The existence of God conflicts with science.

Thanks to Con for initiating this debate. Con has defined God as the Judeo-Christian God. He also said the bible will be in discussion. I will present two scientific arguments refuting the God defined. The Universe Never Began God needs to be the cause of the universe. In order for this to be true, the universe must begin. It must at one time not have existed. Otherwise, God would not have been the creator, only a sustainer of something that has existed as long as he has. A clear definition of what it means to begin to exist is given by Christian Philosopher, William Lane Craig e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact. [1] This means most of the A theories of time are required for something to begin to exist. So, do theories of time in which the past and future exist hold weight? Experiments in quantum mechanics say yes. Particles can be entangled through time [2]. The present can affect the past and the past can be affected by the future, meaning they must all exist. This implies either the B theory of time or the moving theory of time, but these don’t fit the given definition. Other experiments show time is an internal phenomena from quantum entanglement [3]. An external observer would perceive all states of time. Furthermore, time travel cannot happen for the universe to begin. Otherwise, the past and future would have to exist. But we have observed time dilation [4]. Take note, this does not reject current scientific models like the big bang. Under these theories of time the universe is indeed finite. However, it does not begin. It’s like inch one beginning on a ruler, or Canada beginning at its border. To put this in a syllogism 1. If the Universe never began, God does not exist. 2. The Universe never began C. Therefore, God does not exist. Premise one is true by the definition of God. Premise two has just been justified. The conclusion follows. The resolution is affirmed. The Bible is wrong The argument goes like so, 1. 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” 2. God is suppose to be perfect 3. His scripture is full of errors making it imperfect 4. A perfect God can't breath an imperfect book C. Christianity is false Proof of Premise 3 The bible seems to teach the out dated Geocentric model. Joshua 10:12-13 12 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. Many of tired to get around this by stating Joshua only said it appeared that way. However this is wrong for many reasons. First, Joshua asked God to stop the sun, not the earth. If we were speaking in an appearance manor we don't ask for the said appearance. Second, Habakkuk 3:11 states "The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear." Clearly showing the belief that the sun itself stopped rotation. Some have also tried to get around this by pointing out that the sun does rotate around the milky way. This is true, however it wouldn't have any affect on the earth's day, because if the sun moved or not, it still creates curvature in spacetime. Stating that both the sun and earth stopped would be wishful thinking, speculating with no scriptural support. Alternatively one could say that Geocentrism is true. However this is shown wrong by many observable effects. *Stellar parallax [5] *Basic Gravity [6] *Stellar aberration [7] We also know the Earth rotates by the effects it produces. Like, * Coriolis effect [8] * Foucault's pendulum [9] The resolution is affirmed. [1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [2] http://www.livescience.com... [3] https://medium.com... [4] http://www.phy.olemiss.edu... [5] http://abyss.uoregon.edu... [6] Curtis Wilson, "The Newtonian achievement in astronomy", pages 233–274 [7] http://mathpages.com... [8] http://abyss.uoregon.edu... [9] http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au...