Evidence for God from Science

Ant wrote:Yes, but nobody ever listens. The evidence exists from statements from early in the Bible predicting stuff that'll happen in the future, usually later books in the Bible. Also, God gave a very accurate description of nuclear war. Stars are hydrogen fusion fireballs, exactly the same as nuclear bombs, so when Jesus mentioned stars falling from heaven, people hiding under ground, the sky darkened, that is an very accurate description of nuclear war with the very primitive language of the time. Most people seem only interested in the New Testament, which won't provide hardly any real proof of the existence of God, so few people know such proof exists. Also, wishful-thinking/confirmation bias very often block the acceptance of such evidence. For example, nobody really wants to believe that God predicted nuclear war, 'cause that means it'll probably happen.

I'm listening, and I'll gladly read up on any sources you guys provide, but more often than not, I don't find the evidence to be that strong, and sometimes even fallacious/erroneous.

As for the supposed nuclear war interpretation, could you provide these verses? I think I've heard this interpretation before, but I don't seem to remember where in the Bible it was. I'm assuming it's in the Book of Revelation? I mean, I will admit, one of the things that while it doesn't convince me but keeps me interested is the concept of prophecies in the Bible. But doesn't it really depend on interpretation, and whether the events and prophecies weren't twisted to fit with each other?

Ant wrote:Wishful-thinking/confirmation bias are very bad. They prevent people from seeing the truth. Respecting your parents is good, but at some point you need to think for yourself. You need to accept that you are young, so you should try to play it safe, following your parents rules as much as you can, 'cause they might know something you don't, but that doesn't mean you don't think for yourself.

The problem with wishful-thinking/confirmation bias, is they pretty much eliminate thinking. We have a situation, where if A is true, than B, C, D, E, F, G, H, etc. must also be true. So A absolutely must be true. The problem is, A is false, so whole religions are a load of BS, all because of wishful-thinking/confirmation bias. This is not only true in religion, I've seen the same thing in science.

Certainly.

Ant wrote:I think God has determined that he can't save everyone, so God puts some things in the Bible to deliberately lead people who would cause problems with God's plan astray.

Why not? For an omniscient, omnipotent being like god, that seems trivial. I mean, most people wouldn't be saved according to the Bible.

Ant wrote:For a time, that may have helped make people behave, but now God is redoing religion, without the heaven and hell reward system.

Then why did god create us in the first place? In fact, why did god take so long to put Jesus on the scene? Why didn't he, from the beginning of creation, lead humans in the right direction? Why would he have basically abandoned us?

jlay wrote: Asside from you putting blind faith in somebody telling you that,, please share with us what 'evidence' you have personally examined and tested regarding this claim.

Well, there are many theories as to how the universe could have emerged from nothing. We may not know for sure yet, but scientists are working on a clear, logical explanation. Thing is, atheism only relates to the existence of god. It doesn't really matter where science is in coming up with an explanation. Just like in science, a claim requires evidence. Even if we had no explanation for how the universe was created, one still has to present solid evidence for god in order for god's existence to be taken into account.

jlay wrote: You could start by raising a man four days dead back to life. Raising yourself back to life after being dead three days. Supernaturlly controlling nature. And, fulfilling scripture written 400 to 1000 years prior, about your birth, life and death.

Well, how reliable is the scripture when it comes to Jesus? It doesn't seem hard to twist events and prophecies around so that they fit each other.

jlay wrote: Would you a agree that any ancient literary document must be interpreted in its proper context? Are you saying that just because these are difficulties that you reject any possible explanation that could justify these actions.
If God is real, then He is God. Not a man. And thus God's actions would be with eternity in mind, not merely a moment. If you are genuinely interested in the in depth explanations I would recommend Paul Copan's book, "Is God a Moral Monster." it devotes four chapters alone to the Canaanite slaughter.

I'll take a look at it. I'm not relating god's actions to the reliability of the Bible, but I can't say that a god who professes such love and mercy who does such acts doesn't seem a little odd. I just have trouble relating his omnipotence and omniscience to his multiple personalities.

