You say just because we legalize it does not mean that we would do it. So that makes it ok for society?

No, it just makes it ok for those that want to do it.

I wouldn't go out and marry many times just because the law allows me to, would you?

And the truth is...if something is legalized it becomes moral.

Really? The death penalty is legal in some states and yet a lot of people would argue that the practice is still immoral.

Abortion was illegal, immoral at one time...prior to 1973.

The only fact in that sentence was that abortion was illegal. You can't describe it as universally immoral because you would have to speak on behalf of every living being at the time, and presume that you know what their feelings where on the matter.

Now although it is still stigmatized for all the right reasons...it is ok to do and we do it well in the US.

Well it's not ok for everybody, is it?

You don't see every pregnant woman in the country line up to have an abortion just because it's legal, do you?

We kill more unborn children than any other country in the world. So much for the abortion law.

No one is killing "children". Abortions don't kill living "children". But that's another debate.

And because its legal doesnt mean that everyone will do it.......BUT statistics show that the majority of women get them.

Show me. Show me the statistics.

Furthermore, what does abortion got to do with a few people agreeing to live together and love each other?

So what makes you so sure after group marriage was legalized that the majority one day wouldnt do it ? You don't.

I don't, no. But then again I don't care if they do. So what if they do?

If the majority decides to do it, then all that proves is that all this time we were suppressing the majority into not doing it. Just so that people like you, who are uncomfortable with the idea, can live in a world where everybody else abides to their ideals and lifestyle. Even if they are forced to do so.

You talk about feelings like they are nothing, not special, just ordinary.

What? Where did I say that?

It's not about love really, its just sexual.

Well you don't know that, do you?

We're not talking about fuck-buddies here. We're talking about people who are in love and have a lot in common, and want to share their whole lives together.

One of the most dangerous and damaging emotions that can rip and tear through a family is that of jealousy. And do you think that there is any jealousy in polygamist marriages and relationships?

If you are the jealous kind, then clearly polygamy is not your thing. So that point is void, because the people that would be willing to partake in a polygamous arrangement are clearly not the jealous kind.

Do you think children would or could get hurt in relationships where daddy cant keep it in his pants and has relationships with all sorts of different women?

Well, children are already getting hurt in relationships where daddy can't keep it in his pants and has relationships with all sorts of different women SECRETLY.

Those are the truly hurtful relationships because when the truth comes out (it always does) both children and spouses feel betrayed and everything falls apart.

But in a polygamous relationship, daddy doesn't fuck around with unknown women. No one feels betrayed because no one is lied to.

And what happens if you bring a STD home? Or if you got them pregnant?

Well you're not bringing STDs home because you are not having sex outside the home.

And if you got them pregnant, then they would be having children... Like any family.

Rape is not a recent concept either....so whats your point about polygamy? Murder was around too......is that good and beneficial to society?

Rape and murder are violent actions that happen without the consent of the victim.

There are no victims in polygamy, and the participating adults do it with their consent.

Well, true love is not limited in quantity.

By your argument, parents that have two or three children love each child less than parents who only have one child. But is that true?

I think people are making a huge deal out of this when it really isn't.

We don't punish people for cheating on their spouses, but we do if they come clean and invite both parties to a mutual partnership.

That implies that we are not really concerned about the truth, just as long as we all maintain that image of a perfect society, where everyone lives with one partner happily ever after. So it's ok to cheat as long as you do it secretly.

If you think that it would transform our societies into the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah, then remember this: just because you legalize it, doesn't mean that we are all going to want to do it. And if most married men cheat anyway, then perhaps we already are Sodom and Gomorrah, albeit with a thin coating on top to hide the truth.

I know a few people will use "children" as a wild card to dismiss this, but think about it first. At some point all children will face the reality of being in love with two people. But currently that is a taboo, and the only option is to pretend you are not and then have a secret affair. However, if polygamy was legalized, and we were more open about it, people will find it easier to come clean and own up to their feelings.

Let's not forget that polygamy is not a modern concept. People have done it for hundreds if not thousands of years. Some societies allow it even today. And children are raised in all kinds of family set ups: single parent families, grand parent families, and families made of friends or relatives. So maybe we shouldn't get all high and pious when a child is raised in a polygamous family.

If all participating parties are adults, and they are happy to go into that kind of arrangement, then what is the big deal?

There are plenty of social groups out there that already structure their lives with a self assured "knowledge" that God is indeed up there.

