A Civil Religious Debate

In other words: God exists because God says God exists. Fail.

Again, If you would like to discuss those concepts, let's open a different debate. I did not substantiate because the purpose of this argument is only to debate God's existence.

Your argument that God exists is premised upon the existence of free will, making free will a topical subject in the debate on the existence of God. If you persist in the notion that free will is non-topical, then the implication is that it was not topical to begin with and you have not actually proven the existence of God.

Furthermore, you have utterly neglected the entirety of the rest of my rebuttal. Failure to do so again will indicate concession of the points concerned.

Posted in error. Disregard.

[…] You say that a brain cannot be created from nothing, yet you will argue and say that a single particle of matter somehow appeared from nothing and then proceeded to evolve over billions of years […] and all out of a single particle of matter which came from […] what? & […] The Uncaused Causer, so-to-speak.

The problem with your reasoning is that you treat an absence of definitive knowledge as to the origins of the universe as evidence of the proof of God. This does not follow.

[..] I consider myself a Christian, but I recognize that the typical Christian (99% actually) is religious and usually hypocritical. However do not equate hypocritical religion with the belief IN God. […] be careful not to label EVERY single person who believes in the existence of God under the same label as "hypocritical" and "religious."

The accusation is not one of hypocrisy, but of insecurity. Theism is the human response to an aversion to the unknown; it is an emotional convenience that sidesteps the fear of uncertainty.

[…] It hurts him to see how much pain we go through, but he will not mess with free will and make us like robots, to do whatever he wants, as that would corrupt His perfection and make him imperfect. The fact that we have free will means that we have a choice whether or not to believe in Him. […] Because of our free will, we as humanity disobey God all the time. This disobedience is called "sin." […]

There is much you assert and presume, but I shall focus on this: The ultimate premise of your argument is the presumption of free will, yet you never actually substantiate that presumption. I will begin to lend your argument credibility only when you have demonstrated that free will is more probabilistically true than not.

What would follow from there is an expectation that you similarly substantiate each of the rest of your multitude of other assumptions (e.g. God loves us, God is perfect, etc.).

Just use the tools of Logic and Reason to study all of these things that I have told you, and see if they don't make sense!

Logic and reason preclude presumptuous conclusions; your ideas are filled with them.

Do all of this without bias and pre-conceived notions!

Your entire argument is premised upon biased, pre-conceived notions. When one assumes a neutral ground your conclusions do not follow from what you have presented.

The question is not if you FEEL alone, it is whether or not you ARE alone. If God does not exist, there is no reason to be moral, to live with standards, regardless of how you feel. But that also means there is no hope.

God is not requisite to morality; most atheists possess moral intuition absent theistic faith. Morality itself is not even a purely religious construction, but a byproduct of human evolution compelled by biology and social pressures; it is fundamentally a matter of emotional judgment projected onto ourselves and our surroundings. I personally reject morality as detrimental to reason and the pursuit of objective truth; I could go into this if you like, but suffice it to say that far from alarming me your argument of an amoral Godless universe is rather appealing.

I hold hope in similar disutility. I have found it not only unnecessary in my life, but a liability.

If you're wrong, God exists, and you have purpose and there is a meaning to life that you haven't discovered yet.

I do not feel any need for my life to have any purpose or meaning.

I know where I am going when I die; I have hope, because I know there is purpose to life and this one is not the end. I can't explain it or prove it personally to you, you just have to experience it for yourself.

Therein lies the crux of the matter: you cannot explain it or prove it. Consequentially, you do not know these things but believe them as result of the many presumptions you hold.

I know where I am going, and I have a reason to have hope. Can you say the same?

No, and I do not need to.

So you claim... care to substantiate your assertions? (Of which, I may add, there are many.)

Many scientists may be theists but this does not mean the believe there is irrefutable and incontrovertible proof of a god or gods. Moreover, very few scientists actually specialize in areas that would give them any authority on the matter of deistic probability.

Assuming this could actually happen (it could not) then I think humanity would just find something else to divide itself into in and out groups. It is human nature.