Former Atheist Here- Want To Debate Truth of Christianity

"First, the existence of God. There are many reasons, from looking at the world, to believe in the existence of God. For example, the beginning of the universe. All evidence from cosmology suggests the universe had a beginning. This means there was some definite time at which the universe sprang out of absolutely nothing. But this is obviously absurd". Many people claim that there are countless reasons to believe in God, from little things, such as the good fortune to catch your coffee mug you knocked off the counter before it breaks, to the beginning of the universe. Yes, the universe based off the current evidence provided through cosmology shows that the universe is currently expanding and that because of this, and through logical thought, the universe at some point must have been much smaller and that it must have had a beginning. It is also theorized that the universe at one point had been something called a singularity. This is something of its nature we are unsure and have come to realize that it is in fact outside of our known physics. Yes, these things are true but inserting ‘God’ into the argument does not mean that this is true because there is no other explanation for it. You have claimed that anything springing from nothing is “obviously absurd”. But later on you contradict yourself by claiming an almighty being, of course, can do this and without any explanation at all of where this “God” himself came from. We presume that “God” springs up from nothing and he himself creates objects out of nothing. That in itself is more than unlikely. It leaves many open doors into the argument with the questions, “Where did God from” “If creating anything out of nothing is absurd than how can God do it?” Furthermore, placing “God” as the answer to a problem, question, or an unknown action or phenomenon is not justifiable as being the absolute answer. “God” is an untestable hypothesis which means that it cannot be directly tested, observed or is in any case can be used as a reliable source in the scientific community. Therefore, saying that “God” did anything can be used much to a religious persons advantages when it comes to “Filling in the blanks” of scientific questions that cannot be answered in the direct moment, such as the beginning of the universe. Because science cannot test “God” and it also cannot fill in the answer at the moment without confirmed ideas or hypothesis’, the argument used most commonly by religious persons are to their advantage because no one can completely debunk the argument because it cannot be tested. “God” relies solely on faith, not on facts in this situation. “God” is a filler for ignorance and lack of understanding regarding events that cannot be immediately explained. You show this through what you say in the previous posted argument. “The thing that produces the universe, once we reach this logical and obvious conclusion that the universe springing out of nothing is absurd…therefore we must draw the conclusion that a disembodied mind exists beyond the universe” This argument is based on faulted thinking and ignorance. “A universe coming out of nothing is absurd therefore ‘God’” is not a well based argument. To say ‘God’ is the only answer would be wrong. There is no one explanation at the moment and just because no one has the answer quite yet does not mean we won’t. It is better to admit that you do not know the answer than to pretend you have the answer. There is no evidence to support any super natural being ever existed before hand and it still brings in the question “Who is this ‘God’ that he himself is created and appears out of nothing? Obviously a ‘God’ cannot appear out of nothing as a universe cannot appear out of nothing if we follow your logic.” Regarding your method of trying to “prove” the divinity of Jesus I have to say I must disregard it as I’m sure you have no idea what you’re talking about. It was not related or supported by any math I’ve seen or looked into. This argument is very similar to what a Mr. William Craig used in his debate against Bart Ehrman. I have to say I have to quote Mr. Ehrman here and say “Thank you… for that impressive refutation! I do have to tell you that if you think I’m going to change my mind because you have mathematical proof for the existence of God, I’m sorry, but it isn’t going to happen!” Simply the “Math” doesn’t quite add up seeing as “the historical facts” of Jesus’ Resurrection from the dead have no actual historical confirmation on the subject and that the belief that a man was reanimated, walked around and then ascended to heaven, is purely based on faith, not fact. If this was historical fact, not many people would be denying that Jesus was divine or that he ascended to heaven. It can be argued if Jesus himself actually lived at all and at the least, the evidence for his existence outside of the bible is scarcely seen. Therefore whatever argument you were using in your “math” falls apart with the loss of a variable. Replacing your “facts” with what it actually is, “faith and hypothetical assumptions” shows that the “math” itself is credit less. So far I see no truth in an argument presented so far. I see trying to fit “God” into a missing piece to explain it and to assume that you know all of the answers because “God” cannot be completely disproven as to your own tactical advantage as well as ramblings that make you seem that you somehow have the “proof” to “God” and “divinity” of Jesus. All of these are based off biased opinions and faith, not historical evidence and fact.Sources: Craig, William L., and Bart D. Ehrman. "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? Read More: Http://www.reasonablefaith.org...; Reasonable Faith. College of the Holy Cross, 28 Mar. 2006. Web. 13 Jan. 2015. "God." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2015. <http://www.merriam-webster.com...;.