Katabole wrote:In order to make a claim as to a diety, in this case God Himself, Jesus would have had to expressed the attributes of God, namely omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. After intense scrutiny of the Gospels over the years, I believe Jesus did that plainly. Saying you are God is one thing. Proving it; quite another.

Omnipotence. Jesus is claimed to have calmed a storm meaning he had power over nature. He healed optic nerves of the blind, repaired derelict eardrums, healed those that were paralyzed simply by either touching them or speaking. And he came back to life from death meaning He had power over death.

Omniscience. Jesus claimed to have lived in the ancient past, claimed he could read minds and knew what people were thinking and made audacious claims about the future, even predicting his death and the type of death he would suffer.

Omnipresence. Jesus claimed to be the same as the invisible creator God and equal to the Spirit of God meaning he could be in different places at different times.

But that's the problem. Anyone can claim something astounding, but it doesn't make it true.

Katabole wrote: Smhjoc, Christianity could have been proven false in an hour. All that had to be done was to display the crucified body of Jesus to the high priest. That wasn't done because there was no body to display, even though the Jewish priesthood was so convinced that Jesus would rise from the dead that they placed guards outside his tomb, which the Gospels claim they bribed so they would keep their mouths shut. 500 people the book of Acts claims, saw Jesus alive after he died. Going public to preach the resurrection of a dead man is one thing and would be absolutely ridiculous. Going public to preach the resurrection of a very famous and well known dead man that was witnessed by many to be alive after an execution and a burial is quite another. Early Christians died for their faith because the event that happened was true. That is the only reason why Christianity succeded as a belief system.

But how is the Bible a reliable source of information. It states 500 people witnessed him alive. Other Holy books state information that seems to prove its reliability. How do we know 500 people witnessed him, if the only sources that state that he did are the same sources that christianity is based off of. Using the Bible as evidence is basically saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so.

smhjoc,

What belief are you arguing for? What is a belief? Better yet, what is a true belief?
-
-
-

smhjoc wrote:Well, by that I was referring to the common argument from ignorance as evidence for god, specifically the cosmological argument. I admit it may have some merit if it is proven (or has strong support) scientifically that the universe could not have come into existence by itself through chance, and needed some sort of supernatural guide. Problem is, at the moment, we don't know for sure how the universe came into existence. There are countless theories, and scientists are working on it. I think to then leap to the idea that since we don't know for sure how the universe came into existence by chance, that god exists.

smhjoc wrote:Well, there are many theories as to how the universe could have emerged from nothing. We may not know for sure yet, but scientists are working on a clear, logical explanation. Thing is, atheism only relates to the existence of god. It doesn't really matter where science is in coming up with an explanation. Just like in science, a claim requires evidence. Even if we had no explanation for how the universe was created, one still has to present solid evidence for god in order for god's existence to be taken into account.

So, since we don't know exactly how the universe came to be, we shouldn't leap to the idea that it was created, instead we should prefer a more "scientific" position, that it came out of nowhere? Brilliant.

smhjoc wrote:If you have any good articles that you feel give strong support for the existence of god/authority of Jesus, please let me know, and I'll gladly take a look at them.

This one should help:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html

smhjoc wrote:But what would this evidence be? Jesus may have existed, but what good evidence do we have to support that Jesus was who he said he was? Sure, many people followed him, but how can we be sure that the gospel wasn't edited over time?

The Gospel wasn't edited, because various manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been found and dated between the 1st century BC and 1st century AD. Such writings, which contain copies of biblical documents, are nearly fully complatible with the Bibles we read these days. Plus, the Gospels were written cca. 20-30 years after Jesus's death, so there wasn't enough time to edit them, as there were still living witnesses. I'm sure that a good apologetics site would have many resources on that topic. This one, for instance: http://carm.org/objections-and-answers

smhjoc wrote:Atheism doesn't need to prove anything, as the burden of proof doesn't lie on me. As an example, say I said that I believed unicorns existed. One can make any claim they want, and if someone told me they believed unicorns were real, I would ask them why. Making a claim requires evidence. I don't have to disprove that unicorns exist, because it's practically impossible to do so. If they can't give me any evidence (or poor evidence), then just because a unicorn could exist doesn't give me any reason to actually believe it does.

