Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

You still haven't answered where the original energy came from? Let's say the answer is that nobody knows yet. Again, this might be a perfectly honest answer and all it proves is that nobody knows yet, not that your god did it. If you want to show that something exists, you have to do more than try to disprove contradicting theories. It's not like all these questions that we are still asking are multiple choice, and if it's not A or B then it's definitely C, no question about it. Atheism is a religious belief, I have shown you this logic. And atheism is not a 'lack in belief', but specifically a disbelief in the existence in God.You knit together some convenient definitions (pretending the inconvenient ones didn't exist), then ceased debating the point, picked up the same assertion in a different thread, and continued to insist that not having belief is somehow having a belief. This is not logic. Christians believe there is a God. Atheists don't believe there is a God.Atheists don't believedon't believe. Paring away the fact that atheism lacks everything needed to be considered a religion, from sacred texts to leaders to rituals to conjectures about the afterlife to origin stories or parables to codes of conduct to general organization of any kind, it really cannot be dumbed down any more than that. Atheists do not believe the claim that Christians are making. How would this make all religion meaningless? If lack of belief alone constituted a religion, you would belong to infinite religions because there are infinite things not to believe in. What would it take for their testimony to be substantiated to you?Evidence of the things that are claimed. Written accounts of "this happened, then this happened" don't mean anything when the observable facts contradict them or do not support them.Do you believe in Socrates? We have less evidence for his existence then we do for Jesus. The witnesses of God's works and miracles out number those of any other phenomena. These are real people testifying to what they saw. I understand your point about Socrates, but not one is telling me I'll go to hell if I don't believe in Socrates, and that Socrates performed various impossible acts or that Socrates is a part of a mind-bogglingly unlikely, self-contradicting and all around unpleasant doctrine that I must follow if I don't want to be tortured forever. Very little depends on Socrates' existence or lackthereof. An entire generation of Israelites (over 600,000) witnessed God's miracles in Egypt. The crossing of the Red Sea for instance. Does an account of this exist anywhere except for the Bible?This 'real' science you speak of is naturalism. Miracles of that themselves are 'suspensions' in natural laws.The 'real science' I speak of does not confirm the existence of something that has no evidence. If you consider this naturalism, fine with me. Discredit it then, show me how their scientific method is wrong. You can't say they are bias (which they are toward the belief in God), when evolutionists are bias toward the non-existence of God. "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."This means that any evidence for the errancy of the Bible, even evidence they are unaware of or evidence that has not even been discovered yet is automatically discounted as false. This is not how science operates. Ask scientists who endorses any particular theory what hypothetical discovery could be made that would destroy the foundation of that theory. They should all be able to give you an answer. The people of this website would answer 'Nothing'. Your 'reality' is the bias world views of atheists. I don't ignore reality, in fact I use the natural sciences to support my world view. But I am also critical of evolutionists who make arbitrary claims based on a loose "hypothesis". To claim that the theory of evolution is just a loose 'hypothesis' is really grasping at straws.For example? This does not change established scientific laws.Egyptians believed the giant supernatural dung beetles pushed the sun across the sky every day. Greeks thought that thunder and lightning were the work of Zeus, and that winter was caused by a sad harvest goddess, Ceres. Whenever humans did not have the knowledge necessary to explain something in their environment, they usually attributed it to a supernatural being. I never claimed that what people used to believe had any influence on scientific laws so I don't know why you brought this up.