Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

an afterlife, a transcending soul, a higher power.Like I said, there are spiritual atheists.It's not confirmation bias to back yourself up via logic and evidence, it is confirmation bias to go out of your way and try to convince yourself something is true.But I believe in the same scientific theories as you. However, we have come to different conclusions. If you think that it is more logical to not believe in "God", then clearly the term in that sense is subjective. So, either we are both guilty of confirmation bias, or neither of us are. Science does not say whether or not "God" exists. What people conclude regarding a Creator is opinion-based.Earlier I said, I don't believe in god, because I haven't came across a reason, then you said I simply haven't found one yet, and I said if a reason is provided I will believe in a god, to which you said "find a reason to believe in god".Did I say "yet"? I don't think I did, because if I were to have put it that way, that would appear as if I were saying that you are supposed to find a reason, which is not what I was trying to say. When I said that you have not found a reason... It was as simple as that. You haven't found a reason, I did. I haven't found a reason to believe we came from nothing, you did. It was not a jab.Also, when did I say "find a reason to believe in God"? That doesn't sound right. "Fine duh reason, asshole! Or duh lawd gonna sed ya tuh hell!" lol If you are trying to convince yourself god exists, if you are going out of your way to look for a reason to believe in god, you are searching for evidence selectively and interpreting it selectively for the bias that their is a god.I am not trying to find a reason. I obviously already found one.That's not wisdom, that is something you learn in basic psychology that gets the best of us, but is in no way a virtue or wise.“One must find the source within one's own Self, one must possess it. Everything else was seeking -- a detour, an error.” - Hermann HesseMy opinion of things is clearly a little different than yours.“Wisdom cannot be imparted. Wisdom that a wise man attempts to impart always sounds like foolishness to someone else ... Knowledge can be communicated, but not wisdom. One can find it, live it, do wonders through it, but one cannot communicate and teach it.” - Hermann HesseWhat I think of as wisdom, you think of as foolishness.Rather than looking at all the evidence before forming a belief and then coming to a conclusion.I have looked at the evidence, and I have formed a conclusion. What have you done differently?This is stuff we have evidence for.Do we? The idea that life came from the lifeless is as much of a belief as the opposite idea, is it not?I don't see why we need to assume intelligence is necessary or impliedWe didn't need to assume that all life needed the sun to survive either... We just did. However, we all have a sense of individuality that allows us to come to our own conclusions, so WE don't really need to assume anything. Different beliefs draws different assumptions.We haven't observed an intelligence behind these, so far as we can tell, that is intelligence coming from non-intelligence.We also haven't seen them grow into advanced organisms. If bacteria is "gaining" intelligence, doesn't that mean that intelligence was implied within it the whole time? If a flower grows from a plant, it isn't a flower coming from nothing. The flower was implied in that plant from the start.To simply say "you don't know if their wasn't an intelligence behind that" is confirmation biasI guess you found a new favorite phrase lol.And I accept your idea, as an idea, and a possibility simply from not being disproven. So what is the point in continuing this with me?I've been asking myself the same question.I could say the same thing about you, you didn't come into this argument to be convinced either, and it is in my opinion a lot more obvious with you than me.You are not setting up your arguments to be convincing. You are asking me to prove stuff, not vice versa. I have been trying to treat this more along the lines of a conversation, where as you wanted to turn it into a battle. I offer up an idea, and then you slap it away saying something along the lines of, "that doesn't prove anything". Well, duh! That wasn't even my intention. You say that you accept my idea as an idea, but then in the following comment you say, "How is that an argument? How does that logically justify a belief in god to me? Do you expect me to believe in a god simply because other people do?" The hostility that is implied in that comment is incredible, because there is absolutely no reason for it. The main reason I keep going off topic to address how you are handling this debate, is because of comments just like that. Do you even remember what I said that triggered that response from you? I said this: "No, it is as simple as saying, 'Many people have found a reason to believe... But you haven't. You found reason to believe in something else." All I was saying is that people come to different conclusions. It was basically an attempt on my part to let you know that even though we disagree, I still respect your opinion. I think this is my third time having to say this, but it wasn't a JAB!It's not so much offensive, rather than a tad annoying, not contributing at all, and makes you seem rather arrogant.Well, shit happens. You misinterpreted it, and I hope you realize that so that we can drop this petty nonsense.It's a debate site, what do you expect?Civility was probably too much to ask for, you're right.But when you keep saying "you just haven't found a reason" as if it contributes to anything, or means anything at some point I feel obliged to point out it doesn't.Well, when the person I am debating with misinterprets my comment over and over again, sometimes I feel like pointing that out, as well. But when I have to point that out multiple times, and the person continues to misinterpret in such a way to make me seem like I am an asshole... Then what do I do? I could ditch the debate, but after you took the time to type up a long response, I'd rather not do that to you.The point I was trying to make is, the convenience of life doesn't contribute to logically justifying a belief in god, because the convenience of life is something that you feel towards life.Yeah, and I got your point... "LOL, and you accuse me of not listening to you." That comment of yours should seem pretty silly if you come to realize this.I was pointing out how the holocaust was caused by the Nazis, so if the Holocaust were to have never occurred, maybe due to a more loving society, then the victims would not have actually been victims, and would have likely been happy. But then we go even deeper... Government, money, crime, racism, hate... All derive from humans, and they're all avoidable. We could unite and not have to deal with government corruption, we could get rid of money and share, we could accept everyone for who they are, and we could be kind to each other... But we don't do all of those things on a global scale, therefore we have unhappy people, and those very reasons are why people often commit suicide, which was your other example. Life seems inconvenient, because we made it that way.I don't even need proof to believe in a god, I just need something that at least makes god probable, not just a possibility, as I accept god already as a possibility until someone proves otherwise.Right, and I was in the same place as you not too long ago. I was an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. I found my own personal reason to believe in "God", one you likely wouldn't understand. That's nothing against you, because I probably wouldn't have understood it a while ago either. I am not trying to convert you to the idea, I just want you to see that a theistic argument can work.