CreateDebate


Debate Info

62
154
Ismaila Atheists
Debate Score:216
Arguments:136
Total Votes:270
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Ismaila (48)
 
 Atheists (73)

Debate Creator

Apollo(1606) pic



The Ismaila God Debate.

Ismaila expressed interest in defening Christianity and the bible in a logical, respectful debate. I will ban abusive participants.

 

EDIT: OK. The debate is basically settled as Ismaila stated **"I do not have any proof of my God in particular at this time."**

Ismaila

Side Score: 62
VS.

Atheists

Side Score: 154
2 points

Thank you for your support. I promise to prove that I can be successful. I will start with why I believe in God. You will thing that this is crazy, but it makes sense to believe in God. I would believe in God even if I had never seen the Bible or been to church because it makes sense. Wait! Before you judge please let me explain. I believe that Creation happened for a reason, and that reason is God. Have you heard that saying "Everything Happens for a reason"? I have and I believe it. God is the reason that everything was created. Without God there would be nothing. Think about it. My questions to atheists: What or who cause the Big Bang? Where did the Universe come from? What is the Universe made out of? Who made that stuff? My answer? God.

Side: Ismaila
BlackSheep(203) Disputed
5 points

As far as I can tell you are suggesting Yahweh is the only possible answer and so therefor it must be the answer. Well this is a fool's approach. If you don't know then I don't know is the only real valid answer.

Side: Atheists
Sitara(11082) Disputed
0 points

Can you answer my questions please ?

Side: Ismaila
ChuckHades(3198) Disputed
5 points

Sorry, the scientist in me can't resist answering your questions.

What or who cause the Big Bang?

Well, we don't know, but we have two very plausible candidates: Quantum loop gravity, and M-theory. There could also be multiverse theory, but I prefer the first two.

Where did the Universe come from?

The Big Bang, a mass expansion from a singularity. Or so it is accepted, although I do like the idea of string theory.

What is the Universe made out of?

Oh crikey, I need to remember now... about 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter, 4% baryonic matter (atoms, molecules, what have you), and 1% everything else.

Who made that stuff?

"Who?" implies a sentient being, which may not be true. We can but guess, really. Matter is just energy, that gives the "illusion" (hate that term, but it's the best way of describing it) of having a physical state. As for the energy, we're working on it. The problem is that the deeper you go, the less you can know. But if you look up the elkpyrotic universe, we can guess an answer.

Side: Atheists
Saurbaby(5579) Clarified
3 points

I don't disagree with the part you said about something, though not the Christian, creating everything, like the big bang and evolution, but I do not agree with the Christian God at all. What proof do you have for YOUR God?

Side: Ismaila
Sitara(11082) Disputed
0 points

Thank you. I do not have any proof of my God in particular at this time.

Side: Atheists
2 points

I promise to prove that I can be successful.

You appear to make promises lightly. Since you are promising to prove something, I am wondering how you became so sure your arguments would be convincing, and who you are so sure they would be convincing to. Perhaps you REALLY meant that you would try your best.

I will start with why I believe in God. You will thing that this is crazy, but it makes sense to believe in God.

So the reason why you believe in god is because it makes sense to believe in god. There are people who kill their children because it made sense to them to do so, thinking that they would be sending them to a better place where they could be closer to god. Do you think that you are immune to misunderstanding?

I believe that Creation happened for a reason, and that reason is God.

If you believe that there was never a time when god didn't exist, then you believe that god is uncaused. If god can be uncaused, then why can't you think of reality itself as being uncaused? ie having always existed.

Have you heard that saying "Everything Happens for a reason"? I have and I believe it.

Yeah, I've heard that. Why do you believe that god always existed?

God is the reason that everything was created.

How did you learn that?

Without God there would be nothing.

That's what you illogically suppose. But why you think that's true is what's interesting to me.

Think about it.

Ok I thought about it and it doesn't make sense. (to me)

My questions to atheists: What or who cause the Big Bang?

No one can say with certainty. Truthful people speak with humility because they understand their beliefs and theories might be wrong.

Where did the Universe come from?

I suppose it always was. Kind of how you view god as having always been.

