The Bible may tell you that 'people like me', disbelievers, love sin more that life or that we try to convince ourselves of God's nonexistence to justify our actions except this in no way applies to me. You've taken something you've read from the Bible and attempted to apply it without finding out if it's actually the case.

Also in my response earlier, all I did was state widely understood facts. That wasn't my opinion trying to justify my sinful actions.

Then debate me. You will either win, lose and admit it, or lose and not admit it. I really hope you'll have the integrity to admit if you lose and that your mind has changed on the issue.

Do you never tire of repeating your insufficient argument over and over? It's clearly not convincing(in this case because it's begging the question) so why keep trying to use it and failing? I'm genuinely curious. How do you do it?

Also you clearly don't even understand what a singularity is

Your entire argument operates and hinges on the assumption that DNA is proof of us living in a programmed universe. DNA is not proof of outside programming. It can evolve into existence and has been proven to have done just that.

You are totally correct, however, this debate is whether the God of Christianity exists as claimed by the Bible.

Your syllogism is valid but not sound.

An equivalent argument is as follows:

My truck is my phone. I have a phone. Therefore my truck exists.

(I don't have a truck)

"Why is it so important to try to disprove God as He reveals Himself in His written word, the Bible, and in the Living Word, Jesus Christ?"

The Bible isn't God's words, it's translated interpretations, by humans, of stories that are told about him. Jesus isn't alive anymore, it says so in the Bible.

I agree there may be some creator. How could I make any such audacious claim as to declare I know something so unknowable to us yet.

"If the energy and mass is infinite that does mean god is not infinte?"

These 2 concepts don't really correlate like that. See PBS SpaceTime youtube channel for really good explanations on what I'm assuming you're trying to talk about.

"If evolution is true who creates the monkeys?"

This is basically the equivalent of saying 'if roses grow on their own then who gives birth to roses'. It's a confused question and shows a vital misunderstanding of evolution.

There have been no arguments to date that sufficiently imply that a belief in God is rational and there are many reasons to doubt that the God of Christianity exists.

It is the case that 1 religion, more than 1 religion, or no religion's claim is true. It can't be the case that the claim of more than 1 religion is true because they are contradictory. The odds that 1 religion's claim is true are about 4,200 to 1, not including religions that don't exist anymore. If there is one true religion it means that the billions of people who aren't part of that 1 religion, including members of the other 4,199, have clearly missed something huge and that's unlikely. This leaves no religions' claim being true as the most likely case by a very wide margin.

Many religions existed before Christianity. If it is the case that Christianity is true and no other religion that came before it is, then it should be expected for Christianity to differ greatly from the others and its claim shouldn't overlap with the claims of other religions but this is not the case. Christianity is very similar to other religions that came before it and its claim overlaps a great deal with other religions' claims.

Christianity claims that God is All Knowing, All Powerful, and All Good. If God does exist, he watched, arms folded, for at least 100,000 years of human suffering, struggling, fighting, dying, and almost going extinct, with complete indifference. This is a direct contradiction with the aforementioned All Knowing, All Powerful, and All Good claim by Christianity's own definition.

You've devolved now into total nonsense and incoherence. What you're saying now isn't even recognizable as a claim and littered with inconsistencies and contradictions.

So you've given up and admit that you have no further arguments? It's as good of an analogy as it can be. They're both claims (lemonade and supreme...), and we've both supposed them completely without any supporting argument or evidence.

"There is no argument that can or ever will put a dent on the authority of The Supreme and Ultimate Reality."

To say this is to resign oneself to being completely ignorant of truth and admitting that you will never change mind simply because you don't want to admit defeat.

Unless you have an actual argument in your next comment I probably won't respond again. My time is being wasted on you now when I could be trying to find the truth actually debating someone.

In fact all you're doing now is responding to what I'm saying with the equivalent of "NO! YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT!!" "OH AND BY THE WAY I CAN'T EVER BE WRONG BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE!!

What I did is called an analogy. It actually helps to elucidate meaning between 2 relatable cases. Both me claiming I am a glass of lemonade and you claiming that 'the supreme and ultimate reality' is God are equally unsupported claims, that's what I'm trying to show you. They're equivalent claim only insofar as they both completely lack evidence or arguments to support.

I am a glass of lemonade and for you to deny that you are delusional, not me. If you deny my being a glass of lemonade, it stands to reason that you are bowing down to some idol.

See it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't stand to reason anything, it just means I don't think God exists. I'm not being arbitrary and I tend to agree that an ultimate base reality does exist. I just disagree with your claim that it somehow by existing, is the same thing as God which I don't think exists.

