There is no proof that the Christian God exists.

I thank Con for the third round and will answer his points to how why there has still not been proof of God. Good And Evil Like before, I still stand that evil is not simply the absence of good. Left, Right, Directions and Math are all different things that are used to measure and study the world around us. Like good and evil though, Math isn’t a linier count in one direction. That is, we can have positive numbers and negative numbers, starting from the point of 0. And the number 0 is in effect your neutral. In direction, you have left and right, and the neutral in the middle. Even on maps, you have east and west, north and south, but these are measured from the middle or neutral point. If I say a town is west of here, it is west from the neutral point at where I am standing, and things can also be east of here. This is why these things are different from the dark / light and hot / cold examples that you put forward. If this was not true, then we would need to consider the following. My example of tapping my pinky finger on my keyboard for no reason, with no implication to anything else does absolutely no good. By your own proposed argument, as this does no good, it would have to be viewed as an evil act. Unless you can justify why this act of tapping my finger is evil, my point stands that it would simply be neutral. As evil and good do not have an end point you surely can’t have a starting point, just an asymptote to pass through in the form of a neutral point. To take this back to its original point, If god exists, he would have created evil, not just the lack of good. If god created evil, he intended to create evil. A perfectly good god would not create evil, and therefore a perfectly good god does not exist. Any other type of god would not be perfect, and therefore not a god, therefore god does not exist. I will point out aswell, you could say these things are all measurements made by man, however God would have this same ability to measure these things in the same way, therefore they exist for god as they do for man, making the point of existence of these things irrelevant. Perfect World The earth has what we need because we have evolved to survive and live with the things around us. If we evolved to need something not found on this earth, we wouldn’t survive. Therefore by basic evolutionary principle, it is no surprise that we find everything we need around us. That standing, we do not live in a perfect world when some people are born into it without those basic things. Some people are born into the world without food, water or anyway to live. Something From Nothing Your initial point was “nothing can only produce nothing.” This is proven to be wrong in quantum physics and therefore your youtube link of “proof” for god, is flawed from the very first words. Just because they have not explained the macro version for you does not change what they have provenl. To say “this sounds like God and therefore is God on a scientific stand point” is actually a shocking thing to hear. You can never assume God just because it fits in nicely, you need proof. I could assume that everything popped out of thin air because a tiny yellow monkey called Simon didn’t eat his banana that day, doesn’t make it true or science. These things need backed up by proven science in order to make claims that they are true. From the other perspective, to say that only God could create something from nothing defeats the proposed argument by Con that nothing can only create nothing. Also, to make such statements Con would have to have a ‘nothing’ to measure from. The Natural State If you can define nothing, and back it up, then we could assume in that situation there are two states of existence: something and nothing. Con could thenassume that to explain any state change from the more natural to the more un-natural you need an outside agent such as God. For natural to natural would occur regardless of a Godly presence. Why should nothing be more natural than something? Nobel Laureate Physicist Frank Wilczek states that if you form a state that has no quarks or anti-quarks in it, its totally unstable and It spontaneously starts producing quark-antiquark pairs. Therefore the state of no-thing cannot maintain symmetry. It backs up the metaphysical view that No-Thing had an imperative to generate Some-Thing. With this in mind, we expect that the natural state of existence to be something rather than nothing regardless of requiring God. In fact it would take a God to maintain an eternal state of nothing! Within a box Lets go a step further, and assume that aliens, or any other explanation was disproved. Lets say we can categorically say that a force outside of our universe 100% must have created our universe from a state in which the universe absolutely did not exist. Now, that's alot of assumptions, but lets even grant all those for a second. How do we know that absolutely nothing exists outside our universe. In something similar to Plato's Allegory Of The Cave, Lets say we have only lived in a box. The box has no windows, you cant hear, see or perceive in any way anything outside the box. You, and everybody you have ever met live in this box. You study this box, walk around in this box and live our your entire life in this box. Could you say "something must have created this box, it must have been a God"? We do this with animals, both as pets and in safari's etc. The animals ability to not venture outside or perceive anything beyond the set enclosure does not make us a God. Now put this analogy to our context. The universe is a box. All our current study, understanding, sensual experience and context comes from within this box. How can we know that "nothing" was outside the box. We can't go out and check. In fact its just as plausible that outside the box of the universe is a kid with 7 science sets for a school project and our box is one of 7. This kid isn't all powerful, doesn't have all wisdom and who's to say he's good? Maybe after school is done he's going to set the box on fire, or stomp on it! The God contradiction Is God powerful enough to create something that He Himself cannot understand? If yes, then he is not all-knowing. If no, then he is not all-powerful. Can God create a rock so heavy that even God himself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable by God, limiting the Gods power, and meaning that he is not all powerful, If not? he is not all powerful. God, as described as both all-knowing and all-powerful, is a contradictory entity and cannot exist. Complexity Your logic is flawed and defeats itself on this for the following reason. You say complex things need a creator, but you do not apply this logic to god. If there is an exception to the rule then it is not an absolute, if it is not an absolute it does not ALWAYS need a creator and therefore that point alone cannot be justified as a proof of God. Either complex things always need a creator, or they do not always need a creator. Smiles and Feelings I have never experienced this ‘other feeling’, and therefore have been shown no proof of it to be true or god. Above and beyond that, feelings are personal and cannot be a proof. I can’t prove to you that I feel happy or sad, and cannot show you this feeling, only describe it. If you want to use this as a proof, you need to prove both that these feelings exist, that there isn’t a perfectly suitable normal physiological reason for them, and above that, that this feeling is directly attributable to God. Otherwise your basing an argument for the creation of the universe on what could just be a hungry tummy. Con states “I have proven with physics that God is energy “. although I cannot see where. If anything, we are closer to the point where God could not exist.