The existence of God.

Godsands ignores all arguments, claiming they are sophist in nature. I would like for him to be explicit in this. "Where did the universe come from, I believe it was created by God. Why? It is impossible for nothingness to create anything, because if nothingness created the something, surely one would have to conclude that this nothingness is not nothing but indeed something. The universe being something = the universe did not come from nothingness." Fallacy; argument from ignorance. It is also simply refuted; firstly by examining the unvoiced implicit premise; that for a thing to be true it must be known. Godsands posits that not knowing an answer (origins in this case) any reply other than a positive claim is wrong (i.e. a person can't both follow naturalistic origins and claim 'we don't know' without an implied 'natural origins is therefore wrong'). Secondly, "The universe being something = the universe did not come from nothingness." Fallacy of division. While it is an informal fallacy, we do actually have a physical model where this shows that the Universe not only can but actually should be expected to arrive from nothingness). With a basis in the concept (and calculations) of a zero energy Universe and inflation we arrive at the conclusion that all the Universe requires to start is a tiny amount of energy (minute factor of energy to begin inflation) i.e. the Universe undergoes inflationary expansion, but without forming net energy. Such energy would arrive in a vacuum - "nothing" i.e. via quantum fluxuations without violating the law of conservation of energy. "The word created means, 'made from nothing'" Incorrect. The applicable definition here is 'not by natural' or 'non-ordinary process'. http://dictionary.reference.com... "so in this term relating back to the prior paragraph on nothingness cannot create anything" Fallacy of equivocation: origin =/= creation. Fallacy: suppressed correlation. Defining origins as creation denies natural origins per definition. "that would mean there has been an infinite amount of past events prior to the present." Incorrect. The Universe is the 'set of all things'. Time included. To speak of time before time is a contradiction in terms. As such any instance of time constitutes as 'he Universe exists' and *not* that the Universe is infinite (short of redefining infinite as 'as long as its been around'). "Light switch" Infinite is an abstract mathematical term (unlimited) and not used in equations with operators i.e. to talk about infinity in the same sense as 1+1+1 is mathematically nonsensical. "So before all the understood events in the past, there would be an infinity of events prior to those." Incorrect. Let Universe start be t = 0. Let time be t. There is a shortest measurement of time (planck) and since we don't have infinite divisions of it, we don't have infinite regressions. Even if we posit that time was infinite we still don't arrive at 'infinite events' since that requires no event to actually occur (if there was any event it is now a quantifiable line towards the present) - and if no events occurs, well, we wouldn't be having this conversation either. "Our understanding of the universe's history, given that it is so many billions of years old, should not have event happened, if the universe has always existed." Incorrect. We have an origin, even under your model. "One option left, I have given sufficient reasons to believe in God and that God created the universe." Incorrect. See above. "Conversation" Basically renders to, 'you can not define evil in utilitarian terms and use that term to define evil in context of god' A few of issues; "you have no arguments" is false if generalised. Utilitarian is typically a consequentialist *model* (there are variants) and not a 'I believe' i.e. there is a standard outside of 'I believe' where good and evil are applied (not objective but it's not as a gung ho a system as you make it). Lastly and most importantly, and so? You provide a very limited scenario that is only relevant to that scenario and not at all applicable to anything outside. Again it's just you showing concerns over subjectivism and is unrelated to how you framed the debate (if you want to debate subjectivists, make that a debate). "No, that wasn't what my argument said. Have another read?" You should just make it into a syllogism so it is at least coherent. 'I understand there are many ethical views on what is good and evil and where they come from ...' Incorrect; a 'God model' doesn't excuse you from actually supporting your foundation. It also need not *come from* perception, short of a very limited few positions. It is distinct from 'reasoned to' and depending on the model unrelated to what the person thinks (they may accept it as true that is *not* comes from one's perception however). Evolutionary models too are not 'all non god models'.