Trying to make sense of trees both existing and not existing simultaneously cause cognitive dissonance, so yes it probably causes headaches. This could be done with any hypothetical contradiction example and doesn't prove either side. Also I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say by "Then you could also say that trees don't really exist, but the atoms that make up the trees." Could you clarify?

This may be the 4th comment in a row that remains argument free. An assertion, by definition, is not an argument. You thinking that it makes things really clear, does not and will not ever convince anyone. You no longer have an argument to evolve.

I can call my friends and family right now and inform them all of my newfound belief that I am a glass of lemonade and that I truly believe it therefore it must be true. I'm not a glass of lemonade simply because I decide to think that I am and priceless reactions don't in any way show truth of a claim as I'm sure my friends and family would have to this statement.

Do you understand that you're not debating right now? On top of this showing every sign of indoctrination and brainwashing. This is okay. I grew up with the same false sense of how to view the world, and a large set of false assumptions to go on. I truly want to help you understand this.

Atheism only favors disbelief of something if the evidence and arguments we have lead to something probably or more definitely, not being true. It doesn't favor disbelief out of principle.

"If I flip a coin and say, "I do not believe it will land on heads", it means the same thing as, "I believe it will land on tails"."

This is simply a failure to understand how logic works. If you flip a coin and say "I do not believe it will land on heads", all you are saying is you don't believe it will land on heads. Landing on tails is not the only other option. The only contradiction of 'A' is 'not A'.

"If I tell you there is an invisible pink elephant who lives in the cupboard and who loves you very much then it is a false equivalence to compare that belief with the denial of that belief."

what? please please explain what you mean by this because as it is written it's incoherent.

Evolution is simply the survival of random genetic mutations that have by chance been helpful to the being which is trying to survive in their environment. Therefore evolution is by definition just as random as random genetic mutations that by chance help an organism survive.Things only become better suited to their environment over time if their random genetic mutation by chance help them survive their environment.

All atheism claims is that, to date, there has been no convincing argument to believe in God. It's the exact opposite of religion by definition.

"My God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality."

Calling what we're debating the existence of, yours, does not help anymore to convince nor give any additional weight to your initial claim that he does exist. You are yet again presupposing a conclusion to the debate topic at hand and arguing a totally different claim.

"If you deny my God, you are a fool."

Not only is this not an argument or convincing in any imaginable way, you're resorting to name calling. This is what grade schoolers get put in timeout for doing. If you don't want to actually debate any longer, why are you still responding.

"Clearly my God is written on your heart, and I agree with scripture when it also testifies that,"when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

This yet yet again is not an argument but simply a repeated claim and I'm really growing really quite tired of how petty it is. Scripture is written text and cannot testify as it is not a being with a brain and mouth. Who is 'they' and what did 'they' become vain in 'their' imagining?

I agree with you that a supreme and ultimate irreducible reality exists, although I can't explain why. My system 1 seems to think so though (see Josh Green or Fiery Cushman on this body of research). I do not, however, think that 'God' and 'supreme and ultimate reality' are the same thing because I tend to think that God doesn't exist while also tending to think that a supreme and ultimate irreducible reality has to exist. These are 2 separate concepts unless you assume God exists first of all and then go on from there, which isn't what this debate is about according to you.

"See, when I was an atheist, I had a genuine love for the truth. That is why I can't say I am an atheist any more. I do believe in One God. I believe in The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. What else makes sense?"

So you admit that you don't have a genuine love for truth anymore.

"There really isn't a question about it. It's a sure thing. You can debate religion, scripture, doctrine, churches, whatever all you want, but it isn't the same thing. There can be no doubt about God."

There is a question about it and doubt about it as evidenced by this debate's existence. There can be much doubt about God if one's main focus is truth before a decision to believe something.

"When I say God, I mean "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". Everything else follows simply from accepting this. I'm not the kind of person who simply reads something and believes it. I believe the message of the bible only after years of kicking and screaming. I didn't know any better before."

When you say God and mean 'the supreme and ultimate reality', you are no longer discussing the topic of this debate and again presupposing a conclusion to it, while moving on to a different topic of discussion. Of course everything else follows from accepting this simply because if you accept this then you have to accept everything the Bible says and therefore everything it says follows from that. Deciding to believe something after years of kicking and screaming does not imply that you've arrived at the truth. I recommend, as a fellow human, remaining determined and continuing the search for truth even though it's much easier to just accept the Bible and God as true.

"To say, "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality exists" is not equally as valid as "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality does not exist"."

To no understand how they are exactly contradictory is to not understand how logic works. They are both sides of the same coin. Also neither are actually arguments and therefore cannot be valid or invalid, just true or false.

"The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, if non-existent, fails to meet the criteria of the definition. Therefore, whatever it is you are calling "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" cannot be The Supreme and Ultimate Reality."

