God Does Exist, ( Christian God )

I now think I understand what you are saying about the burden of proof, and I now agree with you that the burden of proof is on me, because I have made the claim that God does exist. Your second question is about what does moving the atomic weak force mean. I would assume that it means, that where ever the atomic weak force is, inside of an atom, say just like milk inside of a bowl ( even though a bowl isn't a full circle, I hope you still get what I'm trying to say ). If the milk inside of the bowl was like an atom with the weak force, was to be moved from that position it is in as little as one part out of ten to the one-hundredth power life would not exist, this as known as fine tuning, in which an event like the big bang has no reason to create such odds. http://www.reasonablefaith.org... Onto your third question, I would assume that the 10 to 100th power "part" of my fine tuning argument, would mean that if you divided the distance from lets say the surface of the top of the milk to the bottom, and divided it by 10 to the 100th power, then moved it by the distance you then have after dividing, life would not of been permitted. I am no scientist though, so I may be wrong, but I know that other true scientist have proved that if you move the so called weak force by an incredibly small amount, life would not exist. Your forth question asks me why I would bring up things like quantum vacuums when talking about odds. I simply stated that, because people can just simply overlook thinks like fine tuning, and jump to things like quantum vacuums when I have clearly stated that you still haven't told me how these odds are possible if life is, I would say "Random," in a way ( correct me if I'm wrong in stating the word random.) Your fifth question asks me why I would conclude a God for these odds of our universe. I conclude that because I have been shown no evidence that its possible any other way. No one has shown me that's its possible for a quantum vacuum to create universes or a universe with these incredible odds. Therefore the best explanation left for me to conclude is that God did this. Even if you prove to me that this so called quantum vacuum is true, you would still have to explain to me how it just by generating a steady stream of "stuff" would create a universe that we have, instead of a blob of random stuff that doesn't do anything. Your sixth question, as I assume you would of guest me to answer this way, is that God is transcendent of our reality, therefore is not bound to the physics of this reality. Your seventh question, was a bit confusing, if you asking me to tell you how God if he is real would have interacted in our world, I wouldn't see the point. You yourself most likely have heard of many stories, and me telling you more would not of been needed, as you would assume then false, but I might of interpreted your question falsely. According to your eighth question for me, Its no different than if you saw a man use mind powers to move a spoon in front of your eyes, you might not of know how he did it but you assume that's its true, but you most likely are still in disbelief at the same time. This is kind of a trap for me, because if I say that I believe in these ways because of miracles, I will most likely be assumed to be crazy, and lose this debate, so I would like to stay away from this question, and focus on facts and evidence, as I see this question of no good use to this debate. Your response to my morality question, in my opinion confused what is smart to do with what is wrong to do. For instance, it is not smart to buy stock in a company that you know for sure is going to fail and crash, but its not necessarily wrong, on the basis of morality. If early humans were only based on what is the smart thing to do, then things like stealing and killing people in a village for personal gain would not be wrong, but in fact good. Ty for this debate! See you around! ;]