[KeXasthur]

You seem to not understand from the first n times. That makes me conclude that you were hit by a truck when you were a child. If A says that B is 1, 2, 3 and 4. If 3 and 4 aren't correct doesn't mean that 1 and 2 are not. 1 and 2 talk about the existence of B, SO 3 and 4 DOES NOT refute 1 and 2 and therefore the God I'm talking about is the God of religion. And indeed God is supernatural since God created nature. I don't see any contradiction in this. You must take a break.

This guy still thinks that just because religion says they adopt God, then the God must be the God of religion. I pity you. This is something that a one year old can find illogic in and yet you still can't even after many attempts to spoon them to you. Stop trying to be systematic and pseudo-intellectual. If you feel I am Satan and you can't understand what I say, refer to some religious people in this thread to tell you what flaw of logic you are repeating.

Doing the "A=45345 so B =644yf then Y=A8767B" thing won't get you anywhere. It will end up , if you're immature enough to debate about God, to a formal fallacy.

And I'm not sure if there is heaven or hell because I haven't been there but I'm so sure that God exists.

You haven't been in God to, but you found some illogical way to "prove" him. I'm sure you can find your way in this case too. If you want I can help you by checking the last question I posted before the thread was revived which religious people in here never answered.

And it is not MY_SUMMA_THEOLOGICA! It is for Saint Thomas Aquinas. You see? It is not just me saying what I'm saying. It is the people of religion. This Summa Theologica converted thousands of atheists like you to believers!

Yes, you forgot to say that since the people of religion said so, then this must be the same God.

Also, it does not support ignorance. Is logic considered as ignorance?!

Yes when it is putting immunity to the "one who created everything".
Let me copy paste you what I posted above.( since you can't bother or simply want to ignore)

You are saying that since something is very highly unlikely due to being complex (the existence of the universe), then something else must have designed it. However, God must be even more complex from what he created, therefore he must be even more highly unlikely to exist than what he created. Your logic is flawed.

If you still can't understand read a book or don't reply with your A, B, C fallacies anymore.

You, knowledge defender. If the science comes to prove that the universe is created by the BIG-BANG then God is the one who created this BIG-BANG and NOT God is the BIG-BANG itself! You're making big confusions here.

Define God , how he looks like. What if it turned out that the Big Bang was preceded by something, you will backpedal and say God created that thing too. On what basis are you defining God ? If you can't answer this, you should admit you shouldn't have posted in this thread to begin with.

Plus, the BIG-BAND for your information is an explosion, therefore there was something before the BIG-BANG. So add ma t7our wetdour la7 terja3 3ala one point; God.

Assumptions ... assumptions. Just like me assuming now Big Bang is The God itself.

Before talking about Zeus. Read about him first. Read about the history of religions from the age of dinosaurs till now.

What the **** does that have to do with anything ? I mentioned that to tell you that other religions believed in God, the same God who created everything as you say, so why aren't they right ?

Oh, you began to give qualifications! Who are you?

God. Prove me wrong.

No, not everything is centered about us. Learn about relativity.
And I urge you to stop your blabla shit and your ridiculous translation for religion. You know shit about religion and you come to translate some of its concepts and try to build an opinion. Go and study the religion books and concepts and then come to quote them properly and refute them. Moush kell min ma la2at 2 words about religions from what the society gave him sar bye2dar yen2ad 2el religions. This is the last time I allow myself to read this. This is not acceptable.
You are still posting offensive questions to the other part while you haven't showed anything decent that you could rely on to support yourself. Since the title of the thread asks whether God exists or not, you cannot support your theory by refuting the other. I asked you to give your own opinion about how and why we are here but you didn't have any decent response.

LOOL What does relativity have to do with us being the centerpoint of God's plan. Are you kidding ?
Read again what I said, and if you're not qualified to answer ( remember I'm God) I urge some other religious person to do so.
How we are here ? I told you it's an highly improbable chance followed by evolution.
Why we are here ?? stop being a kid, if you ever learned or even heard anything about evolution you would understand we have no purpose. Assigning purposes to everything is only to make people who can't accept the truth feel "safer" in this world. So hope you feel safe in your life that way.

This is ignorance at its best.