The Christian God exists

The universe had a beginning You haven't brought up anything in this argument that affirms the resolution, but you hinted at it. Once you find "the strange developments going on in astronomy discoveries which Jastrow states carry religious implications" I'd love to hear about it. "1. Is the universe eternal and therefore uncaused, or did the universe have a beginning in time and space? "The Universe doesn't require a deity to set it in motion, and may as well be its own cause"2. If the universe did begin at a finite point in time and space, was it created by an outside cause, or did it create itself? "More likely itself. Again, you haven't presented any definite argument for a god doing it. The universe is perfectly balanced & Complexity of our planet points to a deliberate designerThe biggest flaw with this argument is that is simply not true. Secondly, even if it were it wouldn't provide evidence for a god any more than "coincidence" on 9/11 suggest a government conspiracy. "Gravity is the weakest force in the universe yet it is in perfect balance. " The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate with the four universal forces combined, and will continue to do so until the temperature of everything decreases asymptotically to absolute zero. I wouldn't consider gravity perfectly balanced, because it doesn't account for this ultimate demise of everything, essentially. Gravity can't balance this phenomenon out, and therefore fails to be called perfectly balanced. [2]"If the ratio of the mass of the proton to neutron were to vary outside of that limit chaos would result. "Actually, what holds the proton and neutron together is the strong nuclear force, because the subatomic particles are made of quarks. Notice how this doesn't suggest a creator or omnipotent deity or provide any evidence for such a claim. "Photon to baryon ratio"This is used in Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which runs counter to the biblical account of the beginning. [3]"Nuclear force"While this is an interesting scientific phenomenon, it wouldn't have been discovered had Christians and other religious people maintained their anti-scientific attitude prevalent in the 1500's. Furthermore, it doesn't hint at a creator, and you have yet to show a concrete link. If the universe were truly "perfectly balanced," why would most planet orbits be unstable, star formation is copletely inefficient and fails often, galaxy orbits bring planets close to supernovas, glaxies collide, and the universe expands while it decreases asymptotically to zero? Because it's not perfectly balance, it's not fine-tuned, and there isn't some creator deity or designer who created this, or if he did, he or she is completely inept. [4]Something can't come from nothingI don't accept this assumption, which is the first formulation in the argument from first cause (an argument eviscerated so devastatingly that is a wonder people still think it a legitimate intellectual adventure to argue). It would be better formulated as: Either everything has a cause or there's something that doesn't. The first-cause collapses into this hole whichever tack we take. If everything has a cause, then God does, too, and there is no first cause. And if something doesn't have a cause, then it may as well be the physical world. Notice the abject dogmatism when scientists only have theories about the beginning of the universe (e. g. big bang or multiple universe models), but religious people say with absolute conviction that they know how the universe started, and it was this inane desert god who doesn't know how to handle the earth, so he floods it. This cannot be believed by any thinking person. Furthermore, if something can't come from nothing, then you are left with an infinite regression of prime movers, and your argument is left right where you started: holding an empty sack. Even if there were a "prime mover" there isn't any evidence to indicate that it's the Christian god. [5] [6]Jesus Christ "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus are the Bible's four canonical gospels, which most biblical scholars find useful for reconstructing Jesus' life and teachings. "The gospels were written 30-80 years after the death of the supposed savior-deity, and rely largely on hear-say and contradictory accounts. Would we consider testimony of events 60 years after they occurred legitimate evidence in a court of law just for common crimes or chracter testimoney? Probably not. But, these contradictory accoutns of the things Jesus supposedly said and did were referring to supernatural events, making the person entertaining the account more suspicious and skeptical. I think we can all agree that just because something is written in a book doesn't make it true. [7]"Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology for the major episodes in the life of Jesus. "I would love for some evidence to be proposed; from what I've read, most is fabrication and half-truths. I await any evidence. This contention is really not saying anything meaningful yet, so I await some further developments. Thanks[2] . http://www.astro.virginia.edu...;[3] . http://astro.berkeley.edu...[4] Neil DeGrasse Tyson speech "Fine Tuned Universe? "[5] . http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com...[6] irreligion: A mathematician explains why the arguments for god just don't add up; John Allen Paulos; pp. 3-9[7] . http://www.supernaturalufo.com...;