What I have observed so far is that a common theme running through all these groups is that personal liberty is almost always sacrificed and squashed. Free will is suppressed and the members live in constant judgment.

Just consider what man has done in the name of God when man didn't even have concreted proof of God's existence. Now imagine if man did have that proof. How much would that cement his conviction to perform atrocious cruelties on other people, guilt-free.

But let's say that the proof prompts people to be good. Would anyone ever trust a good deed? Think about that. Right now, you can choose to do something good for someone, for no return, out of your free will. But with that proof of God in place, will anyone ever be able to trust that those good deeds are not motivated through fear or reward?

So, that proof would effectively install a heavenly dictatorship right on our heads.

Can I clarify that the debate is limited to the proof being positive.

In other words, I'd like us to focus just on the possibility that we have proof that God DOES exist.

I could refute the concept of equality itself. I have never observed two identical things (in the real world) that couldn't be demonstrated to have difference.

Are you refering to the possible differences between the imprint on the object and the actual fingerprint?

I would want to leave room for doubt on most things actually. That's a philosophical inclination of mine.

And in my books that is something to be proud of.

Yes a fingerprint on an object is GENERALLY regarded as reliable proof that someone touched an object.

Yes, but I didn't ask you what the general attitude towards this proof is.

The "general regard" for a proof includes people who do not possess the required scientific knowledge to understand the irrefutable certainty of the proof. It also includes people who have other reasons to not accept the proof as irrefutable.

So that's why I asked YOU.

And in doing so I am assuming that you possess the required knowledge and that your mind does not have an agenda in this matter. Therefore, I think we should fore-go a biological discussion on fingerprints.

So, forgetting about the general regard, is the fingerprint merely "convincing" or is it "proof"?

It depends on the level of certainty I was after.

The certainty of proof is always 100% regardless of what you are after.

So, back to our question, regardless of what you are using this proof for (court case etc.), is your fingerprint proof that your finger touched the subject?

Is this fact refutable? Is it possible that this truth will ever be false?

Thank you for introducing a very interesting subject.

I want you to know that I do not argue or debate from a certain side or angle, I enjoy mutual conversations with an open mind, and I appreciate the knowledge and mental breakthroughs that can be gained. Now, on with your statement:

May I suggest that the difference between "proof" and something that is "convincing", is that proof has to be irrefutable and always true, whereas a "convincing" argument may well be refutable and false.

Furthermore, a "convincing" idea is heavily dependant on the subject that is "convinced" and the degree of how convincing it is will vary from subject to subject.

Having said that, I would like to pose the following question to you:

Is your fingerprint "proof" that your finger touched the subject where your fingerprint was found?

Please note that I have not added any more variables or dependant storylines to this question. This not a question of whether your were in the room where someone was killed, or whether you willingly touched the subject or not. Just the question.

First, let me clarify that I am not debating whether all Americans should speak English "all the time". You are a free country and if people want to speak to each other in an another language that is their choice and right.

Now, the reason I am on this side is because in order to run a country and maintain official communications smoothly, the country must have a "national language". A language that is spoken by every office and body that represents the state. So, in that respect, every American should be required to understand and communicate in this language, just like they are required to know and abide by American law.

This idea that the state has to cater to its citizens in whatever language they prefer is absurd, inefficient and costly.

As far as the private sector is concerned (i.e.private companies), as long as they maintain their inter-communications and operations in English, then they should be free to cater to their customers in additional languages, as long as English is always an option.

Just look at all the anti semitism in the middle east

The question is, is it really anti-semitism, or a sentiment of hatred towards the Israeli government and their actions?

Also, it is important to point out that the term Semite describes a broader range of Arabs, including muslim Arabs, and not just the Jews. Therefore, in true linguistic terms, the suggestion that a non Jewish Arab is "antisemitic" is essentially a contradiction, unless of course they hate all Semites (including themselves!). And yet, the term "anti-semite" has somehow been limited to mean hatred of Jews exclusively.

Also, do you think the Palestinians hate Israel because it's a jewish state?

I was indeed inspired by that documentary and I am glad you brought it up.

I watched it on Channel 4 here in the UK very late at night (I wonder why they gave it a slot that late) and I loved every minute of it. At last, here was someone that exposed these monsters and said it as it is.

It was so disturbing to see the brain washing tactics employed upon young Jews. They were basically forced to weep and think that the world hated them. I felt sad for them and infuriated at the same time.

I had never heard of Norman Finklestein before but I am certain I will never forget him now.

