There is no proof that the Christian God exists.

I thank Con for the last response, however it still does not give any evidence for the existence of God. Good and Evil Con has asked “I know you accept my other ramifications, so where is the difference. “ The difference is you are comparing the measurement of morals to the measurement to heat and light, which are measures of energy radiation. Taking heat, in Celsius for example. We measure how far from the point of zero degrees it is. We could just as easily measure it from the point where everything melts, and measure how cold it is from compared to that point. Take light, we compare it to when there is absolutely none there. Just because these things are measured in this way, does not prove that evil is simply the absence of good. What your doing could be seen as the fallacy of false attribution, and you could apply it the same way to left and right. You could say left is simply the absence of right, however this, just like good and evil, would negate completely central movements. What is you don’t turn left OR right? And you go straight forward. We measure left and right from the same central point, and the amount they come away from that central point. This is how morals are. To say “not making a choice is still a choice in itself” is true, but that in itself does not mean that the choice has any moral value what so ever. We have the central point of neutral, and from there we can measure whether a decision or act is morally good or morally bad. If I tap my right pinky on the keyboard, quietly, for no reason, with no benefit or ongoing effect from it, what you are saying is that this act is measureable by good an act it is, and if it doesn’t do any good, then by lack of good, it would be doing evil? I can’t see any good from this action, but to call this an evil action would be absolutely crazy. I would call this morally neutral; it doesn’t do any good or any bad. The same is true of any action, thought, or thing that does absolutely no good or no bad. From this we can see that good is not measured the same as light against dark or hot from cold, it is similar more so to left and right, with the completely morally neutral in between. Perfect World... Therefore, God! Con points to our perfect world, I hear this all the time. That our world would not be so “perfect” without some divine intervention along the way or a perfect creator. Firstly, let me ask on a moral note. How is a world with paedophiles, rapists, murderers, genocide, infections, diseases, violence, hate, anger, inequality and corruption a “perfect” world. Our world is full of these in every single country, we kill and do bad things all the time. We can be born to a prince or born to a house made out of paper bags, at the mere fate of chance. How is this perfect? On a bigger note, of course we’re going to have that “perfect address” as it were. Life wouldn’t grow if we were on a planet too hot or two cold. And we have not explored space enough to know there are not similar planets with the same conditions and results. Science has shown that nature naturally corrects itself through evolution and perfects flaws itself. If anything, it would be more convincing if you showed things going against that without reason. Something Can’t Come From Nothing / Youtube link While on the surface this sounds correct, quantum physics shows that something Can come from nothing, nullifying the youtube link you have sent. Your link also says it is not unreasonable to assume that God did all of this creation. Sorry, but this debate is not working on assumptions, it is unreasonable to assume anything not grounded in fact, therefor it IS unreasonable to assume this until proven otherwise. You have shown no proof for this God that apparently created everything. Your video says that there are only 2 possibilities. A dumb vague thing as the source, or God. Why are these the only 2 possibles? There is any number of possible. For all we know, a group of aliens in a separate universe have been messing with their chemistry set and accidently created a universe in their bedroom. Or the universe may have created itself in a never ending cycle where the end of the universe converges in on itself and goes through a process whereby it starts a new universe, with all the energy from the previous one continuing on. These don’t require god.. so your video is wrong that there’s only 2. Complexity You put forward between your arguement and video link that god must have created things because everything is so complex. Let me put it this way... You say complex things need a creator. You say the world/universe is complex, therefore it needs a creator. God is the creator. A complex world needs a complex God Therefore, God needs a creator, and cannot be God. Smiles And Feelings You have said in your argument that you can feel God because an enlightened persons smile can brighten your day. There is plenty explanation for why a smile is infectious in the study of physiology, that doesn’t mean God did it. We are build to show and respond to happy expressions. We have these as safeguards, just like much of the animal kingdom. We have these so we can tell if our babies are ok, for example. If we could not tell if they were happy, we would have no way to know that they are of good health before they can talk. These instincts stay with us, but don’t mistake that for God, its just instinct. Conclusion I have explained how Good and Light are not measured the same. I have shown our world is not perfect. We have evolved n these conditions because the conditions grant it, nothing more. You CAN have something from nothing, quantum physics explains this. There are more than 2 possibilities for the creation of the universe. Complexity does not prove God. If it did, God would need a God. Feeling happy is not a proof of God. Con has not shown any physical or reasonable “proof” of Gods existence and needs to answer the points made.