see in nature "design" you must first prove a designer. You can't prove there is a designer by assuming there is one. This is what is called "begging the question". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Furthermore if the complexity of the universe requires a designer, then surely the complexity of the designer must require yet another designer and so on. A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?Evolution by means of natural selection. Societies that cooperated survived, and those didn't, didn't survive.A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause.This is laughably easy to refute. If every effect requires a cause, then what is God's cause? If God has no cause, then not every effect requires a cause thus your statement is untrue.Arguments for the existence of God are generally very weak arguments.How do we know God exists? As Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presenceWith what other sense? Sense of taste? Sense of touch? Sense of sight? Sense of smell?