The Christian God is Real

I concede that you are right, I can not disprove a God"s existence, because I have a negative stance on the subject. Indeed, in order for rational arguments and theories to be proven correct, the positive claim must provide sufficient evidence to back up the claim. The negative, which is that one may not believe what is being said because of a lack of evidence, has no burden of proof, and has the sole responsibility of analyzing the proof available. For example: if a man were to tell another man that he does not believe McDonald's exists, then it is up to the second man, who says it does exist, to provide evidence that confirms the positive claim. The negative (skepticism) is a default position, and thus has no burden of proof because it is making no claim besides disbelief. I do not need to provide reasons for not believing in a tooth fairy or Bigfoot, because the other is the one with the positive claim. Also, I may not say that I am 100% sure that a God does not exist, but as said before, the evidence is so scarce that I may be 99.9% sure that he indeed does not, which is the probability I hold with respect to Zeus, Thor, Bigfoot, or leprechauns. On the fine-tuning of the universe, I must disagree and say that we do not know that there could be a better situation for the universe to be in. We have only this universe, and cannot compare it to others to say that this one is the best possible universe. If the claim, however, is that humans are perfectly suited for life here, I must also disagree and say that humans have no appearance of having been created to live in this universe. Our existence is not perfect, we cannot live in space, water, fire, extreme temperatures (too hot, too cold), we are subject to deaths by disease, other animals, hunger and thirst. Indeed, we can only live in a small fraction of the world, and an even smaller fraction of the universe. If, for example, gravity changed a little bit on this planet, there is no reason to believe that life could not exist, but it would surely be different to the one we know. As of the origin and complexity of life, we need only to look at evolution, which explains how simple organisms evolved into more complex forms of life through natural selection and multiple other events and processes including extinctions, mutations, climate change, etc. (Carl Zimmer"s "Evolution, The Triumph of an Idea") As to the origin of life itself, little is know, but there have been experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiment, which provided evidence that the basic building blocks of life can originate from nonliving matter. (Carl Sagan"s "Cosmos") Even if, however, this experiment had failed to prove it"s goal, it is still not proof that links directly to God"s existence, as this claim has still not met its burden of proof, and is not a usable alternative. As to the resurrection of Jesus, no evidence is presented that such an event ever happened. No witnesses were present that we know of, as all the supposed ones are nameless and even the gospels are anonymous. Even if this had happened, it is still not proof that he was the son of God. We know from recent cases that the human body may appear to be dead because of certain conditions, and apparently become "resurrected" after being supposedly dead. . http://www.bbc.com... A case like this may well have been the case with Jesus, because he was not the only person to supposedly have risen from the dead. (Dionysus, Osiris and Ganesha are also examples of alleged resurrections. ) Finally, morality within man is not surprising. We all have a certain instinct that tells us that we are doing something wrong, and I affirm this is a result of evolution as well. We prefer to save members of our kind, because we have evolved to ensure our species" survival. We can also know what is good and bad because of the consequences such actions have on human well-being. Once we became fit enough to survive more easily in the world, we could come up with more complex forms of morality which have evolved with us since we had the ability to think. This is a more plausible explanation to morality in my view, than claiming an unproved supernatural being gave it to us. I thank Con for his arguments and await his response, recommending that we try to keep as little arguments as possible in order to save time and space, and so as not to bore our readers.