There is evidence for the God of Christianity

I will now respond to his arguments. Rebuttals for "Proof for God"1. The Big Bang theory had a cause. No one doubts that. However, there is no reason to believe that this cause is god. Pro's logic goes like this:Everything has a causeTherefore, the Big Bang must have a causeThe cause of the Big Bang MUST be a magic, supernatural being. The hole in this train of though is clear. There is nothing to suggest that the cause of the Big Bang is some magical creature. A more likely explanation is that the cause of the Big Bang was something natural, just like everything else in this universe, and not something supernatural.2. Ok, so the Laws of Physics clearly prove that God is impossible. Everything in this universe operates by the laws of physics. It is impossible to not. Pro has clearly shown here that God is impossible, and doesn't fit in with our scientific understanding of our universe.3. Pro asserts that because the earth is so perfect for life, the earth must have been created for life. However, modern science tells us that the life formed to live on the earth, not the other way around. Life evolved to fit in the parameters of the earth. If the earth was slightly different, life would have evolved slightly differently. Life lives perfectly on earth, because it evolved to do so. 4. Pro asserts that the brain could not evolve because it is no complex. Just because we don't know how the brain evolved, doesn't mean that it can't. Creationists used to use this same argument, except for with eyes instead of brains. Now we have a good idea of all the steps in eye evolution, and we have found examples of eyes at various stages all over the animal kingdom. In a few years the scientific community will have a better idea of the evolution of the brain. Just because Pro thinks that the brain is too complex to evolve, doesn't mean that its true. The scientific community overwhelmingly (95%-98%) supports evolution, so just because Pro personally thinks it's impossible, doesn't mean that it is.5. Morals evolved, and their evolution is fairly simple. Humans with the best morals were more likely to perform actions beneficial to the group, and be able to breed and pass their genes on. Humans with bad morals would do things that harm the group, be kicked out of the group and not reproduce. Simple as that. Polytheistic societies such as the Hellenistic societies had extremely sophisticated morals, but followed these morals naturally, not because they believed that God told them too. Additionally, people who believe in Jainism, which is one of the oldest belief systems, don't believe in any god but have rigidly defined morals. Finally, atheists are definitely not less moral then the religious, showing that morals don't come from religion. Poorer and less stable societies are overwhelmingly poorer than less religious societies, and the reverse is true. The richest and most peaceful societies, such as the Nordic countries, are also the least religious. Additionally, the religious make up more than 99% of prisoners, which leads us to conclude that the religious are more likely do do immoral actions, not the other way around. Sources:. http://www.bbc.co.uk... . https://www.psychologytoday.com...http://www.alternet.org... Rebuttals for "Proof of the Christian God" Even though I already disproved Pros arguments for the existence of any god, I will also disprove the existence of a Christian god.1. Jesus claimed to be god. So what? A homeless guy might also claim to be god, but that doesn't mean that he is. As for miracles- Mormons claim that Joseph Smith worked miracles, and cite witnesses and proof. That doesn't mean that Mormonism is correct. Source: . http://en.fairmormon.org... 2. The Hindu concept of Maya simply states that the universe now is not an accurate representation of how the universe is throughout time. It simply stresses that reality is temporary, and not that things physically don't exist. Additionally, Pro dismisses this belief as there is no proof for it, presumably compared to Christianity. However, this vary debate is about whether Christianity has any proof. Pro can't use the lack of proof of other religions compared to Christianity as proof of Christianity, because he hasn't yet established that Christianity has proof. Finally, Christianity has plenty of things that rely on blind faith and no proof. Pros claims could easily altered to read "How could the Christians know that the stories of Noah, Adam, or Moses are real? How do you prove this? With this, Christianity must bow out of the contest. " Source: . http://www.hinduwebsite.com...3,4. Pro can't just assert that Jesus fulfilled 300 prophesies without any examples of evidence at all. Pro then claims that because the bible says that Jesus is divine, he is better and more legitimate then Buddha or Muhammad. Basically, Pro is using evidence from the bible to prove Christianity. You can't use Christianity to prove Christianity. 5. So? Please explain how this proves Christianity.6. No one is doubting jesus's existence. For rebuttals to the miracles claim, so refutation 1.7. Most biblical scholars and historians believe that the writers of the Gospels were not actually present at the time of Jesus, and actually wrote the gospels about 40-60 years after the fact, so their writing can't be interpreted as entirely accurate.8. So? Please explain how this proves Christianity.