Cool story bro, however we've seen it way too many times, unfortunately. The burden of proof lies on anyone who wants to make a case for a worldview, be it theistic or atheistic. Just as a theist needs to provide evidence that God created the universe, the atheist must also present the evidence for a spontaneous creation. "Scientists are working on it" is far from being good enough.

smhjoc wrote:But morality can be explained under atheism. It may not be absolute from person to person, but it can be very similar, depending on where one was raised, brain arrangement, etc. One example is why do atheists not feel killing one another is okay, and other immoral acts?

They don't? And what about this - Check who holds the pole positions in the 20th century democide statistics...
http://godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html

By the way, by what standard do you consider something "immoral"?

smhjoc wrote:Some of these can be explained from evolutionary psychology, which not surprisingly can be found in other species as well. Compassion, empathy, and love for one another can be explained by Oxytocin, a type of hormone.

I explained in one of the previous threads that there is a big difference between love, lust and infatuation. Some human feelings are a result of chemistry, while the other are profound and real. If you can rationally explain why you have feelings for someone, then I'm afraid the hormonal/chemical explanation is out of the question. I, personally, can see the difference between chemical and real feelings by checking whether they're rational and consistent. I'm sure that, if you introspected, you could too.

smhjoc wrote:As depressing as it is, that doesn't relate to whether it's true or not.

One however has to ask himself why a bunch of random chemicals would feel depressed over being a bunch of random chemicals.

DannyM wrote:smhjoc,

What belief are you arguing for? What is a belief? Better yet, what is a true belief?

Exactly - How can chemical reactions come to correct conclusions about the world? I haven't yet seen a good naturalistic explanation for knowledge.

smhjoc wrote: Well, by that I was referring to the common argument from ignorance as evidence for god, specifically the cosmological argument. I admit it may have some merit if it is proven (or has strong support) scientifically that the universe could not have come into existence by itself through chance, and needed some sort of supernatural guide. Problem is, at the moment, we don't know for sure how the universe came into existence. There are countless theories, and scientists are working on it. I think to then leap to the idea that since we don't know for sure how the universe came into existence by chance, that god exists.

I've read a lot of Craig's works, as well as viewed several debates online (Hitchens, Stenger, Flew, and a few others. I will admit, he's an astonishingly good debater, and even most atheists will admit this. His debating techniques are probably some of the best I've ever seen. Thing is, he puts big emphasis on the cosmological argument, as well as the concept of morality, which I don't feel have too much strength when it comes to proving the existence of god. If you have any good articles that you feel give strong support for the existence of god/authority of Jesus, please let me know, and I'll gladly take a look at them.

If Craig can show that the universe had an ultimate cause that was not material, what is your explanation other than God? Again, you need justification for atheism as well. If you truly came at it from a neutral stance, then God is a very possible/probably alternative. From what I've seen nobody has really done any damage to the KCA, if you really read enough of this stuff it is pretty powerful. Its pretty hard to get away from the universe having a cause... its an open question. What's the best explanation? I think that a God is the obvious one, which would leave you at deism at least. That is, unless you're going to assume that there is no God first, which is exactly what many atheistic scientists who come up with outlandish, unscientific theories tend to do. As I'm try to point out a little more below, there really is no neutral ground. The atheist doesn't come in and examine only facts. There are no truly neutral people in the world.

But what would this evidence be? Jesus may have existed, but what good evidence do we have to support that Jesus was who he said he was? Sure, many people followed him, but how can we be sure that the gospel wasn't edited over time?