I am not a Jew, but this issue has been somewhat personal to me. A few years back I joined a European organization that fought for tolerance and held workshops on conflict resolution. We discussed many issues such as racism, sexism, homophobia etc. But what stuck with me was that the organizers/trainers almost always would bring up the subject of anti-semitism. It was weird because none of us, the participants (from all over Europe and USA), felt that it warranted that much attention. None of us had actually witnessed it or experienced it or heard of it happening in our communities. And yet the organizers insisted on adding it in the list.

Later on I found out that the group was a branch of the ADL and then things started to make sense!

On a side note, I recently found out that Channel 4 did not add this documentary in their online archive of already broadcast shows called 4OD. They do with every other show.

And on a further side note, when a debate gets a few responses on here, it usually climbs up to the Active Debates section.

Why is this debate kept buried on CD?

I'm sorry that I didn't make the title of the debate more precise, just wanted to point out that the point of the debate is to discuss whether anti-semitism is as rampant as it is claimed to be.

Also to discuss the possibility that the people who are charged with "hating the Jews" are in fact haters of Israely policy, which is not the same thing.

I agree with you that the title should have been more in line with what you suggested, because, effectively, that is the gist of the debate: is antisemitism exaggerated.

But I also wanted to touch upon what has been called The Holocaust Industry, because in reality that is the part that infuriates me the most: the use of the Holocaust to silence all criticism against Israel, and also this outrageous propaganda that has effectively monopolized the Holocaust tragedy into a "Jewish tragedy".

The likes of ADL, JDL and the rest, are actually doing more harm to the Jewish community nowadays than any real antisemite could dream of.

In a recent documentary, the ADL front-man made a slip-up comment:

The Jews have more power than they think they do, but no where near as much as everybody else thinks they do.

Well, if we were predetermined to have this conversation then you have no other choice but to share your answer with me :o)

Before you do, I would like to assure you that I will not accept, deny or adopt it, even if your answer satisfies my mind to the full.

I will simply carry it with me, ponder on it, filter it, doubt it, perhaps even for twenty years.

Whether you tell me or not, I would like to thank you just for contemplating to share something that took you so long to conclude.

I first wrote a lengthy reply to your post but in the end I think it all boils down to one thing:

If every chain of events (causes) is predetermined and somehow coded by the Creator, then how can we speak of freedom and personal responsibility?

Furthermore, if chance does not exist then what is there to

a. protect us from the possible tyranny of an all powerful Creator?

b. absolve the Creator from being a negligent parent?

I am assuming that by "authors" you mean the organisers of the game. Please correct me if I am wrong. The following responses are made with this assumption in mind.

There are two principal parties of all lotteries, they are: the author/s of the lottery and the lottery players. And of the two there is only one party which does not lose: the author.

The fact that the lottery organisers take out a small portion of the total ticket sales does not alter the element of chance required in winning the final jack pot.

Do we call it a game of chance because there are many losers

No. It's a game of chance because there is no code that dictates the final outcome. The combination of "causes" that will yield a winner happens by no ultimate cause other than chance.

or do we call it a game of order because the authors will always derive the benefits of the intended purpose of the lottery?

You have to separate the game itself from the business model which provides the game.

The cost of the ticket effectively carries two parts: Your payment to the organisers, and your contribution to the jackpot.

The game itself does not include the organisers, it's between the players, the jack pot, and chance.

Obviously, the players are taking a chance that they will win or lose.

Agreed. (Is this an admission that chance exists?)

But the authors are not leaving their benefits of the lottery to chance.

The authors are benefiting from the business model, not the actual game.

That's a very interesting point, because if God didn't warn the Israeli people against those foods, people would claim that an all-knowing God should know better.

Two points:

1. Does the Bible contain warnings against every single cause for deadly allergies?

2. Are you asserting that some parts of the Bible do not apply to us today (for whatever reason)?

So said the rebel teenager that demands his father to pay the fines for his crimes.

I am not a teenager. I am not rebeling against your God. I do not want him to pay for any of my crimes.

But if your God is real, and he is our "father", and he is all powerful, and he loves us... then reason would suggest that He is a very neglectful parent when it comes to stopping a tsunami from killing hundreds of thousands of his beloved children (among which are quite a few innocent babies).

Especially given that He has in the past intervened with human history.

Not only that, but He also seems to be an unfair and choosy parent.

Does it not bother you that this Biblical God has a favorite people (Israel)?

If it was mere consciousness, there would be a general agreement regarding this, since everyone is conscious

That is far from the truth. Most people, me included, live most of their lives either rehashing the past or in some projected future created by the mind.

