text: god vs no-god? lets debate.  (please no book quatations)   i want real answers from you not from some primitive man in a book.  who ever can convince me that there is either god(s) or no-god(s) gets 10 points. no god. a number of reasons:  1) no proof -- the bible is 2000 years old. we dont no who wrote it, and it is extremely contradictory, and in some places prejudice (ie against gay's). 2) humans -- people say that humans are proof of god, but there are other theories which are tested and questioned. evolution has stood up to a number of arguments and is frequently questioned and always proved correct. 3) the big bang -- this too has been tested -- evidence is red shift (i think that's what its called). people ask where gases came from to create the big bang, but where would god have come from? 4) scientists -- scientists are extremely clever people and the majority of them say no god, and who better to trust? (certainly not a man who wears a dog collar). 5) suffering -- if god is all caring and all powerful how does suffering happen? 6) can god create a boulder that's too heavy for god to lift? -- yes- he's all powerful so can create anything. no- he's all powerful so can lift anything. therefore the basic idea of god completely destroys any possibility of god. 7) why believe in something which has such little proof - it would be like saying that the matrix is real - we cant prove or disprove it - just like god. 8) next to no one believes in the old roman god's, so why do we think that this god is not going to be lost like the other ones? 9) cause and effect. everything has a cause, and the causes of all effects will eventually lead back to god, however what happens if we say "what caused god"? 10) our responses -- those who believe in god will say things like "we are proof" or "the bible in proof" or "because he exists". they give no evidence unlike people who dont believe in god who put their ideas forward with good and sensible arguments.