Well we have access to very early editions of the Gospel, its a pretty big stretch to say that the gospels were substantially edited over the amount of time before we can prove that the gospels were in existence. Study up on these topics. Really, this could be seen as confirmation bias for atheism. Do YOU have any good reasons for believing that the gospels were changed? That the historical sources showing not only that Jesus existed but also that multiple Christians were dying to Christ not long after his death are all edited or wrong somehow?

Not instantly, no. However, I didn't seem to feel that there was strong enough evidence for christianity. This then led to me feeling the same way about the existence of god in general. Atheism in its entirety doesn't state that there is definitely no god. Sure, god could in theory exist, but I simply see no reason to believe in one. Atheism doesn't need to prove anything, as the burden of proof doesn't lie on me. As an example, say I said that I believed unicorns existed. One can make any claim they want, and if someone told me they believed unicorns were real, I would ask them why. Making a claim requires evidence. I don't have to disprove that unicorns exist, because it's practically impossible to do so. If they can't give me any evidence (or poor evidence), then just because a unicorn could exist doesn't give me any reason to actually believe it does.

Come on now, even atheists should realize the difference between the existence of a supreme and necessary being and something trivial like a unicorn. And if you go by the now standard watered down version of atheism trying to show that you are neutral and that there "could" be a God, well, its hard to get a discussion going that way. Fact is that everyone has positive beliefs about these matters, if you have positive beliefs you have to justify them. If you want to say that you don't know then maybe you could better describe yourself as agnostic.

And contrary to the common belief among atheists, its pretty easy to provide good reasons why unicorns almost certainly do not exist.

But morality can be explained under atheism. It may not be absolute from person to person, but it can be very similar, depending on where one was raised, brain arrangement, etc. One example is why do atheists not feel killing one another is okay, and other immoral acts? Some of these can be explained from evolutionary psychology, which not surprisingly can be found in other species as well. Compassion, empathy, and love for one another can be explained by Oxytocin, a type of hormone.

That's not what I said, I said OBJECTIVE morality, not the origin of moral beliefs. Of course atheists believe in right and wrong, that's the whole point. The question is why there IS right and wrong, not whether you believe in it. Across every different culture that we're aware of, people believe that there is such a thing as objective morality. The simplest explanation is that there IS such a thing as objective morality. Going by an atheist's worldview, objective morality cannot exist, the two are incompatible.

These are very necessary distinctions and frankly I don't know how someone who used to go by these arguments could possibly miss the point here.

Not at all. My point wasn't that it shows it's false, but that it could be a major reason as to why many people believe in a god. Due to confirmation bias, they are more likely to give supporting evidence more light than opposing evidence. I'm not stating it for sure, but I do think it does contribute to faith.

As I said, it works both ways. C.S. Lewis once described himself as the most reluctant convert in England. Indeed, many unbelievers, some Christians would say all, are running from God despite his rather obvious existence.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of people posting here have good reasons to believe what they believe and aren't all suffering from some delusion brought on by wishful thinking.

As depressing as it is, that doesn't relate to whether it's true or not.

No, but that's not my point, my point is that you may as well search for God and try as hard as you can to find reasons to believe. Pray, read the Bible, honestly seek him. That doesn't mean that you fool yourself intellectually, it means that if God exists you'll want to know about... and if he doesn't then none of this matters at all. I find the idea that you asking these questions is mere chemical responses with nothing to do with thinking or anything, but that's a part of atheism. Atheism has no perks, so give Christianity every chance.

I see that others have come up with some similar responses and they're much more brief.

smhjoc wrote:But how is the Bible a reliable source of information. It states 500 people witnessed him alive. Other Holy books state information that seems to prove its reliability. How do we know 500 people witnessed him, if the only sources that state that he did are the same sources that christianity is based off of. Using the Bible as evidence is basically saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so.