We are slaves of our brains, and that is why we are rarely conscious.

An argument that have existed for almost a thousand years and is constantly being revised and criticized is not a stupid fallacy, or it would have been dropped long ago, instead of resisting for a millenia.

I'm afraid it is. If you would like me to break down the specific fallacies contained in the argument that "silaswash" presented then please let me know. But before I do, please, read his statement again.

The ontological argument does not rely on being 'great' but on being 'the greatest.'

Two points:

1. By who's standards is he the greatest?

2. If there was a consensus that God is indeed the greatest conceivable being, does the possibility of Him not being a real being alter His status as the aforementioned?

And because it could be caused by biological processes, then it was? What's preventing Mars from being a completely lifeless planet and all the methane have been created through mud volcanoes?

Cue applause. I just wish you would apply the same inquiring mind when it comes to assertions made in your Bible, such as God created the world in 7 days.

Citation needed. I never heard of this, but I am pretty sure it is speculation based on long distance photography.

It is based on high-res photos and also on our findings of identical patterns here on earth.

By the way, to go back to my previous point: when you read your Bible, did you at any point shout "Citation needed" after what you read?

Actually, stuff can more or less be created out of thin air (from massless energy, actually) in a process called Pair Production

Cool. Let's look at Pair Production since you brought it up.

The creation of a particle (and its antiparticle) usually from a photon.

For this to happen you need enough energy to create the pair, and that energy must be at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles.

So guess what. It's not out of thin air after all.

There is no know process by which entropy can be reduced, and an Universe that has existed since forever would have infinite entropy and would have long decaied into heat death.

You are trying to apply a simple thermodynamic model to the universe in general. For this model to work, the space and energy must be finite. Since the universe appears to be infinite you cannot speculate by using entropy.

Furthermore, even if this model could be applied to the universe, the fact that the universe is expanding, means that the maximum possible entropy is also rising. This actually moves us further away from heat death, not closer.

Why? I mean, if I kill you, I get to have all that you have, for free. Why is it best if I don't kill you? I have to share food, water, women, and other resources with you.

Please consider the following:

1. Is believing in the Biblical God the only reason that stops you from killing me?

2. Is it by chance that the millions of people who don't believe in the Christian God don't go out killing each other?

3. Is it by chance that the ancient civilizations, before Christ and the Bible came out, valued human life and good behavior?

That would have been a good argument if morality was a product of modern civilization. It isn't. It is as old as mankind, kind of one of the first things we "figured out".

Who said modern? The greek Hippocrates and the ancient Egyptians performed loads of surgical procedures. That was even before Christianity came about.

it was also during that time that most famous philosophers examined the human condition and came up with great ideas and findings.

Murder is defined in the dictionary as killing a person without a justified reason. Death Penalty is, in the mind of its supporters, justified by the crimes of the person.

If murder is universally rejected, and murder must have a justified reason, should the justification for murder be also universally accepted?

Is your father accountable to you for not giving you a bicycle when you were ten years old?

No. But that was not what I meant with my argument.

If the Christian God is real and he has power over the physical world, and he knows that a tsunami is about to kill thousands of us, then is He not accountable for safeguarding us from an event we are powerless to prevent? What kind of parent is that? Can you find me a human parent who, in good mind, would not prevent something bad from happening to their children if they could? No.

Does that not suggest that the Creator is not bound to the descriptions and characteristics provided in the Bible?

Peer pressure.

So all the atheists and non Christians out there who are well behaved, only do so because of peer pressure...

At this point I will withdraw from this debate and bow to your superior understanding of human nature. That explanation is clearly beyond anything I can comprehend and puts you way ahead of me both intellectually and philosophically.

Well done.

Cue applause again.

My last post was submitted twice for some reason, please ignore this post.

and there can only be one winner

As we discussed this is not entirely true. There can be 2 winners or more.

Or there can be no winner at all.

Also, I am aware that sperm have some indicators which help them swim towards a particular direction. We used to think that it was osmosis, we now have more evidence to suggest it is a combination of smell as well as difference in temperature. I acknowledged these facts in my previous post. The point that I was making was not that sperm swim randomly. My point was that the "terrain" is such, that at some point the sperm are met with a choice of tunnels, some of which lead to a dead end. And it appears that even the healthiest of all sperm can take the wrong way, we have seen this with microscopes. On top of that, the course is also randomly bombarded with deadly chemicals produced by the female.

