Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

You said that God is so much more complex than simpler views. This implies that you are not willing to take a more complex view of things, if it truly is so. That implies that you would prefer that God not exist.It does not imply that I'm unwilling to take a more complex view of things, it states that with only a limited knowledge of the Universe and it's workings it is too much of a leap of faith for me to just invoke a creator because there is things I can't explain, or can't be explained by current understanding.I would prefer if God existed, it would give me a sense of fulfillment to know that there is something out there, but my better sense tells me that it does not have to exist in order for me to be here, without proof there is no argument as I view God the same way I view any fictional character such as a Unicorn or an Elf.There is no proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existenceNeither is there of God, the Flying Spaghetti monster of course is fictitious it was made up to prove a point.There are biggieslike our sense of right and wrong,There is a school of thought on our morality evolving from simple reciprocal altruism which evolved from kin selection, the you scratch my back I'll scratch yours thing.and the fact that we existWe exist because of evolution, an evolution that saw our beginnings as non-living replicating molecules such as RNA and through to the endosymbiosis of mitochondria and chloroplasts which are seen as proteo-bacteria, a completely different species to us. On then to the eventual formation of mammals which include us.and that the whole of the universe exists.Still not evidence, there are theories that explain this, but physics is where I'm out of depth.There are those who have experienced visions or voices from God. These people could not be insane, as they actually turned out to be true.There are those that think they are Napoleon as well, but these people are insane. Just because you don't want these people to be insane does not make it so. Why is it that there has never been one accurate prediction? That is outside of vague accounts that are ambiguous at best. And, take Saint Joan of Ark,Please, people became allies with Joan of Arc because she claimed she was communicating with the divine, is this really a surprise? What you claim to be historical fact has no concrete evidence.Blessed Pope John Paul II made a little girl re-grow a bladder. Tell me that isn't proof? Hundreds of saints have worked such miracles on many, many people. Prayer has saved many more.When did Pope John Paul do this show me a credible source. Prayer has been the part of tests that prove it to be ineffective.I would give you better proof than this, but you do not believe this proof. If you study, you will find much historical fact in the favor of Catholicism outside of the Bible.I don't believe that which is not proof. There is many things that prove the existence of Catholicism but non to my mind that prove the existence of God.Why wouldn't He? I do not pretend to know the answer to this question, but I can guess that He wasn't going to go against His own natural laws.So you agree that life arose from non-life then?Why wouldn't there be? If God treated the world He created as a puppet show, there would be no point.But I was of the impression that God was both omnipotent and omniscient, he could not have created all without knowing what was going to happen. Therefore life is, in the view of an existing creator a puppet show.Divine Revelation. Look it up. Read about it for more than two seconds.Your arrogant tone creeping in again. Presumably that before this people weren't ready, right? And everybody got free passes to heaven in light of the fact that God had not shown himself yet.Polytheism was not perfectly acceptable at any time, as that is the worship of false gods. However, God would not punish them for doing so, as they did not know better,Why would God punish anyone, he is omni-benevolent. The thing is our paths are pre-determined so nothing we do is our fault.Polytheism came about from humanity's attempt at explaining God, sort of like the whole idea of Earth being the center of the universe.Polytheism came about from mans attempt to explain the Earth, and all the wondrous things he saw, now we have explanations for lots of theses things.That's why you aren't a heretic. Which means all of these brilliant new ideas you speak of came from religious.I was brought up in a strict Roman Catholic house. It seems amusing that when people such as Darwin say that had the idea of Natural Selection he had been training to be a vicar. Then he rejected his religious beliefs the more he thought about it, seems to be a running trend among the educated.There is no such thing as "other Gods" God is a single person. There are other gods, but these are not real, they are myth. As no other gods have ever existed, then they cannot "retire" as you say. This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in an argument, as, by saying this, you assume I actually believe in every religion the world has ever encountered. If so, you are an idiot. If not, it was a dumb thing to say and you should have known better.First of all this was not a dumb thing to say, you seem to find the idea of many Gods to be ridiculous making you atheistic to these Gods, I just include yours. I asked this question to highlight this point, it was not meant to be taken seriously and fuck you very kindly for once again showing your arrogance, you are exactly as every Roman Catholic I've met, arrogant and judgmental, personality traits openly condemned by your peers but religiously practiced by them. The very fact that you dismiss these Gods off-hand shows that you have Catholic tunnel vision the same I get from my mother every time I meet her. Sorry, you lost me completely here. Honestly. Please clarify.What I was stating is that even now people are splitting from the church because some want to believe one thing and others want to believe another thing. Some want literal biblical truth, others are happy with adding evolution or discrediting some of the bible as you do. Where do you draw the line how can so many schisms be right? What about Islam that is technically a schism of Judaism and Christianity, they just go one profit further. I suppose they are wrong and you are right? Right? The Bible is not to be taken literally. When reading it, you must account for the knowledge of the time, the languageSurely divine revelation would have seen to it that these things were properly accounted for, it seems a bit of an ask to believe that God would have his message portrayed in a hap-hazard manner, ambiguous, unclear and difficult to verify as actual truth or just the ramblings of the more deep-thinking Goat-herders. When you start to pick and choose which bible parts you want to believe in and which you don't, you open up the possibility to a finite list of rules that one by one you'll have to chip away at. Religious people can't be expected to know how everything works. We're just some random blokes like you.Who said they should?However, God gave the people of a long time ago messages. You can't disagree that the Old Testament has some prophecies that are pretty darn accurate. And they can't be manipulating things, because these "things" happen a couple centuries later. sometimes a bit more than a couple.Such as?