Does God exist: A hopefully civil and fruitful debate

In principle, that is a discussion of religion, as that is entirely what most religions are based upon. So my point still stands - you will get two different answers. One based on logic, and another based on pure emotional belief (that, as you pointed out, cannot be logical). Neither side can discuss further, because neither side agrees to the same rules of argument.

There's not too much else to say here, IMO.

The people who I've had this conversation before pretty much said the same thing Leaves is saying. My aunt said something along the lines of "We're just humans, we can't comprehend how god works", and I had to tell her "well, logically god can't exist, but if he's outside our realm of logic then there's no point in discussing it at all".

I would greatly appreciate it if we could refrain from labeling things instead of digesting them for what they are. No, theism and religion are related only as much as Marxism is related to Communism. One does not have to be religious if he argues and believes that God exists. Arguments for God's existence can be rational, should be rational, and are expected to be rational here. I'll try a classic one, open to attack from various angles, just as an example:

Cosmological argument for an independent being's existence:

- All things that come into being are caused.
- There must be a start to the world as it is, as a causal loop is impossible.
- Therefore a god must exist as the root of all things. God here is also named the uncaused cause, the first Mover, the independent being, the First Cause, etc... and defined simply as 'the start of everything'.

Yes, Big Bang would count as a god in this sense. But from our understanding of the world, it is not. Big Bang is caused by quantum fluctuation of empty space, so 'everything being born from nothing' is not really accurate, as within that nothing, there is still something. And then there is something else that caused that something, so on and so forth until a god.

I admit to being sketchy here by arguing for a god that doesn't fit the description of the thread. This argument is not meant to be taken seriously as the topic of our discussion, but rather as an example of God's discussion being rational. I don't much like the Intelligent Design argument, so I chose this instead.