God exists

To start off I want to say that no one can ever prove the non existence of something. It as you say by definition impossible. I view theism as a theory, which is used to explain our universe and why it is the way it is. Here I already see the first major problem. A good scientific theory should say exactly which data would fit it and which data would falsify it. Theism doesn"t provide this possibility of testing it against the data as it is ill-defined and doesn"t predict any specific observations in our world. While you might think that this is wrong, as in the common sense terms it seems obvious that you would expect certain things in a universe governed by a god, I have to point you to the unbelievable flexibility of the theistic believe. It can best be observed, if you look at the vast space of which nearly all is absolutely inhospitable to life or the unimaginable suffering of human life. Normally if the hypothesis of an all loving god who especially cares about us is viewed in an honest and scientific way, you would expect the opposite of what is observed. Now why is it still the case that people believe in this god even though the evidence clearly shows that the theory of an all loving god doesn"t fit the data? The reason is that theism is so loosely defined that even this can be squared with the belief. For the vastness of space it is an artistic god wanting to create and for the suffering it is his mysterious way (we can elaborate on the argument of free will on this, but I don"t think this works either). This is not a useful way of formulating a hypothesis which is why it is from the start a very bad theory. I will go through some more of these problems and hope for something else then gods" mysterious ways as an explanation, as those would only prove my point: -God shouldn"t be hard to find. A god that is all-loving and has a direct wish for people to find him, as this seems to be the only to come to salvation, he should at least be obvious. He should be obviously observable, because only then you are really making a choice or even can make a choice. In our actual world, where god is everything but obvious, it isn"t a choice if you happen to be brought up in another faith failing to be saved by god. -Under theism you would expect believe to be universal and in only one god. There is no reason for a god to give a special message to some little tribe in a specific place. -The religious scripture (only one) should be useful, interesting and filled with nontrivial things (e.g.: the germ theory of disease) and not just be a collection of ancient text of which some are good while others aren"t. It should especially tell something that is obviously divine in a sense that no one could have known it (e.g. that the world is made of atoms). -Life should be designed and shouldn"t change over time. It shouldn"t be derived from an evolutionary mechanism, which is in no way a mechanism used by a god to build us as it is just not a reliable mechanism with which we as god"s goal could be reliably created. -Life shouldn"t be purely physical, but have a component that makes it special (this also shows why fine tuning is only needed under naturalism, as god should be able to create live where he wants to do so and shouldn"t have to care how heavy an electron is). We see no such thing anywhere and know from the fundamental laws of physics that there can"t be anything affecting our physical bodies in order for them to be alive. While there are many more, I will stop here as I think that the point is clear. The theistic worldview predicts the world to be perfect, while the naturalistic one expects it to be kind of a mess and I hope I don"t have to tell you, but our universe is kind of a mess. This all together constitutes strong empirical evidence, which obviously doesn"t disprove god (this is impossible) and obviously can be explain away with a mysterious god, but this just shows how bad the theory is. Now I will quickly go over your argument. Firstly I don"t believe in the big bang, but I have evidence for it and therefore know that 13.8 billion years ago there was the big bang. It is not the belief that everything "exploded into existence". The only thing it says, is that there was a first moment in time from which the "explosion" was our universe. It doesn"t say that it is a beginning of existence what so ever as it is just a first moment in the time of our universe. It doesn"t show that there had to be nothing before it or even that it had to be caused to happen. In general it can be said that I don"t know what happened before the big bang, if it is even a sensible question as it is literally the beginning of time and neither can anyone else including and especially you together with the theists know it. It could be either part of an eternal multiverse or really have a beginning at that point. We just don"t know and therefore you can"t actually use a "beginning" as your argument as there is no way to say that it is even more likely (and also the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem doesn"t show it). If the universe were in fact eternal there wouldn"t be any issue. Therefore I will show that even if it weren"t eternal and had in fact a beginning this wouldn"t point to a creator either. The beginning of the universe is something very different from our everyday life"s which is why we just can"t apply our common sense to it. It would be the actually beginning of existence, which no one has ever observed. I you think conventionally about the beginning of existence, you actually thing about the rearrangement of already existing stuff into something new. The beginning of existence is not like that. Therefore we can"t say whether or not this would need a creator as you have no experience of any such thing. It is just as much a possibility that the beginning out of nothing would happen without a cause. Therefore there is in fact no reason to think that creation ex nihilo requires a cause. We just have no way of knowing anything about it and also we have a further problem in the supposed causation. You are assuming god to cause nothing to become something which is impossible as nothing isn"t something you can cause to do anything. The question, why other things do not just pop into existence isn"t comparable as we don"t have any nothing here to test it on in order to see whether or not it happens. Therefore I see no reason to believe that even if the universe had a real beginning, this beginning was caused by a creator. I also see no reason in our universe to assume that it needed a creator to account for it especially in light of science. I look forward to your arguments.