God, Jesus and the Bible are nonsensical.

Thanks for accepting and arguing seriously. I appreciate a good debate. 'We don't know the origin of the universe yet, and therefore God created it.' Oh please. Time and time again, there is this argument. How hopeless do you have to be that your only 'evidence' that implies an eternal being that exists neither physically nor intangibly is merely an explanation of what we don't know yet? How many scientific advances would have been lost if Isaac Newton just assumed that God dragged the apple down to the ground? Well listen here. Science is an ever growing beast of unarguable, provable knowledge. We will decode the secrets of the universe, just as we have decoded gravity, light, what the moon is made of (not cheese) and everything that we don't know. But in the meantime, what's most detrimental to human curiosity is to just imply 'God did it'. 'If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful' No it does not. What part of the Kalam argument suggested that? What part of anything in the world suggested that? Only your oh-so-true Bible. If you're going to play God-of-the-gaps, then science is making God an ever-shrinking peck of ignorance that is growing smaller, fainter, more nonsensical everyday. Besides, that would on raise more questions on what is God. 'Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes:' William Lane Craig? Is he a scientist? No. He is a Christian apologist and philosopher. If you're so desperate that you have to base your arguments with a biased source, then I might as well have Neil deGrasse Tyson or Christopher Hitchens or Ricky Gervais shut you up. 'Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins, Atheist Bilogist and author of "The God Delusion'.' Out of the countless debates Prof. Dawkins won, you chose the one that he doesn't accept. Desperation is in the air. I was also shocked that he said that, and I checked your link. Dawkins looked like a total wimp in your written 'interview'. Please, if anyone knows about Abiogenesis, it's him, an evolutionary biologist. And so I proceeded to check the source of the interview. And guess what? The link it gave brought me to the Youtube homepage. Dawkins should sue that website. This is the analytical mind, not blindly believing everything you see, everything you hear, something all humans would have. We are not so gullible as you are, poisoned by religion, threatened by the fear of a non-existent hell. Jesus. Sigh. Let me sum it up. 'Jesus had to be born because of God, and man's wrongdoing. Here's the proof, the Bible says so.' Oh please. THE BIBLE IS FALSE! If Jesus was true because the Bible says so, and the Bible is right because God says so, and God is right because the Bible says so, and Jesus is true because God says so, and from what you gave, the only evidence of Jesus is in the Bible.How delusional do you have to be? Talking snakes and a resurrection? The Bible is a fairy tale, people of the 21st century! Oh, and cool movies. Nice music, and the special effects were spot on too. I'd like to watch those comedies. Nonetheless, I was expecting a documentary in this debate. Until then, I have proved God, Jesus and the Bible are false with logic, critical thinking, and evidence. You have said they are true based on blind faith, a fairy tale and who's that guy that clicked 're-spawn' again? Good luck, I hope you are considering thinking with a critical mind whether the bases of Christ are lying. God loves you alright, but I can also have an imaginary friend that doesn't threaten me to burn in made-up hell.