I'm not entirely sure this is coherent. What definition does the non-existence of a 'supreme and ultimate reality' not meet. I'm considering the 'supreme and ultimate reality' to be an irreducible base reality of existence which I believe is what you called it in another comment you've made in this debate.

"So for you to say, "There is no ultimate reality" makes little sense. It is a very superstitious statement."

Unless I've missed it, you've made a claim that 'saying 'there is no ultimate reality' makes little sense' but you haven't given any reason why this is a true claim. Also the definition, according to the OED, of superstition is 'Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.'. A claim that God exists is a supernatural claim and therefore a superstitious one. I make no such claim therefore someone who claims that God exists is the superstitious one.

"However, it is also wise to not lean on one's own understanding, but the word of God itself. The reason for this is that we, as fallible human beings, are wrong about things. Sometimes very wrong."

Again you make a claim without any reasons why it's wise not to lean on one's own understating. Also If you claim this statement is true then you must allow for the possibility that we as fallible human beings could be wrong, or even very wrong, in believing that the Christian God exists.

"If you love the truth, the best focus is God. Truth is what matters here."

If you use God's word or a belief in him to determine what's true then you believe that deciding what you want to be true and then trying to prove your decision correct is more important than trying to discover what is actually true.

"The God I speak of is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality."

Here you're presupposing as true what we're supposed to be debating and then making an additional separate claim operating on the controversial assumption.

"If you do believe in God, the bible will only prove God more to you."

Something either exists or doesn't exist. If it's true that something exists then it can't be proven to be more existing than it already is.

"The bible acts as proof of God to those who accept it, and life experience really hammers it in that it is good witness."

This is the equivalent of saying that the Star Wars movies prove the existence and accuracy of what happened in them as reality so long as I decide to believe them first. This is nonsense. Life experience can really hammer in anything depending on how someone wants to interpret what's happening to them. For example if I decided there was a sun spirit and then used the sun coming up everyday as proof that the sun spirit existed, I would be considered insane and wouldn't be taken seriously at all, but this is exactly what you appear to be claiming Christians do.

"God bless the first amendment."

Amen.

"There is no argument that can topple The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and to think so is ludicrous."

I'm assuming you mean God by supreme and ultimate reality. I'm also assuming by no argument that can topple you mean there's no argument that can disprove the existence of God. Assuming this, that is correct. It is also impossible to prove that God exists as well. The best either side can hope to do is convince the other side of the implausibility of the other side and support the likelihood of their own.

"The deceiver will say anything, because the deceiver cares about being convincing, not about the truth. What better deception than to convince people that the supreme and ultimate reality doesn't exist?"

The deceiver is at least just as apparent on either side of the debate. What better deception than to convince people that God (by the way it's much easier and faster to type than the supreme and ultimate reality) does exist.

"Because they worship created things, and have no love for the truth. Their hearts are caked in idolatry. It's mental illness. There is no other way around it."

I don't worship anything. The only thing I really value is truth which is precisely why I don't decide to believe a bible and then after doing so, try to prove to myself that I'm correct. Christianity is idolatry by it's own definition, simply without a toy or statue to hold while they do it.

"The Ultimate Reality clearly exists, and whether or not you believe it or choose to call it that, this is what is meant by "God"."

This isn't an argument. It's a VERY large claim. And, again, if this is what you want to call 'God' that's fine but it means you can't bring the theological and religious meaning into the debate as well. This is what you can choose to mean by 'God' for the purpose of this debate. I am not going to repeat this again. Here I'll provide you with a counter argument that is exactly equally as good: The ultimate reality clearly doesn't exist.

If we are going to decide to call 'the supreme or ultimate reality' God, okay. This choice to use the word 'God' is totally arbitrary and functions no better than if the word door, nail, or lamppost is used instead, which is no issue and fine for the purpose of the debate. What follows from this, however, is that any discussion of the religious or theological meaning that usually comes with using the word 'God' can't apply and has now become irrelevant to the discussion, so it really only complicates the situation. Why bring God into the discussion at all if this is really just about the existence of an ultimate reality?

Sidenote: the difference between using 'g' or 'G' is implying that we are debating something to do with the/a religious God and I thought that's clearly not what we're supposed to be discussing.

If this debate is truly a discussion independent of God and instead, simply of whether or not some sort of 'ultimate reality' exists or not, why include Merriam's definition of God or mention him at all in the debate description? Is this a 'God' debate or an 'ultimate reality' debate?

The truth of God existing does not follow from there being a definition that exists of God. Arguing for the definition of 'God being: the supreme or ultimate reality', is presupposing a conclusion to the topic being debated (that God exists) and attempting to argue for an entirely different claim that (after assuming he exists) he is also 'the supreme or ultimate reality. Can we stay on topic?