It seems that you want me to answer the question without using the Bible as a source. I have seen this method employed by atheists before, trying to set ground rules for debate. Many non-Christians will say “leave the Bible out of it” when discussing God, creation, absolute truth, morality, or the Bible itself. They will usually claim that by leaving the Bible out of it, all participants will be starting on neutral ground. However, this is not neutral ground. Christians stand on the Word of God—it is our foundation Luke 6:47–49—and everything we believe and how we live is based on what it says. So, to leave out our very foundation, our building of defense will come crashing down. That would be like me asking you to provide scientific evidence but you're not allowed to quote from scientists, use scientific manuals, scientific hypothesis or mathematical equations. We use the Bible because it is God’s Word and is our foundation. However, the non-Christian’s foundation is autonomous man’s reasoning (i.e., reasoning based solely on one’s intellect and not God’s Word). In essence, we are pitting the non-believer against God and His reasoning rather than our own Isaiah 55:8–9.

An atheist is not neutral when arguing against the existence of God, nor is a Christian when arguing for the existence of God. Each must presuppose a belief about God before establishing the logic that allows arguments “for” or “against” Him. We see from Scripture that all true knowledge comes, ultimately, from Christ:
Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. Col 2:2-4

Christ also made clear the myth of neutrality when He said, “He who is not with me is against me” Matthew 12:30; Luke 11:23. If we agree with the skeptic when he says to “leave the Bible out of it” for the sake of “intellectual neutrality,” then the moment we do, we are no longer with Christ but have instead joined the skeptic and are actually posing ourselves against Christ and His Word. So, when speaking of God and the fact that He is the only true God, we cannot discard His Word.

God reveals Himself to us in His Word, and we must accept His words by faith or reject them by having faith instead in man’s fallible ideas. Why will you not accept the Bible as proof of His existence? Because you seem to be claiming that you have no evidence that the Bible is true. It isn’t so much the evidence for the Bible you do not accept; you don’t accept the fact—as your starting point—that the Bible is true. When you presuppose that the Bible must be “proven,” any sort of evidence you see can be interpreted against the Bible. But Christians, who start with the presupposition that the Bible is true, can explain the evidence—logically, consistently, and correctly.

Without a logical, rational God, who created everything including us in His own image (which is why we are able to use the laws of logic), there is no reason to believe there is any order, causality, rationality or logic in the universe. It makes sense that an orderly and logical God would create a universe that displays some of His characteristics.

But if the universe were just a random cosmic accident, there is no reason for it to follow certain laws, nor should there be any reason we could understand any of it. There is no way for a naturalist to explain why these laws exist or where they came from. And to just say, “That’s just how it happened” is to take a great leap of blind faith. Thus, both the Christian and the non-Christian must place their faith somewhere. We chose to put our faith in God's revealed word.

So if you are presuming that you can never be sure who originally wrote the Bible then how do you know it has changed so much? What evidence are you basing this belief on? As a matter of fact, the Bible has remained the most accurate ancient work ever. This can be seen from the tens of thousands of copies and fragments that have been found. Words have obviously been translated from the original languages, but there is no evidence that the meaning of the texts has changed. That much of the Bible’s meaning has been lost, remains a baseless and unsubstantiated claim.

So how can I be sure of what it says is true? The Bible does have the answers to the three most asked questions in all of human history namely, Where did we come from? What are we? and Where are we going? So when you asked, how do we know 500 people witnessed him? That is the claim in Acts as written by Luke. It's up to you whether or not you want to accept or reject it. The best evidence that the one true God is Jesus Christ, is found in the Bible.

smhjoc wrote:But how is the Bible a reliable source of information. It states 500 people witnessed him alive. Other Holy books state information that seems to prove its reliability. How do we know 500 people witnessed him, if the only sources that state that he did are the same sources that christianity is based off of. Using the Bible as evidence is basically saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so.

This is one of the more absurd questions you could ask. If the Bible is the word of God, If God created all reality outside of Himself, how could He turn to a greater authority to authenticate His own existence?

And besides, all claims for absolute authority have such authority built in.

