Christianity is false

I agree, I won't put in any new information or arguments. My statement, "From nothing, nothing comes." is not an explanation from the lack of science, it is an explanation from the evidence science gives us. Science has consistently re-affirmed this fact. So I re-itterate: God is most rational explanation for the beginning of the universe. Spaghetti Monster God- It's impossible for that thing to be God because it is material, and as I said before, the cause that brought all matter, space and time into existence must necessarily be immaterial, space-less, and timeless. Spaghetti monsters are material. But let's say that spaghetti had a mind, and it was immaterial, space-less and existed outside of time. In that case, that thing you call the spaghetti monster, is what I call God. Your next paragraph is an odd one. Based on my logic, "Science is not the end all be all, but rather a tool to discover only certain aspects of this world..." science is not the ONLY tool we use to find truth, but is certainly a useful one. But using science and empirical data, we can find very easily that you are indeed not a unicorn with tentacles. And completely contradictory to what you just said, I never said, and never would say, that "things...can be believed without evidence." Next, you say, "Science hasn't explained everything about the beginning of the universe." But you still, despite science leading to the most reasonable belief of a god, refuse to assume it. A rational thinker would at least believe the most rational explanation, until a more rational explanation arose. Not dis-believe a claim just because in the future we might not find that to be true. Then you have no support for your assertion of a, "magic man in the sky who hates homosexuals and shellfish." Nowhere in the Bible does it say that. He hates homosexuality. Shellfish, Peter says in Acts 10:15, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." Speaking specifically about shellfish and pork and food that the Jews had been told were unclean. You made an assertion without any supporting evidence. Moral argument: I understand very clearly that you are saying a mutation can exist without it being beneficial. What I am saying, by using Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection, is that only the beneficial ones REMAIN. Detrimental and neutral ones may exist, but only the beneficial mutations will prevail and continue on. Finally, your conclusion. None of my arguments, "balance precariously on the idea of god, as decreed by Con's favorite book, the Bible." None. Not once did I ever use the Bible as my evidence. The one verse I did use was to correct your atrocious mis-quotation of the book. Next, never do I rely on the assumption that,"...just because science hasn't already figured out everything about the universe, god exists." Rather, I look at modern astrology, cosmology, and philosophy to decide the most rational explanation of our morality and our universe, which I find to be God. Is this what you call, "blind faith" and "blind, unproven claims"? I hope that, like you said, the reader decides to back the debater that used definitive evidence to construct clear arguments. Because I saw no arguments for: 1) Evolution being the best explanation of morality. And 2) A naturalistic beginning to the universe. Thanks for the debate. God bless.