Furthermore, even if the sperm reaches the egg and fertilizes it, that is not the end of the story. The female's immune system sees the zygote as a foreign body and bombards it with chemicals. Which is why the process fails more times than it succeeds.

If the whole process was specifically designed to filter out weak sperm then are you prepared to discuss the implications of this assertion with regards to babies that are born with severe genetic abnormalities?

Or furthermore, to take us back into the DNA formation, why was my niece born with blue eyes, when she had 75% more chance of having brown eyes, and the environment where she lives favors brown eyes by 99%?

So what does all this suggest? Only the strongest and healthiest sperm of hundreds of millions will fertilize the egg.

I used to think that too. But it turns out it doesn't work that way. The obstacle course is such that at some point each sperm will have to make its way through a "labyrinth" field. At this stage in the race (and a few others like it) a perfectly healthy sperm can end up at a dead end and die. So even the healthiest of all the sperm can die after taking the wrong turn.

I'm not sure if you can watch this documentary about the sperm race in your country, but please give it a try, it is truly magnificent and will give you a new understanding of the process:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-great-sperm-race

No more than one and no less than one sperm.

As you admitted yourself this is not true for all pregnancies (twins, conjoined twins etc).

You and I, as well as all other humans, are rooted in our sperm origin as the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’.

The problem with that definition is that the term "alpha" implies superiority over the other sperm. Even though I made it first past the post, there is a very strong possibility that there were stronger and healthier sperm than me that simply took the wrong turn.

Therefore all of us have succeeded where all the hundreds of millions of others in the herd have failed.

But can you really attribute that success entirely on the winning sperm?

This is a race where there are countless variables and intermittent events that happen without a pattern. A race in which the runner is guided (predominantly) by heat perception and has no concrete clue that they are going the wright way.

More importantly, this is a race which is designed to kill ALL sperm indiscriminately. So the only success to see here, is the fact that there was fertilization at all!

Because that is what it is all about. More life. Because more life creates more chance and more chance holds more hope for change and improvement (evolution). It's not about the individual sperm. It's about conception.

Philosophically, we can reason that all of us can and should be thankful that we are alive today because we were the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’.

It is one thing to be thankful and to feel special that things happened in such a way that you and me made it, but it is another thing to somehow take all the glory from chance and claim it for your own.

The truth of this is so consistent, it stands to reason that ‘order’ should be inferred thereby; unless of course I have unknowingly erred in my judgment.

I cannot see how, by looking at the specifics of the process, one can infer order or determinism and reject chance. Surely, for us to infer order, the process should bear some resemblance to orderly fashion. But this race is basically a war with no rules. A war which is more often lost than won.

If nature's way for making something happen relies on persistence and high numbers, does that not infer an inherent recognition of chance?

I would like to present the following thoughts to you.

The soul, or consciousness as I call it, is so pure and "godly" that it never gets tainted. It never turns to the "dark side". It never sins. Therefore it is never guilty. The soul's existence is infinite.

On the other side, cohabiting the body, is the human mind. A great and powerful tool. So powerful in fact that it can overpower the carrier and trap him into a false self/ego and make him a slave. Unlike the soul, the mind is very easily tainted. It can sin and it can commit horrible acts while caught up in its self preservation games. The brain's existence is finite.

The carrier (human) that has completely identified and given into the mind, at some point will commit "sins". If the human is still in touch with his soul/consciousness, a sense of guilt will emerge. Because when the acts and thoughts of the mind are exposed to the light of consciousness, they come shattering down and turn to ashes. At this point the person is likely to put things wright and make amends, thus allowing a fresh start with no debt.

If on the other hand the person is refusing to acknowledge guilt, or is far out of touch with their consciousness to see their actions, then that person will remain a slave of the brain. And pay the price for it. Because, make no mistake, they will suffer the consequences of their actions, even if they don't see the cause for their suffering.

In short, all your sins are committed by your brain. The brain is finite and so are the sins it commits. The brain does not transcend into eternity after your death. It dies along with your body. If your brain committed sins, you will have paid and suffered for all of them in your lifetime. Therefore when you die, there is no debt left. Your soul, being innocent, is free to transcend. So ultimately there is no eternal hell. You suffer here and now.

I will also address your comments about our relationship to other people and how God is involved.

It is not a coincidence that the core message delivered by Jesus was forgiveness. He was calling for us to be in touch with our consciousness. When you do that, when you do not allow your brain to be caught up in a game of revenge, you acknowledge the violator for what they are: a person whose pure soul is trapped under the manifestations of a destructive mind. A person that is suffering. When you do that, you find peace and joy regardless of how bad the violator acts against you. You can defend your wellbeing without giving in to your brain's cries for revenge, retaliation and wish for eternal punishment.