DannyM wrote:

smhjoc wrote:But how is the Bible a reliable source of information. It states 500 people witnessed him alive. Other Holy books state information that seems to prove its reliability. How do we know 500 people witnessed him, if the only sources that state that he did are the same sources that christianity is based off of. Using the Bible as evidence is basically saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so.

This is one of the more absurd questions you could ask. If the Bible is the word of God, If God created all reality outside of Himself, how could He turn to a greater authority to authenticate His own existence?

And besides, all claims for absolute authority have such authority built in.

I think his point was that since the Bible is the book that defines the religion of Christianity, it is inherently a biased source to prove that same religion.

smhjoc wrote:But how is the Bible a reliable source of information. It states 500 people witnessed him alive. Other Holy books state information that seems to prove its reliability.

In case you - and others - forgot, the Bible is not just one book. It is a collection of books and letters by various authors written over a span of at least 1000 years. The many books which form the Bible can - and do - verify each other.

Another thing:

smhjoc wrote: Other Holy books state information that seems to prove its reliability.

Which holy books? I know of none...but perhaps I'm wrong. Please provide evidence.

FL

kitemikami wrote:I think his point was that since the Bible is the book that defines the religion of Christianity, it is inherently a biased source to prove that same religion.

Of course it is! If it weren't it would be incoherent as it wouldn't be supporting its own position! Which, incidentally, is what your line of 'reasoning' calls for. Every world-view uses its own standard in proving its conclusions. If it did not it would be inconsistent. That might suit you, but it does not suit rational people.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

smhjoc wrote:But how is the Bible a reliable source of information. It states 500 people witnessed him alive. Other Holy books state information that seems to prove its reliability.

In case you - and others - forgot, the Bible is not just one book. It is a collection of books and letters by various authors written over a span of at least 1000 years. The many books which form the Bible can - and do - verify each other.

Ah that's a good point. I can forget that its several books that support each other. If an atheist is going to dismiss ALL of them in addition to the other verifying sources at our disposal, he better have some very, very good reasons of his own.

Another thing to mention as far as the Bible being edited over time... there are multiple copies of the different books of the Bible that are centuries apart. One example is the Dead Sea Scrolls. What were the differences between that and later manuscripts that had already been discovered? The differences were very minimal and nothing that transformed theology. There are other examples as well, but its clear that the Bible is remarkably reliable.

Katabole wrote: It seems that you want me to answer the question without using the Bible as a source. I have seen this method employed by atheists before, trying to set ground rules for debate. Many non-Christians will say “leave the Bible out of it” when discussing God, creation, absolute truth, morality, or the Bible itself. They will usually claim that by leaving the Bible out of it, all participants will be starting on neutral ground. However, this is not neutral ground. Christians stand on the Word of God—it is our foundation Luke 6:47–49—and everything we believe and how we live is based on what it says. So, to leave out our very foundation, our building of defense will come crashing down. That would be like me asking you to provide scientific evidence but you're not allowed to quote from scientists, use scientific manuals, scientific hypothesis or mathematical equations. We use the Bible because it is God’s Word and is our foundation. However, the non-Christian’s foundation is autonomous man’s reasoning (i.e., reasoning based solely on one’s intellect and not God’s Word). In essence, we are pitting the non-believer against God and His reasoning rather than our own Isaiah 55:8–9.

I think you're getting mixed up with the Word of God which is Jesus and the written accounts of God or the written word which is the bible. The bible leads to Christ who is the authority.

smhjoc, question for you - please tell us what you know of Jesus Christ...

Thank You...

smhjoc wrote:A little background information: I started off as an evangelical/baptist christian, as this is what both my parents happened to be. I was young, and still had the preconception that my parents were always right, and that I should blindly follow everything they believed. Now, once I began to form opinions on my own (around my adolescence/teenage years, like most people), I slowly moved towards progressive christianity. This transition was mainly due to disturbance of a literal, eternal hell or torment, my increased compassion towards homosexuals and other persecuted groups, as well as my realization that the Bible didn't have to be inerrant to have value. As time progressed, I became more and more aware of the problems with christianity. Before, my main reasons for believing in christianity were personal experience/happiness with the gospel, martyrdom of the apostles, disbelief of evolution, several apologetics, origin of morality, etc. (the common arguments). However, I slowly realized that a major reason that I believed in christianity was due to confirmation bias. I wanted so badly to believe in a god and an afterlife, that I began to give evidence supporting my position more light then opposing evidence.

