It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Transcript: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on "Face the Nation"
The following is a transcript of an interview with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that will air on April 28,...
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 29%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/4824#Comment_4824
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 11%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.82  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 67%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 7%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.36  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
And if this planet is the only real one in existence, and nothing exists beyond our atmosphere, how does this necessitate a God? [If I'm remembering right, didn't Genesis mention God creating a universe, which would in turn assume there's an outer space/void which this planet is in?]
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Here's a page regarding Genesis: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=GNT
Here's Gensis's mentioning of the universe: "In the beginning, when God created the universe,[a] 2 the earth was formless and desolate."
Genesis also points out stars and the Sun and Moon; "Then God commanded, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate day from night and to show the time when days, years, and religious festivals[c] begin; 15 they will shine in the sky to give light to the earth”—and it was done. 16 So God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule over the day and the moon to rule over the night; he also made the stars. 17 He placed the lights in the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness."
So if God himself states he made more than just the Earth, then a Theist wouldn't doubt His word. Unless, of course, God made NASA and told them "Hide my identity, and my creations. They must not know of the Sun and the Moon, nor thy stars. Thou must create a hologram of all. I shall destroy all my creations so that"... whatever He'd say. I'm not sure how that logically would do something of any note. Either God did make stars and there's nothing to hide, God didn't make stars and he's lying, God never existed and NASA's a fraud, or NASA isn't a fraud and God never existed.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.92  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 55%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 55%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 64%  
  Learn More About Debra
Most importantly every teaching that has described him are ultimately speculations. God is good , God is omnipotent, God is all powerful. Humans claim they experience his goodness but that's the same with people who have pantheistically said that it's up to the universe, the universe has sustained us. Earth has been good to me. See? It's logically provable because I sustain myself with Earth's natural resources while for these theists their mental state and comfort is certainly sustained by a god/gods and they feel a greater feeling just generated by their minds. Clearly there's greater logic and thought to these other statements such as humans of the earth have also been good to me by directly sharing those natural resources in processed ways and humans also improve/sustain mental state and comfort by teaching and speaking of God always.
Are we going to believe in conclusive facts or specifically directly observable facts that people or materials speak about God and God doesn't and hasn't talked about himself for a long time. Because of religion we get VERY used to sticking with big and huge chunks of ideas which is dangerous to human logic levels. "God is good" A huge chunk of idea that can be further broke down actually into a statement that is still not wrong but specific which is "God is always good in any major religion's perspective but God does both good and bad things in any subjective perspective" Some minor religions are single positive wherein there is belief in a God but not the fact there good is all-good and most major religions believe in God's ultimate goodness.
Isn't God supposedly beyond logic but why is he still bound by it through evolutionary human ideas?
I believe the modern day God is a firm supporter now of free will since literally he hasn't concretely manifested himself nor that he ruined someone's free will since AD.
Another common argument is how God is claimed to be benevolent but he is more concerned with the rapist's free will.
If the human saves the girl, God is credited when actually free will.
If the human does not save the girl, gets raped, and another witness saves the girl, the human will be trialled in court for not doing anything but God? Oh yeah God did something, he protected free will.
If God saved the girl, everyone firmly believes, God is truly all good, free will dies, rapist gets judged, no major setback for God here actually so why isn't he doing it? Is he afraid the government will use his talents they discovered?
Perhaps Russell's teapot is a good example showing that a logical speculation fortifies any labelled entity's existence. A teapot is basically in space that orbits and can never be seen with a telescope because it is very small.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes I agree with you on evolution because if we look at the geological time scale, the first sea creatures came first before any fruit bearing plant breaking apart the creation story.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 22%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
The interesting thing is that you haven't questioned the shape of the earth, but you think we're now a floating disk in an infinite vacuum. This is a realm. The stars are not trillions of miles away, the sun isn't billions away. They're in the firmament. They aren't other alien's suns. This proves creation. That's why they hide it.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The Bible's Genesis is relevant to God, as it's said to be God's word on the origin of the universe. And you claim that "Stars are fake, therefore they're hiding God", which Genesis disagrees with, as it explicitly mentions God making stars. Now we're stuck with 4 options, which I'll examine closer. Either God does exist and stars are fake, God exists and stars are real, God doesn't exist and stars are fake, or God doesn't exist and stars are real. Let's see which one makes the most sense:
God is real, stars are fake: This appears to be what Erfisflat is going for. But assuming this is true, then God's lying about making stars. If he lied, then should he really be called "God"? More like a fraud. Maybe he didn't make the universe after all? This all puts Genesis into question.