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Remember that?

So where is God in all this? Well, since we are all guilty of giving in to our brain at some point or another, it makes no sense for the Creator to start getting involved. He has given us all the key to joy: forgiveness.

I recognize the conflict that my example presents.

On the one hand you have an obstacle course that is almost impossible to penetrate in order to fertilize an egg, and on the other hand, it just so happens that men are equipped with the perfect weapon (high number of sperm) to overcome the obstacle.

One could validly deduce order and determinism.

But when it comes to which sperm will make it, I think that is up to chance. Which does not mean that the selection is not a result of causality.

Having said that, I'm still interested in hearing your explanation.

Furthermore, I would also appreciate your feedback on this thought:

How do you maintain absolute order, when you must have choice?

The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists [...]

The Bible says many things. It baffles me why people will not accept the simplest of its instructions, such us not eating any fish that has no fins or scales (lobster, mussels, crab, etc.) and yet you are perfectly happy accepting what it says about the grandest of all things, the Creator.

If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith.

I am assuming that you see the Creator through the eyes of the Biblical God. If that is the case, then I will tell you this: if that Biblical God is real, and he shows up, then he has a lot to answer for. Because if that God is our parent, then he is guilty of some serious parental neglect.

Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious.

That "something" that you are referring to is consciousness. And you can experience it anytime you want. All you have to do is observe yourself while you are thinking. In an instant you will dis-associate with your brain and you will experience stillness. A very blissful experience indeed. In fact I will agree with you that it is God-ly. But in no way is it proof for the existence of a biblical God.

Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.

Millions of children across the world believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Some adults still do. Does this prove that the cause for this widespread belief must be that these entities exist?

It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist.

Let us see the sum of your argument for what it is:

God is great

Existing is great

Therefore God exists.

Surely you can see the fallacies in that argument.

If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.

If God is a conceivable being, then it doesn't matter if He exists or not.

Superman is also a great conceivable being. The fact that he does not exist does not alter his status as a great conceivable being.

if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die.

That's not entirely true. We have now discovered that other planets and moons may indeed have life on them, albeit not the kind that you see in the movies. For example we have now discovered large quantities of methane on Mars, which could come either from geological events (mud volcanoes) or biological processes (bacteria or micro-organisms) living under the surface. Europa (a moon made of ice) has also been found to have an ocean 10 times the size of ours underneath the icy surface. On top of that, we have discovered (on Earth) micro-organisms that live in ice! They produce an anti-freeze enzyme that allows them to liquidate the ice around them and thus creating microscopic tunnels. We have found very similar tunnels on Europa.

So, although they may not have humans on them, or complex living organisms, other planets may well harbor life on them. This is of grand importance, because it would prove that life is as much part of the universe as anything else.

Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

Since nothing can be created out of thin air, wouldn't it be more logical to assume that maybe the universe existed forever (albeit evolving and moving all the time)?

A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?

It does not take a genius to figure out that it is best if we don't kill each other. If we have figured out how to do open heart surgery then surely it's not that hard to figure out a few rules of conduct when living with each other.

Besides, everything that you described has evolved and has at some point been classified in the opposite category (wright/wrong). Nothing is set in stone. Which means that there is no absolute wright or wrong.

Is murder universally rejected? Go tell that to the supporters of the death penalty.

The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him

The only ones I need forgiveness from are my fellow human beings.

If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions.

If God exists the He is also accountable to Us for a myriad of actions that He took or did not take.

If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us.

So if someone proved to you that God does not exist, you would go out there and do whatever you want? Are you telling me the only reason you treat your fellow human beings with dignity and respect is because you think God exists?

Can you please explain why don't all atheists become lying, murdering, cheating, stealing scums?

That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God.

Believing in evolution is not an alternative to believing in a creator. Is it not possible that the Creator made the space in which evolution took place?

God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists.

No, not everyone. That is your opinion.

The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.

LOL

To all Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace.

What you are hearing is your consciousness. When you have identified with your brain so much, the voice of your consciousness sounds so alien that you are convinced it must come from someone other than you.

You are the presence. You are the leading force. You are the love. You are the grace.

If you silence your sense of self for a moment you will allow your consciousness to emerge.

None of these arguments can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is already obvious

I respectfully submit that sentence for your consideration.