Now, I came her to pose a few questions as I'm curious on what christians (and theists and general) feel about them. I also wanted to make a few points. Keep in mind, I'm no theologian/philosopher, so some of these questions may be quite trivial and amateurish.

1. I see a lot of posts here describing atheists as arrogant, hateful people who despise god and want nothing more than to be right. I reject this generalization. I have yet to meet an atheist who is happy with the idea that there is no god to give us compassion, and that after death we will never see friends or family again as we will not exist. As for arrogance and hatefulness, many people can act this way, even theists.

2. Is there really any solid evidence for the existence of a god? If so, please list them. However, arguments from ignorance will not suffice. Saying "god exists because I don't know how this works" is not a decent argument.

3. If there is evidence for god, why christianity? There are thousands of religions out there, lots with similar beliefs. One does not even have to accept a religion if they accept a god figure, which would be deism. Now, if there is substantial evidence for christianity, please list them.

4. There are many beautiful, heart-warming verses in the Bible. There are also many extremely immoral and disgraceful verses. Sure, we belong to god, and we are his property. I know this question has probably been brought up multiple times, but I still don't understand it. The God of the Bible has commited genocides, thrown people in hell for eternity, and other disastrous acts. If these acts can be justified, please explain how.

5. What about wishful-thinking/confirmation bias? I understand atheism is hard to accept (it still is for me), but I simply cannot see any reason to accept christianity except because I want to believe it. It has some evidence, sure. But does it really have sufficient evidence?

I see a lot of posts here describing atheists as arrogant, hateful people who despise god and want nothing more than to be right. I reject this generalization.

Well, there are ppl on both sides, I personally know atheist ppl who match the description above. But even if there are ppl on both sides, then this does not get atheists off the hook completely, there are hateful, arrogant, atheists as there are theists.

2. Is there really any solid evidence for the existence of a god? If so, please list them. However, arguments from ignorance will not suffice. Saying "god exists because I don't know how this works" is not a decent argument.

Now the above, is quite contradictory to the below, please don't mind me but you said a lil later

"Well, there are several theories on how the universe could have come into existence from nothing. Quantum theory, for example, can explain how energy can be created from nothing (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). Through billions and billion of years, subatomic particles combined into hadrons to form different types of particles that combined into atoms, which combined into more and more complex molecules which allowed abiogenesis to occur, followed by evolution. We many not know everything, but we have a good idea. In terms of "nothing", we're not really sure what the "nothing" really was, as in whether it was vacuum or actually nothingness. It certainly does seem mind-boggling as how something like the universe could appear out of nowhere, but not knowing the origin of the universe perfectly shouldn't then mean god has to exist. Scientists are working on an explanation."

I found this explanation as the "I don't know how this works", sort of. I mean seriously, all scientists have pertaining to the origin of the universe - is that there are several theories and we don't know which one is the right one and we still do not know if we have taken all the variables in, etc etc. Every model has dents in it. And in your own words "we may not know everything, but we have a good idea". Talk about evidence, not hunches. You are asking for evidence and all you bring to the table, is a good idea. This will not do. If you are going to debate then lets be fair, if you wanna bring evidence, that explains there is no God, then bring it, rather than saying we would not need a God, because I think so. That's just not good enough, my friend. Why do you think (without concrete evidence) that the Universe would not need a God?

It seems, you just like the idea of - there is no God. As you said, there is no proof, yet, only you think there will be. And in your words "MAKING A CLAIM REQUIRES EVIDENCE".

If this is the claim "It certainly does seem mind-boggling as how something like the universe could appear out of nowhere, but not knowing the origin of the universe perfectly shouldn't then mean god has to exist. Scientists are working on an explanation."

