I'm god 1v1

A lot of this depends on how you define God (which I won't be specifically looking at the biblical interpretation of) and other terms, but let's take a look at some of the arguments all the same, purely as food for thought. quote]Here are some of our other points: •If the world is too complex to happen by chance then so is God. (Counter to Intelligent Design)[/quote] The original statement is a poorly thought out argument, but so is the response. Both can be waved assists by a simple question: why? [quote]•If God can just always exist then why can't the universe? (Cyclic Model)[/quote] The universe exists within a system of time. If there was no beginning, you would never arrive at the present. A concept of God is not necessarily contained within the dimension of time. [quote]•If he was perfect he wouldn't need to create anything to make him happy. (No Reason Argument)[/quote] Depends how you define perfect. I think even a perfect being would want to do things it finds interesting. [quote]•If he was perfect then he wouldn't regret anything.[/quote] You're not wrong. [quote]•If God created everything he created evil, if he didn't then that means someone else can create something entirely new, even against the will of God.[/quote] What is evil? [quote]•It makes no sense that he would create problems for himself. Why doesn't he want everything to be perfect and stay that way?[/quote] Ever played sim city? Sentient beings are easily bored with utopia. [quote]•Gods are usually made to explain things people don't understand. As people learn more about the world they rely less and less on gods because they find a more logical explanation.[/quote] Clearly those gods weren't very capable. This is mostly all based on assumptions. Though, it is interesting how the idea of a higher power is so deeply ingrained in the human mind, whatever explanation you give for it. [quote]•Morals do not need to come from God. They are based on how people would like themselves to be treated. Most people who don't believe in God will still agree that murder is wrong.[/quote] What you mean by this is that morals do not need to come from religious texts, but from empathy. And you are absolutely right. But let's assume an omniscient being created the universe. Empathy would be a premeditated result from its creation. [quote]•Feelings and Emotions are not legitimate evidence. People have often come to incorrect conclusions as a result of following emotions.[/quote] You are completely correct. Though it's up to individuals on how personal experiences effect their beliefs, this is meaningless to anyone but themselves. [quote]•Man wrote the Bible and were responsible for it since it was written. It is very likely that there were changes made to it and it can't be trusted.[/quote] Well, when they were making copies of it, and checking for perfect consistency, you might say they did so... religiously. But ultimately I agree. Human books cannot be all encompassing universally truths about the universe and God. [quote]•Pascals Wager is not costless. If God doesn't exist then you just wasted your temporary life worshipping something that doesn't exist.[/quote] Not that there aren't benefits during life to that worship. It can bring a sense of community and fellowship, personal comfort, possibly more ethical behavior for some people. It's not gainless either. Either way, Pascal's wager isn't a good argument for anyone who cares about truth. [quote]•Why would you believe in a certain God over another? Many Christians are only Christians because they were born into it. They could have been born into a Muslim family and would just as willingly accept Islam.[quote] Answering this would have me answering questions for others, which I won't be doing. I can however, tell you that I have, to my utmost capability, ensured that my beliefs are the result of logical processes and conclusions. [quote]•(Counter to the Earth being in the Goldilocks Zone) We are only here because our planet happened to be in the livable zone by chance. There are plenty of examples of this randomness going either way. There are many planets who are not in this zone but there are also many planets who are also in the habitable zone around their stars.[/quote] Completely true. The planet with conscious life on it isn't a random sample. It's the planet with conscious life on it. I also want to take a look at a similar argument: the anthropic constants. Exact universal constants that without which none of this could exist. There is no variance here. Our sample size is one. And if we were to assume multiple instances of varied universal constants, there would have to be a mechanism in place for that variation...

You can't "win" against and immovable object. They can dismiss whatever they want. Almost every fallacy can be applied but it will never give fruit Sorry man that would piss me off to no end

Use more science next time. Examples: not enough water on the entire planet in any form to cover all landmass, conservation of energy states that energy can't be created or destroyed (disproves the fish and bread thing Jesus supposedly did)

Tl;Dr It's just a debate bro. If you feel it means something more take your assburgers meds

Either you believe or not. Simple as that. If you don't, oh well. Either we both die and that's the end of it, or we both die and one of us goes to heaven while the other goes to hell. I'm just playing it safe.

[quote]so I hopefully can get over a pointless argument that proves nothing.[/quote] Why'd you make a 400 word wall of text about it on the internet then?

Dude, I figured out a long time ago that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god(s), so I stopped caring. But I will say this: the typical arguments that Christian apologists use are really bad arguments.

Your teacher should be ashamed of herself.

From your explanation it sounded like you were attacking them instead of debating them, especially when you said all religious people are ignorant, that's such an ignorant and bias statement and I'm sorry to say that but it's true. But then I started reading your point and they are actually good points to counter the limited views of both Protestantism and the Catholic Church, they prob had no way to counter most of your points because their beliefs are incomplete. You should have won that debate, not because you disproved God but rater because you disproved their knowledge of God. From the things I know though, I can answer every single one of your points and give an explanation without contending or debating, just not here in Offtopic XD, to many distractions man..

That's lame. Your arguments are good. You can't argue with idiots, that's the argument you should have made.

What else did you expect?

Lmao why do people always post things about religion? There really is no way to prove it or disprove it, especially on a gaming forum, so let's all just post some other random crap lol

[b][i][u]Schooled[/u][/i][/b]

I don't really care what happened, just stop posting religious threads here. What would you gain from it? Not trying to be rude but half the people here are kids. Post it somewhere else please. This is a video game forum. Hope you have a good day

[i]Well, hello there. I jest. That is an unfortunate event.[/i]

https://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/193240985/0/0 mathematical and scientific evidence for "God" you can choose to wake up now or later lol