Theism (Christianity) vs Athiesm

Quotes from Pro are Italicized and UnderlinedMy position is that God created the world more or less as we know it and everything in it, approximately 6000 years ago.That is a very tough position to defend. Even most religious people of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) agree that the world has existed for more than 6,000 years.It is my observation that everything we see in nature shows thisFirstly, show me this observation and connect it to biblical creation and also - very doubt in Creation proves that God exists.I don't see the logic here, in accordnance with Pro's line of reasoning, I could also say that since there is also doubt that the earth is billions of years old (as evidenced by Pro) the Earth is therefore billions of years old. Before getting to Pro's main argument, I shall define Presuppose for the readers:Presuppose - 1. to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance. 2.(of a thing, condition, or state of affairs) to require or imply as anantecedent condition: An effect presupposes a cause. The 2nd definition fits this context more.An agreement to debate proves that God exists.Me agreeing to debate proves God's existence? How?A debate presupposes truthI assume you mean that you may arrive at a true fact as a result of debating, ok, no problems there.Truth presupposes God.Truth is required to make god? Pro needs to clarify what he says here, maybe he means that the only truth that can be arived at in this debate is that God exists, which I stronly disagree.You cannot get truth from an evolved meat machine. I assume that evolved meat machine means us, humans. I don't see how we cannot get truth, sure you may downplay our abilities by callign us 'meat machines' but the extent to which our brains are evolved, its outstanding. We can arive at truths, the truths that have helped our civlization grow to where it is right now. Open a shaken up can of Coke and a can of Sprite. The winner of this debate is the drink that produces the most fizz. What"s the difference between that and our debate, if there is no god? Your thoughts are simply brain fizz. How do you get truth from that? Of course we can get truth by using our brains to interpret the natural world, that's how we have advanced our civilization so much.So I would first ask - how do you get truth without God?Look at the evidence presented to you, look at the raw facts and see it for what they are in the most objective manner as humanely possible. Interpret the facts and form a conclusion. Also, try to falsify the truth as much as possible and if you still cannot falsify it plus there is plenty of evidence to support it, then it is a truth. That's deductive reasoning, something unique to humans. It forms the basis of the scientific method, which has worked excellently for us so far.You cannot even have truth without God - so he exists.1+1 = 2, that is a truth, whether the world was formed supernaturally (by God) or naturally(not by God).1) What is truth in your worldview?For something to be considered true, it must undergo rigourous examination of the scientific method (which is described above). If passes, then it is a truth, else it can be discarded as a false hypothesis or false fact. The hypothesis that God exists has not passed that examination thus far and it is doubtful that it ever will.2) Could you be wrong about everything you think you know? If not - what's one thing you know and how do you know it.I could be wrong about nothing I know, some things I know or everything I think I know, maybe this whole life is just a dream. Who knows? It cannot be proven or falsified (just like the God hypothesis). The same of course, applies to you, maybe everything you know could be wrong. You took the Bible verse very sensitively. I quoted a verse, I didn't accuse you of being a fool.I already said that I was not offended about the Bible verse. It was obviously inserted to discredit atheists because it outright calls them fools. It is by definition an ad hominem attack (bible quote or not, you used it) and therefore the voters must take that into account when voting conduct. Conclusion:Althogh I appreciate Pro for bringing up Philosophical questions, the readers still need to bring up proof that the Christian god exists and the Bible is accurate (proving that the Earth is 6000 years old for starters) and whatever else needed to prove that Christianity is the right religion.Following the principles of the scientific method, if Pro gives un-refutable evidence that the Christian God exists and the Bible is correct, I shall become a Christian. If Pro fails to do so, well I am not asking him or the readers to become Atheist, that's an individual choice, but I will remain as one.Who am I kidding? Nobody is going to become Christian or Atheist by reading or participating in such debates despite whatever evidence is brought up.Anyway, I await Pro's evidence to fulfil Burden of Proof.Sources[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...