God's real, stars are real: This definitely puts down Erfisflat's theory. Though stars existing doesn't disprove God, there's nothing that would prove God did make the stars. To assume that God made the stars presupposes God exists, which doesn't really prove anything. We'd need real evidence.
God's fake, stars are fake: I bet you've heard this one a million times: So people from the stone age created virtual stars, hid the technology to do so all the way into 2017? You can't prove that's the truth. (And saying "They're so good at hiding the evidence" is just conceding you can't prove it.) And if hiding the fact that stars don't exist is supposed to accomplish hiding God, then God not existing in the first place would completely tarnish the supposed objective.
God's fake, stars are real: This is what all Athiests agree on. If God never existed, then Genesis would be a mere story by man to explain how stars started existing. The Bible is to give people hope in life; something we could look forward to in the afterlife; Heaven. Anyways, I feel this is the most logically sound option out of the 4 I presented.
I've logically processed the possibility of stars not existing with and without God, both are very sketchy. This cannot be a valid approach to proving a God exists. And is the Flat Earth also supposed to be NASA hiding God?
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
Compare them.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.06  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
But what I think you're trying to say is this:
P1: NASA forged stars to hide God.
P2: All stars are different.
C1: Stars are not giant balls of gas.
C2: Therefore, God exists.
This is a clear jumping of logic. So what if stars are different? Stars can look different colors because of temperature, chemical make-up, and can be different sizes: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/78-the-universe/stars-and-star-clusters/general-questions/353-are-all-stars-the-same-beginner
And you have no evidence to support the fact that NASA's a fraud. And under your same logic, since everybody's different (race, skin color, size), maybe we aren't actually humans, and the Democrats are working for the Lizard Illuminati.
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.9  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 32%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Erfisflat
If the world is indeed flat and it is wrong that Alaska is approximately 55 miles away from mainland Russia then you are right.
Now then the average time to get there by plane is 5 hours not because of the insane distance in a flat Earth but because that airport I have used as evidence is seemingly in the middle of Russia.
If the earth was truly flat, what could explain flights from Alaska to Russia in the shortest time possible, there would need to be curvature like a paper with half circles on the edges and the only way to form a circle is to connect the edges by curvature.
The map in the 2nd picture may be already flat but that's because Google made an endless loop of flat map 1 putting them side by side I don't think that is the case also in real life for our Earth
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.32  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 37%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.18  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 8%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 50%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
What about creation? Well it says God created it all. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." Now normally this would mean that matter was created which should make this impossible, but God is not part of the natural world. The laws of Thermodynamics apply to nature and our reality. God is not a part of that and thus was able to create matter by not having to abide by natural laws. Besides, He created nature, so why abide by your creation's laws?
Look at the law of cause and effect now. It states that for every effect there is a definite cause, likewise for every cause there is a definite effect. Obviously this means something must have caused the big bang to occur. What would that be? What would cause that? And what before that? You would go off into infinity which is an impossibility for our universe. The big bang relies on this anyways. That everything is expanding and is in entropy.
Creation does not have this problem. The cause is God and the effect is the universe. I know you will ask how God came to be. He always has been there. He is not natural and can be infinite. Natural things and matter cannot be infinite, but anything outside of it can. “The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 40:28). He also does not age or bend to the wills of time. “I the Lord do not change” (Malachi 3:6).