Where did the Universe come from?

The universe is a much more logical "where" than god is. I don't think the universe "came from" anywhere because the universe IS the greatest where.

Where did god come from? Where did god hang out before he created the universe?

What is the Universe made out of?

I'm as stumped as I suspect you would be if I asked you what god is made out of.

Who made that stuff?

I would presume it wasn't made but always was.

My answer? God.

So the difference between you and I is that you suppose a WHO (god) to have always been in existence and I suppose that a where (the universe) has always been. Both of us are admitting an uncaused.

I await your prayerful response :)

Side: Ismaila
Sitara(11082) Disputed
0 points

You do not have to believe me. I will prove to you that I can be good. Just watch. As to your claims, which one do you want me to address first? I do not know how to use the quote feature.

Side: Atheists
2 points

I believe that Creation happened for a reason, and that reason is God.

That is a circular argument. Creation implies God. To state that creation implies God translates as "creation ergo creation", which is entirely unsupported.

Have you heard that saying "Everything Happens for a reason"? I have and I believe it.

Cause and effect is an acceptable axiom. However, it gives no indication as to the identity of the cause for any effect, and therefore cannot be used as a logical step in proving that a God created this universe. You can safely conclude, however, that "some cause, or diverse causes, resulted in this universe as we may imperfectly perceive it, or at least impelled it to its current configuration".

God is the reason that everything was created.

Again, circular logic.

Without God there would be nothing.

That is not a reasonable axiom. It is simply a corollary of your unfounded premise that your God exists.

Think about it.

If you will excuse the pun, I recommend that you practise as you preach.

What or who cause the Big Bang?

Concentration beyond a certain limit necessitates expansion.

Where did the Universe come from?

the universe comprising existence, it cannot have come from anywhere; for, any origin would have to be without the universe, and therefore not an element of the set "existence".

What is the Universe made out of?

In all probability, something too small to be detected with anything that we are capable of using as an instrument. But the question is irrelevant. An inability to answer that particular question does not overturn the entire system of logic that has taken thousands of years to distil into its current form, and of which your supposedly logical argument has managed to defy almost every rule.

Who made that stuff?

It is not necessary for anybody to have made it.

My answer? God.

Who made God?

Side: Atheists
Hellno(17758) Disputed
1 point

Chicken or the egg? Nobody knows and both are probably wrong.

Side: Atheists
Sitara(11082) Clarified
0 points

Are you sure that we cannot know ?

Side: Ismaila
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
0 points

Something which had not evolved fully into what we call today a "chicken" had an egg with the precise makup of what today we call a "chicken" therefore we know for an absolute fact that the egg did necessarily come before the chicken.

If you are talking about eggs or those things which lay eggs in general and not a specific animal--things first reproduced by splitting, eggs were a later evolutionary addition to any species which lays them.

Side: Ismaila
valentine9(32) Clarified
0 points

We can at least decide against some things, the obvious falsities.

Side: Ismaila
Dremorius(861) Disputed
1 point

My answer? God.

Who created God?

Side: Atheists
Sitara(11082) Disputed
1 point

God is self existant. He is the source of everything .

Side: Ismaila
Apollo(1606) Disputed
1 point

I believe that Creation happened for a reason, and that reason is God

Occam's razor kills that argument.

Have you heard that saying "Everything Happens for a reason"? I have and I believe it

That's not a substantive argument, so we will disregard it.

God is the reason that everything was created.

Again, occam's razor.

Without God there would be nothing.

Proof?

What or who cause the Big Bang? Where did the Universe come from? What is the Universe made out of? Who made that stuff? My answer? God.

That is not an argument. It is disproved by Occam's razor as well as God of the Gaps.

Side: Atheists
Sitara(11082) Disputed
1 point

What is this Razor that you keep talking about ?

Side: Ismaila
Sitara(11082) Disputed
1 point

Never mind. I looked it up. Occam's Razor is not always true.

Side: Ismaila
Nick91983(269) Disputed
1 point

"Everything Happens for a reason" - is called teleological thinking. it is the projection of the human capacity for intention and purposeful action into the ontological. There is no good reason to think that things happen for a reason unless you assume that there is a reason why things happen. make sure you dont assume the conclusion in reasoning about what you believe to be true.

If we take observational data to their logical conclusions, time and space were not properties of existence prior to the event we call the big bang. all thoughts on an innitial even causing the Big Bang is called cosmogonical thinking, thinking about a process which existed prior to the emergence of the cosmos. Nearly all cosmogonical arguments are conjecture and can never have any basis in observation, this is why reason based thinking is and always will be skeptical of any cosmogonical theory (and by theory i dont mean it in the scientific sense - theory in this sense is the more banal common use).

Where did the Universe come from? this question assumes that there needed to be a non-contemporary originating force, however the originating place/or being needed an origin as well and thus all arguments for a devine mover are faulty insofar as they are infinite regressions.

What is the Universe made out of? Current particle physics suggests that there was matter and antimatter and prior to the formation of atoms some process resulted in asymetric anihilation ("barionic asymetry") after that point quarks and gluons existed in a plasma-like state, eventually condensing into subatomic particles and then atoms (all this happened in the first few seconds of the universe). This process also formed the first elements - Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium. for roughly 500 million - 1 billion years these elements floated around eventually accreating (via gravity and the weak nuclear force) into the first stars. Jump to the present and we now have the distribution of elements which from stars burning (fusion reactions) and supernovas came to be as they are (nucleosynthesis). Ask me to specify if you need details.

Who made that stuff? - This question asumes that there needed to be a creator which as I stated above results in an infinite regression into the thing that caused the thing that caused, etc...

My answer? God - I respect your right to believe what you want to but cant respect the belief because it brings so much more to the table than just some entity. There are way too many attributes associated with the concept of any god which are both not reasonable and are not knowable insofar as god cannot be part of our awareness (otherwise the existence of god would be emperically verified). God is properly understood as a memic construct of our psychological predispositions and the socio-anthropolical setting of our ancestors. We often come up with ways of understanding our world that are not real - even the idea of hot and cold. in the actual universe there is no such phenomenon as cold. cold is the absense of heat - 'cold' is a meme that has meaning to us but is not in truth about the nature of existence so much as how we relate to existence. The same is true with light and dark - dark is actually the absense of light. It makes perfect sense to me that god is an amalgam construct of our existential curiosity combined with all the assumptions that are implied (assumptions which were never and are never necessary to make) - Thus, I believe it is wrong to assent to the existence of god as an actually occuring thing, even though there is meaning to the concept in the subjectively based human condition.

Side: Atheists
Elvira(3445) Disputed
1 point

What or who cause the Big Bang? Where did the Universe come from? What is the Universe made out of? Who made that stuff?

Questioning: origin, origin, composition, origin

ORIGIN- none

COMPOSITION- the ether- everything and nothing

Side: Atheists
1 point

God created man in his own image, and so we we were given the right to choose. Along with that right, comes taking responsibility for the choices we make, and living with the consequences. This is one argument to why God does not rid the world of evil, However, there will come a time, when the Almighty God has had enough, and Satan will be cast out, and peace will rein for a 1000 years. As stated in the last book of the bible. Which has proven to be the most accurate history book

Further, as I ponder,the question of God, I can not imagine not believing in God. To say there is no God, and believe it to be true, is to say that you possess all knowledge. Knowledge, is like space. It is never ending, and to illustrate this point, I will ask you to agree that a simple math problem and its answer represents a very small piece of the body of knowledge. 1+1 = 2 , 2+1 =3, 3 + 1 =4 Do you see the pattern that states you can always add 1 more and so, the body of knowledge is without an end. However, if you seek the source of knowledge, you will find GOD

Side: Ismaila
ChuckHades(3198) Disputed
3 points

Along with that right, comes taking responsibility for the choices we make, and living with the consequences. This is one argument to why God does not rid the world of evil

Very easily countered though. Natural evil exists, and that is through no fault of our own. So the problem still stands.

However, there will come a time, when the Almighty God has had enough

Sounds omnibenevolent to me...

As stated in the last book of the bible. Which has proven to be the most accurate history book

Excuse me whilst I burst out laughing. What proof is this? Can I see it? Revelations is the insane ramblings of mad men, nothing accurate whatsoever.

To say there is no God, and believe it to be true, is to say that you possess all knowledge.

No it isn't. You're confused between believing something, and knowing something. I believe there is no God, but I don't know it.

However, if you seek the source of knowledge, you will find GOD

No. The source of all knowledge is your thoughts. God is an anthropomorphism, to me anyway.

Side: Atheists
Nick91983(269) Disputed
2 points

none of your points motivate reason or logic, it is all predicated on dogmatic self fulfilling nonsense. Try to motivate with reasoned arguments that relate to independently meaningful ideas (i.e. ideas that have meaning independent of the assumption of god - the meaning of ideas cannot be based on assuming the conclusion, one cannot assume god to prove god). you might as well have said that you believe because you believe - or - that god is real because the bible says so and the bible is true because it is the written word of god.

The notion that an omnibenevolent god that would have a point in time at which the suffering had reached a certain arbitrary threshold and he then decides to end suffering, is a poor understanding of what omnibenevolence means.

Consider the following quote - "Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ~ Epicurus

The notion of "never ending space" is not based on observation. Your understanding of space is religiously based and is metaphysical nonsense. Emperical research into the behavior of galaxies and the expansion of the universe, and the significance of time suggest very different conclusions. Modern cosmology has reached the understanding that neither space nor time existed prior to the big bang, this truth, however odd, allows for the possibility of spontaneous emergence in a cosmic potentiality, especially given what we understand about the quantum mechanical probabilities relating to time and causality.

Denying the existence of god in no way equates to the statement that one has perfect knowledge. It is perfectly fine to deny the existence of god and adopt a scientifically supported notion of knowledge - that of informational entropy. This idea equates with (or is compatible with) the Blank Slate hypothesis that information starts at ~0 and is accumulated and then lost over time by death, parcimonious processes in brain function, or neurological degradation. Information can be accumulated in greater and greater quantities as data storage sources (books, computers, hard drives, etc...) but information in the mind is always limited and can only be accumulated by accessing data storage sources - Thus the importance of education, life long learning, critical thinking, and reading. Your conception of knowledge is purely metaphysical, not based at all in reality. Your expressed notion of knowledge is the metaphysical - theoretically knowable - which in no way equates to actual knowledge. There is also no need to perfect knowledge - perfect knowledge was a notion attributed to the devine to motivate metaphysical inclinations that favor the intellectual assent to the existence of the devine. (assuming an atribute of a devine to motivate or prove the existence of the devine [essentially assuming god to prove god (meaningless)])

Side: Atheists
2 points

God created man in his own image, and so we we were given the right to choose.

This is an unjustified assertion.

Along with that right, comes taking responsibility for the choices we make, and living with the consequences. This is one argument to why God does not rid the world of evil

But you are then agreeing with the Problem of Evil! If God does not want to rid the world of evil and suffering, then he is not omnibenevolent. If he is not omnibenevolent, then the Christian God doesn't exist.

Which has proven to be the most accurate history book

Another unjustified assertion.

To say there is no God, and believe it to be true, is to say that you possess all knowledge.

But to say that there is a God is also to say that you possess all knowledge as well! We can both play this game, but such a disgraceful attempt at an ad hominem attack is laughable.

1+1 = 2 , 2+1 =3, 3 + 1 =4 Do you see the pattern that states you can always add 1 more and so, the body of knowledge is without an end.

Are you saying that an actual infinity exists? I can give you both mathematical and philosophical arguments to the contrary.

Side: Atheists

Along with that right, comes taking responsibility

I love phrases like this. It reminds me of a joke I once made about Henry Ford (one of my idols, incidentally) and democracy. "You can vote for anybody you please, so long as it's me".

Side: Atheists
10 points

Ismaila is a Christian and she believes in the Judeo-Christian God. But that's all there is to it. She believes that God exists, but she doesn't know. In order to win this debate, Ismaila first needs to bear the burden of proof that God exists. To illustrate this, I turn to the words of the celebrated Cambridge philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. In an article entitled "Is There a God?", Prof. Russell wrote:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Atheists would recognise this as Russell's famous Celestial Teapot Argument. But let me ask, "What does it actually mean to 'bear the burden of proof'?" Since Ismaila is a Christian and Christianity is a form of monotheism, in order to bear the burden of proof, she needs to:

1. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.

2. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that there are no logical reasons to subscribe to other forms of theism (i.e. deism, pantheism and the rest).

3. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that there are no logical reasons to subscribe to other forms of monotheism (i.e. mainly Judaism and Islam).

Until and unless she can do this, we must accept that the atheist position is the more rational position.

However, I am not going to stop here. Let me briefly present two arguments that make atheism seem to be the more plausible position vis-a-vis Christianity.

First, I'll present the logical Problem of Evil:

1. If the Judeo-Christian God exists (henceforth referred to as "God"), He possesses the characteristics of omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing and all-wise) and omnibenevolence (perfectly good and morally perfect).

2. If God exists and is omnipotent, he is able to eliminate all evil and suffering.

3. If God exists and is omniscient, he knows about all potential sources and occurrences of evil and suffering.

4. If God exists and is omnibenevolent, he has the absolute desire to eliminate all evil and suffering.

5. Evil and suffering exists.

Ergo,

6. God does not exist.

Next is the evidential form of the Problem of Evil:

1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

Ergo,

3. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being.

Side: Atheists
3 points

What do I have to do to be an abusive participate? ?

Side: Atheists
Apollo(1606) Clarified
2 points

Well right off the bat I hate...strongly dislike... your username and picture ;)

But just try not go on slanderous, profanity-filled rampages.

Side: Ismaila
Hellno(17758) Disputed
3 points

Wait? You don't like my face? And what's the problem with my user name Muchocho?

Side: Ismaila
0 points

You crack me up. LOL .

Side: Atheists

I came across this argument called the Problem of Worship by Professor Scott F. Aikin, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. It's a bit complicated and has about 10 premises, so bear with me. Now, it must be noted that many people don't realise that there are actually three characteristics of theism. What this means is that to be considered a theist, one must believe that:

1. God exists.

2. God is maximally great (i.e. has all the relevant omni- attributes) and;

3. Humans are obligated to worship God.

Thus, it is rather uncontroversial for a theist, or monotheist (such as a Christian) to be specific, to have to believe in the above three statements. In other words, theists must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the above three statements are true. To defend Christianity, they must further defend the contentions that (1) monotheism is true and (2) the Christian conception of God is true.

Once we have established this, then we can go straight into Prof. Aikin's argument. The notes added in parentheses are my own.

Aikin's Problem of Worship argument:

1. If the Christian God (henceforth referred to as "God") exists, then He is the proper Object of worship.

2. For any object X, if X is the proper Object of worship, then all rational moral agents (i.e. those capable of worship) are either:

a. obliged to worship X, or

b. if they worship already, are obliged to worship X only.

3. For any rational moral agent A, if A worships X, A's worship of X is the joint performance of three acts:

a. A is unconditionally obedient to X and to the demands that X's existence and properties placed on A.

b. A views X as absolutely worthy of worship, and

c. A performs rituals or communicative acts expressing 3(a) and (b), as described above.

4. Unconditional submission to any authority contravenes the requirements of rational moral agency.

5. If A is obliged to view X as worthy of worship, then A must have to see some property that makes X worthy of deference and worship (call this property W).

6. If A has no reason to see property W of X as making X worthy of worship, then A is obliged not to worship X.

7. If A has reason to see property W of X as making X worthy of worship, then there at least is one property that makes X worthy of worship.

(Note: What this means is that even if it is a fact that such properties are good reasons to want to worship, it doesn't mean that such a being ought to be worshipped. In other words, the property must necessarily be a good reason for X to be worshipped.)

8. There are no properties W sufficient to make any X possessing them worthy of worship.

(Note: I defend this premise by referring to the Problem of Evil, both logical and evidential.)

Ergo,

9. There are no W-properties any A may reasonably see as making any X worthy of worship. (From (7) and (8).)

Ergo,

10. A is not obliged to hold any object to be worthy of worship. (From (6) and (9).)

Ergo,

11. A is obliged not to hold any object to be worthy of worship. (From (7) and (9).)

12. Rational moral agents are obliged not to engage in communicative acts promoting the contravention of moral agency or commitments to views with no rational grounds.

Ergo,

13. Rational moral agents are obliged not to worship any entity. (From (3), (4), (11) and (12).)

Ergo,

14. There are not proper Objects of worship. (From (2) and (15).)

Ergo,

15. God does not exist. (From (1) and (14).)

This argument is powerful because the theist and Christian not only has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that (1) God exists, (2) only monotheism is true and (3) only their conception of monotheism is true, they also have to disprove the two forms of the Problem of Evil argument in other to even get close to proving beyond reasonable doubt that Christianity is rational to believe. If they can't do this, and I'm challenging Ismaila to do so, then we must accept that atheism is the more logical position.

Side: Atheists
Apollo(1606) Clarified
0 points

Interesting. My only question is how #8 is derived.

Also I don't fully agree with the premises of #3.

Side: Ismaila
ReventonRage(626) Clarified
0 points

I'm not trying to dismiss your criticisms. However, can you elaborate on what you mean?

Side: Ismaila
1 point

the assertion - there is a god - is extraordinary and requires extraordinary proof if one is seeking to motivate a reason-based belief. There is no proof of any emperically significant kind, let alone extraordinary proof, therefore denial of this truth needs no strong counter-motivation. Atheists can merely say "I doubt it" and this would be sufficient. Even though there is no need for counter-motivation, there are the many contradictions and scientific improbabilities and incompatibilities which if needed could be provided.

Side: Atheists
1 point

We need to understand that humans should never be forced to obey a God. What would life be, without choices? So I can honestly say that I am happy that there is no god and can live my own life.

Side: Atheists
1 point

I don't think anything could be lucid and in complete control.

Side: Atheists
0 points

Since faith and truth now have the same meaning, I believe in a giant, invisible, living mushroom that has placed little bunnies all over the earth to spread fairy dust. I am here to preach to all of you that you must believe in the giant, invisible, living mushroom, and all the messenger bunnies or when you die your soul will be trapped in a public toilet forever.

Do not question me or ask me for proof that the giant, invisible, living mushroom exists because my niece dreamed about it and scribbled it in her kindergarden class, thereby revealing it to the world. Her scribbles are in fact revelations and you all are commanded to obey.

If forty superstitous men could make up a religion, write it down and have it be believed by otherwise intelligent people, then my niece can make up a religion too. After all, I don't have to demand proof from my five year old niece, because she said she dreamed about it, so it must be true.

Side: Atheists
1 point

Absolutely right. It is a total abundance of no real religions, where everybody thinks of the world as they see fit

Side: Atheists

On the contrary, this is a very valid argument. I think that it's an excellent parody of Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot argument.

Side: Atheists
0 points

Tea Pot Theory ?

Side: Atheists
Sitara(11082) Disputed
-2 points
valentine9(32) Disputed
1 point

Of course it is a valid argument, it shows that anybody could have made up God and made "holy scriptures" to make the world better for themselves

Side: Atheists
0 points

If God caused everything to happen, what caused God to happen? It is wishful thinking to suppose a higher entity lives. God is only there for humans to feel safer, and to think that nothing is your own fault. If that is so, then why try at all?

The bible has already been often proved wrong. Science disproves the start of the world, or humankind, for that matter.

And isn't God evil, he does not prevent bad things from happening. This problem was once tackled by the Greek philosopher Epicurus in this enlightening paragraph:

If God is willing but unable to prevent evil,

Then he is not omnipotent.

If god is able but not willing,

Then he is malevolent.

If he is both willing and able,

From whence comes evil?

If he is neither willing nor able,

Then why call him God?

Humans would not even follow the known religions if not for God. They would grasp at another entity, just for its comforts. If the bible is the book of god, then why does it lie?

And many people don't truly follow their religion. If they would, they would be honest and nice and nonviolent, which too many humans are not. If their were a God, then we might be happy, except for the limitations of freedom.

But there isn't.

Side: Atheists