Christianity is false

My cosmological argument still stands. The Big Bang theory is the explanation most scientist give for the beginning of the universe. That means there was nothing before the Big Bang: no space, no time, no matter, no energy. Absolute nothing. But scientifically we have never observed something coming from nothing. Quantum mechanics makes far-fetched claims about electrons and other minute molecules disappearing and re-appearing, but there has always been controversy around it and even controversy around the subject as a whole. There are no examples of, or evidence of anything ever coming from nothing. Yet, scientists and 'rational thinkers' believe that the whole universe was derived from nothing. This is a very irrational thought, however. From nothing, nothing comes. It's a fundamental truth in philosophy and science alike, yet science will exclude God because he doesn't fall into a category that is testable using empirical data. This is silly though. Empirical testing necessarily makes the thing being tested on material, bound by time, and having some sort of spacial feature. However, this is the exact opposite of what we would look for in the 'un-caused first cause' which is necessary in the creation of our universe because the un-caused first cause which caused all of space, time and matter to come into existence, would have to be space-less, un-bound by time, and immaterial. Precisely what science is unable to test for. Many people will make the claim that, "Only things that can be tested by science using the scientific method are real and true." That is the core of a naturalistic world view, but I would ask that person, "Is that statement able to be tested and verified by the scientific method to be true?" To which the answer would be 'No.' This goes to show that science is not the end all be all, but rather a tool to discover only certain aspects of this world in which we live. And there are many other things in reality that are very real, but unable to be tested by standard scientific methods. Love, greed, emotions in general. So just because the claim that an immaterial, space-less, time-less and immensely powerful higher intelligence was the creator of the universe is un-testable by humans' modern science, it doesn't make the claim any less credible. God is the best explanation and the most rational explanation to the cosmos. The one's who refuse to believe that are being willfully ignorant. Now to the moral argument. The theory of evolution is based around the belief that, "In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." - See more at: http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com... So you're entirely wrong when you say, "The fallacy here is simply incorrect information regarding the theory of evolution. Species evolve because of the survival of those with mutations, not because their mutation was beneficial to them." Adaptions survive only because the adaptation was beneficial, and it made one organism perform better in its environment than the others. Now your rebuttal has been dis-proven, and you still have to deal with where our objective morality comes from. I do want to say this before I end, however; If you proved that objective morality could have come to us through purely natural means, without a moral-law giver, why then should I care? Why should anyone care about that objective morality that we all feel? Why don't we just do what pleases us? We have 70 +/- years here on a tiny speck in the practically infinite universe that in the everlasting expanse of time. What difference does it make in the big scheme of things? There is no difference and therefore, to deep thinkers, they realize they have no true bindings on their behavior, and they are justified in not following that moral law. You have yet disprove my 2 points, to make, and justify your stance.