Do you have any idea what it does to your credibility at any level when you write so poorly? Spelling, punctuation, grammar, and so forth all exist to make communication clear, and to some extent to make your own thought processes clear. When you write so poorly, you indicate that a) you don’t care to communicate with others clearly and b) you don’t think clearly.
If you are actually dyslexic, or if English is not your native language, then you at least have some excuse.

Claiming evolution is very “ridiclious” and following it up with a rambling rant of insults and incoherent thoughts does not give your opinion much credibility.

You are free to believe there is a god. But I have to ask why the Judea-Christian version of this god is the right one? There are so many gods to choose from, and 70% of the earth disagrees with you. That’s a lot of people destined to become flat out eternally butt hurt. Don’t you think?

Second of all, atheists say that were ignorant, because we don’t want to accept the so called, “proof”. Well guess what honey, we can say the same thing. Needless to say, atheists tend to act “all that”. I am a Christian because I believe there IS A God. I don’t care if the president disagrees, either.

I dont know where atheists get that they are all about “logic”. Because for me, it’s LOGICAL that God created this world. therfore, “logic” can mean differently, to different people. I appreciate Science, because it has helped find medicanes, etc. BUT I will not give Science the credit, for the creation of the world. Evolution is very ridiclious.

Atheists always main argument is WERE RATIONAL DAMIT. It makes them dillusional, not us christians. I’m gonna sum this up and say, Christians (as atheists try to make them) are not evil. We will stand up for whatever we believe, just like anyone else. Yeah sadly, they may call atheists EVIL, but atheists call christians BIBLE THUMPERS, And pathetic excuses for humans….yeah atheists aren’t all righteous, like they try to make themselves seem. Leading up to them being Butt hurt. Flat out butt hurt.

Question for Ass-theists, I mean atheists: why do you feel the need to put our beliefs down? Hmm?

I will continue to be a Christian. I don’t care what people think, they can rant all they want. Kthxbai.

Just because we don’t understand everything about the origin of the universe doesn’t mean it’s supernatural.

A supernatural explanation is not necessary because a natural explanation has not been ruled out by data. You characterize two natural explanations in a simplistic manner and then dismiss them all with disdain a priori as if no others are possible, but your opinion does not make it so.

It has been explained why a god is an unnecessary explanation. But you do not accept the explanation or its premises; nor even acknowledge it while continuing to hold your own view. We cannot do anything about that.

One does indeed go “At First, There Was Nothing (but a cosmic egg)”.

The other, however, goes “A universe came before it”, and the entire thing was a cycle of “expansion and contraction”, a big crunch that destroyed the previous universe, leaving a compressed cosmic egg that then explodes. This approach suggests an eternal universe that’s always been there; pointing back to nothing is a moot point because there was never nothing.

(And yet, there exists evidence that both of these theories are wrong, or that we’re not thinking big or laterally enough. IIRC String Theory is starting to suggest the existence of a multiverse as opposed to a universe. You would be interested to keep up with String Theory, since while it’s still full of unknowns, at one point it DID indeed suggest the existence of God.)

The universe is a known. God is an unknown.

As I have said, you cannot use an unknown to prove or give evidence to a known. The result would only be, at best, a “God In The Gaps” answer – purely philosophical.

Occam’s Razor, by the way, would prefer an explanation of “No God” vs “God”. Why?

Given that Occam’s Razor tends to slice off complication, let’s just say that God is the answer: now we have to consider What Is God, in addition to How He Created The Universe, or the precursor to it.

With “No God”, all we have to ask is “How Is The Universe Created”, and “What Came Before It.”

In comparison, that’s 2 questions we need to answer with “No God”, vs 3.

(Conversely, it’s one of the reasons why I don’t like Occam’s Razor. It tends to exclude more difficult explanations for the sole reason that they’re difficult. In other words, Occam’s Razor is for the lazy philosopher/researcher/scientist.)

PS: I dunno, it doesn’t even sound you’re arguing from any scientific standpoint. Your argument is purely philosophical, and the point is to prove your common sense over everyone else’s.

Your guys’ ramblings about the relativity of time only prove that you’re scientific laymen who misrepresent science to bolster your position. Relativity of time does not disprove causality, and we’ve never encountered anything that wasn’t caused by anything else (virtual particles for example are caused by the universe, just because we don’t understand everything about quantum physics doesn’t mean it’s non-deterministic you clowns).

I’ve noticed that nobody can explain why it’s an unnecessary explanation, as if repeating it many times simply makes it true. But then again, I shouldn’t expect too much from people who believe the universe randomly popped into existence out of virtual nothingness for no apparent reason, should I?

In fact, there is no reason to assume the “prime mover” hypothesis of Deism, as it would violate the Occam’s Razor with regards to the existential questions of the universe.

Do you even know what Occam’s Razor is? Occam’s Razor isn’t used to compare explanations vs. nonexplanations (atheism). It’s used to narrow down competing theories. So how does that even make any sense?

Again, quit misrepresenting science to fit your position, it’s sad to watch you guys act like you know what you’re talking about.