play4fun :
I know my self that there are strange things in the world, but there are strange things and impossibilities. And the whole "man in the sky" thing was just to elaborate what many people believe "it" to be.

I would like to add some neutrality to this discussion.

The existence of God (and I capitalize the name because the name represents a proper person, place or thing) can neither be proved NOR disproved by science or society. So, I find no faults in any persons CHOICE to believe or not in a higher power.

For the Atheist (see parenthesis above): I assert that the Atheist is putting the possibility of a creator on a level playing field with themselves. I.E.- "It would think like me and would have the same methods for dealing with situations that I do". Can a person create matter? 

Nas?r al-D?n al-T?s? stated the principle of the conservation of matter, "A body of matter cannot disappear completely. It only changes its form, condition, composition, color and other properties and turns into a different complex or elementary matter". Since this has been proved, where does matter come from? Unless someone has an answer to this question, I do not believe that the existence of God can be ruled out.

If "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" then where does it come from? If an Atheists answer is the Big Bang, then my response is where did it come from. (This goes on and on to infinity.)

For the Believer (see parenthesis above): The Believers of the two most prominent world religions beliefs are based in emotion. I'm sure there are many other answers that could be given but I assert that they can all be traced back to the one I just stated. The Atheists ask for hard, physical, God appeared before you and 7 billion other people proof. The Believer cannot deliver this but instead can only deliver emotion and circumstantial evidence. I know archaeologists have claimed to have found Noah's Ark, Sodom a Gomorrah, and Egyptian chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea but Atheists want an actual sign saying "Noah, Abraham, or Moses was here". 

I submit that the existence of God cannot be proved but the existence of God cannot be disproved either. 

Directly @ sloanstar1000: "I have already explained that I'm an atheist, which would mean that I don't believe that god has done anything for me recently... because I don't believe that a god exists." Why bring it up then?

"I want this to be an INTELLECTUAL and CIVIL discussion on whether or not god exists, This can be an emotional topic for some, so we want to avoid any personal attacks of any kind!", and then later down the thread "I don't see fairy tails as truth" No personal attacks, huh? You called the holy book of his religion a fairy tale.

thephantombrain : If you would quickly look back, I am not the one who said "I don't see fairy tales as truth", that was someone responding to my post. I mostly made this thread for people to talk amongst themselves.

I would however be in disagreement with your post being neutral to the discussion, Yes it's true that the existence of god cannot be disproved or proved, In fact, in scientific discussions, "proof" is not a very useful word. that's more to do with mathematics and logic. Regardless, it is not up to the disbeliever to disprove the existence of god, the believer had the burden of proof when it comes to existential claims(whatever the claim). The default position is to not believe until the claim is justified with evidence.

I brought up the fact that I was an atheist, to clarify something with the person I was talking to, I think you misread my post.

I also do not wish to create a back and forth, partly because it's against the rules but mostly because the only position that I have to quantify is that I remain undecided.

I was incorrect in quoting you, please accept my apology.

"some neutrality" not complete neutrality. I could not be completely neutral unless I were a computer. However, I believe my position is as neutral as a living being can be. Saying that there is no God is a type of existential claim, isn't it?

Existential - of or relating to existence

I think saying that there is no God relates to the question of existence by saying that one does not exist. If a person did not want to make an existential claim, they would say nothing at all or I don't know

As to the possible misreading of your Atheist post, my only point was that why would you make a thread asking "Does god exist?" if you've already made up your min?

play4fun : Christianity portrays God as a "man in the sky" and also reference God as a "HIM". Males and females need each other to exist through reproduction so why would God have any gender when God doesn't create life through reproduction? That makes zero sense.

Jesus needed a female to exist which makes him nothing more then a mortal human, not a God. Christians then say the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ (a human).

God created all life, gravity and space not dominos pizza and the 10 commandments. God has no mouth, no gender and no human traits. People who portray God as a man in sky I think are way off target.

I think God exist cause there is proof of intelligent design but I do not believe God is in anyway humanoid like Christianity portrays "IT" not "HIM" as.

ClassicSable-eye : That is true that there are people who believe that, but it doesn't mean that they actually thought about what they believe

UFO : This shows the lack of understanding as to why the male gender is used in the Bible. First, it has a huge significance when you use a female gender for god in the ancient world. Much of the female gods back then represent fertility or sexual reproduction, which is not what God represents and the male gender is to distinguish from those gods. (Also keep in mind that there is no neutral gender term for 'god' in Hebrew). Second, part of that is to show God's dominance versus His creation. If you noticed, the female gender is used for the Church and God's people. It is not saying that the Church is a girl, but that it represents a figurative relationship between God and His Church. Third, you got to remember that the world was not created by reproduction, but by God creating out of nothing purposefully, so there is no need of a male and female to happen, unlike most of the myths. This has no relation to why God is used in a male gender.

Jesus was conceived by Mary to represent the human part of Jesus, but was also conceived through the Holy Spirit, which is why Jesus is God. Jesus is God in human flesh, which will fulfill the prophesy of Him being the Son of Man. In fact, Jesus Himself said that "The Father and I are one" and the Pharisees were so angry because they know what He said meant that He is trying to claim to be God. (John 10:30-32) 

If you look in the Bible, it is clear taught that God is not physical with a gender, but spirit (Numbers 23:19; John 4:24)

Those who portray God as a man with a beard with a white robe in the sky are making a god out of their own minds with no referential basis to that idea. 

I'll make this one simple, there's no way for anyone to know until death. So no one is right or wrong to challenge or believe in god.