Debate: Get this over with...why do you believe/disbelieve in God?
Side: I believe because.....

"There is no possible way to know in advance whether or not the holy spirit will answer your prayers, or even to assign probability. Therefore, the faith is blind."This is true but the point I'm making is that there is evidence. Not by the scientific definition of evidence but a personal spiritual evidence. I don't know if I will see the sun rise tomorrow the sun could explode in the middle of the night. I could die in my sleep. But if I do see it tomorrow I'll know it's there and that I saw it. -and this isn't one of those cheezy cop outs. I really want to stress the point of evidence. "What's more likely? That you were personally contacted by the supernatural creator, of whom there is no tangible evidence, and one who possesses contradictory attributes?Or that you are honestly mistaken?"You're asking for guesswork. Deciding what is less likely vs seeking truth. There's sort of a method for finding truth. Searching pondering and praying. Yes we have the scientific method for physical tangible things here on earth. But for other answers we can search the scriptures, think about it, and ask God. "Religion is blind faith that claims to already have the answers, without the need for testing or verification."To already have what answers? all of them? We can get a little more specific here(and not all religion is the same) My religion is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints also known as the Mormon church.(for the sake of convenience we might consider having a separate debate before we get to deep into my beliefs) We don't claim to have every answer to everything. We know that we sometimes have to say I don't know. It takes humility. And we don't disregard science. " It is not closed minded to separate them, it's beneficial to the scientists."Which scientists? The religious ones or the non religious ones? It sure isn't scientific to separate the two I can tell you that. In the scientific world different opposing ideas get scrutinized all the time and they are forced to coexist maybe even forever. How is this any different? To separate these two things you are disregarding the way science works! "If you'd excuse my poor analogy, it's why we don't have obese people run the 100 metres, or let retards teach children. It's detrimental to everyone."Do you think it's poor? I actually don't understand the analogy could you help me out? If you're doing what I think you're doing(which is poking fun) it is poor and I won't excuse it. "Who does represent the Christian world?"An excellent question. Nobody. There are so soo many different christian religions let alone religions period. So you can't really criticize them as a whole can you? Well I guess you could but it wouldn't be very nice. "Is it not the bumbling, moronic creationists who reject science? Is it then the rambling extremists at the Westboro Baptist Church? Is it a Kent Hovind type, one who employs strange pseudoscience to make their case? Or is it the bigwigs at the Vatican?"No. -but it's interesting that you pick those to ask about. Why is that? Let's talk about that. Shall we? Should we further explore you're uncontrolled bias? "My personal favourite would be the ones I know, those that don't need representing, because their beliefs are private, and have no place in public affairs."Who needs representing? Does that have anything to do with this debate? And who said anything about public affairs? What are you doing?