Then I would ask, where is the evidence?

But morality can be explained under atheism.

Enlighten us, on this please.

Compassion, empathy, and love for one another can be explained by Oxytocin, a type of hormone.

No, it just says, what the hormone does BUT we are debating whether this was created by God or not. You said what you said, based on the presupposition that God doesn't exist. This statement was just a result of your presupposed belief. Taking into account that you are looking for a neutral debate, I would think you would be standing neutral as well. I wouldn't expect you to be biased and ask us to be neutral. Else the point of this debate is mute.

I don't have to disprove that unicorns exist, because it's practically impossible to do so. If they can't give me any evidence (or poor evidence), then just because a unicorn could exist doesn't give me any reason to actually believe it does.

I would humor you on this. Just because a unicorn COULDN'T exist - because for you there is no reason to actually believe it does, does not automatically verifies that the unicorn could never exist. This is just a technicality. A conflict of opinion if you ask me, nothing more.

One example is why do atheists not feel killing one another is okay, and other immoral acts?

Sorry, this is another generalization. History states otherwise. However, atheist do tend to kill non-atheists. I don't know if you have taken your history lessons there, but if you haven't then you should. And frankly if we are going to prove or disapprove a case of God, using body counts then I am afraid it won't lead anywhere.

But how is the Bible a reliable source of information. It states 500 people witnessed him alive. Other Holy books state information that seems to prove its reliability. How do we know 500 people witnessed him, if the only sources that state that he did are the same sources that christianity is based off of. Using the Bible as evidence is basically saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so.

Questioning the only source is like a never ending game. If I know you and I ask you, are you honest with me, will you never think bad of me? Can you think of anyway to convince me, other than telling me that you won't. How can you prove you are not dishonest, when there is nothing to implicate that you are? And I am simply paranoid or skeptic, utterly skeptic about our friendship. You can't convince me, unless I am willing to trust you first hand. I can't know or see where my wife is all the time using my own observation, gives me good reasons to doubt. She may be lying about her activities, she may not. That is irrelevant where she is at and who she is meeting. The point is, do I trust her. And this is your problem. You are trying to find reasons for doubt, even when you don't necessarily need to. I can assure you, if God comes at your window tonight, you will run to the shrink in the morning. It becomes useless to argue at such a stance because even in the face of evidence, it will be ridiculed as an illusion. So unless you decide to trust God a little, a little, not more, just a little, you will never be convinced.

It ultimately boils down to having a little faith. Don't make the mistake to assume we are idiots, worshiping unicorns. I know people in life and on this forum, who are intelligent, logical, educated people, holding their faith with pride and making sense of it. Our faith makes sense. We are not This is one of those "hundreds of times" moment, where the questions you have asked, have already been debated, rebutted, debated, rebutted, over and over again. Just read the threads on the site and if you are not convinced then I am afraid, there is no amount of proof which will convince you.

I think his point was that since the Bible is the book that defines the religion of Christianity, it is inherently a biased source to prove that same religion.

This is crap (no offense, I am taking about the nature of the point). Every system is inherently biased. A scientist will prefer science over everything, a theist will use his doctrine. And atheist will negate no mater what, and the agnostic won't know what to make all of this. If I ask you to explain quantum mechanics, or the rate at which a dying star collapses under its own weight - or the origin of matter for the first time - and then ask you to not consult your data or whatever you have on the subject and if you insist on using them as you have no other way to know, would I be justified in accusing you of confirmation bias? And would you agree that I am right in forbidding you to use your data because after all it is still incomplete and scientists are still trying understand the whole mechanics of the thing?

You see my point, what are you looking for, evidence, NO, you are looking for loopholes and you will find a lot. It won't get you anywhere further than where you are. Unless you have a motive with a purpose, why bother to ask these questions if you have already decided that no matter the answer, you plan to disapprove. I mean you can say, this is not your intention but up-till now, I have just seen the opposite.