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm
There is more here you can dig through, but when you look at the problems with one side, it boggles my mind how you can believe it. Now where is your evidence for God I hear you asking.
Look at the earth. It is perfectly placed at the right distance from the sun as to where it does not burn up or freeze. All the other planets weren't so lucky, but you expect me to believe a little particle stopped here and then gathered more particles to make a planet? The mathematical probability of that proves God's existence. http://godevidence.com/2010/12/ok-i-want-numbers-what-is-the-probability-the-universe-is-the-result-of-chance/. His answer is 10 to the power of 123 for the chances of the big bang happening.
Look at DNA. We now know it holds the instructions on how to make a human body, basically. Why? DNA would almost be instructions for a creator to build off of. Instructions or code set in us to tell the body how to continue the creator's work.
I could go on for hours more, but I think this is good enough for now.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.96  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 32%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 32%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 64%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 30%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 37%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
But you also bring up the Fine Tuning argument, which says because we're so unlikely to have Earth at the perfect criteria for life, that it must be God. But why must it be God that gave us the perfect criteria and not Lady Luck? I mean, maybe there was no God to fine tune everything. It's very satisfying to imagine that we just got lucky with our Solar System, as well. And couldn't DNA come naturally along with the first life?
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Anyways, I've heard of that idea before. But the problem is, particles are still matter and matter cannot create more matter. Where did the particles come from? The idea of the universe in a constant loop is interesting, but with the whole luck thing, what are the chances of that happening for an infinite amount of time? It would end at some point and cease to exist due to the odds. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/why-atheists-refuse-to-consider-a-creator_b_1303613.html
While the idea of the universe restarting itself is interesting, it relies on the idea of an infinite universe, which is impossible with the law of cause and effect. The universe being tangible and made of physical properties has a beginning and end. How could it restart? What does it exist in? If the universe exists in infinity, then isn't that the same as having God be that infinity? Too many holes in it unless you have a creator that makes it and orders it to work on its own.
Look at the universe though. It is beautiful and incredibly organized and laid out. Everything seems to have order and follows laws. How can nature set up natural laws? A omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being that is outside the tangible universe must have set its laws and processes in place.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.32  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
So where did the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being come from.
Your still relying on a magical event.
Something from nothing.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 36%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 50%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 23%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 60%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 46%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 73%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 46%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 42%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: proof god    lots of proof   proof   theories  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.68  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: current theory    lack of any evidence   common similarity   gods existence  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 11%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: form of god    proof      
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.86  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: RS    master   definitions   evidence  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 18%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: form of god    Theories   proof   lots  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
First, consider this question: what does it mean for something to exist? Some philosophers believe that anything human mind has ever conceived of exists as a concept, and that existence is just as real as something material. However, we all understand what we mean when we say that, for example, minotaurs do not exist: we mean that they do not exist as physical entities in this Universe.
In essence, for something tangible to exist, it must be a part of our Universe, or, equivalently, the nature.
Now, the god is allegedly a supernatural being. See the problem here? The god cannot be a part of nature by definition of the word "supernatural", hence it cannot exist in principle. If it does exist and directly affects our Universe, then it must be a part of the "extended Universe" which is the true Universe, with what we currently define as the Universe being merely a subset of it.
A supernatural being cannot exist in reality. A natural being can, but that is not what god traditionally is believed to be. If something natural that has created our observable Universe exists, then it is the creator, but not a god. If we live in a simulation, for example, then the beings running this simulation are not gods; they are a part of nature, and our simulated world is just running on their computer server - they are not supernatural beings, just like we are not supernatural beings when we play an RPG video game on our computers.
As such, I have to conclude that god does not exist and cannot exist, unlike the traditional atheist stance that there is just no evidence suggesting that god exists, but it can, in theory, exist.
Now, if you are asking about the existence of a creator of the observable Universe, or of some being we can never directly interact with, but that can induce changes in our Universe consciously - then that being can, in principle, exist. It would not be a god, but something else, though.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra