- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
If that's what you want to believe.
As I said, it isn't important whether you want to believe that or its opposite. You'll be reasonable either way. Atheism can't have enough observational data to finally have a model for beginning of the universe, because space is stretching faster than light. Until, of course, that changes.
Because that's what reason dictates us to believe.
Not like I care about that anyway. I'm either a deist or an atheist depending on whether you grant that premise.
Christians believe in God
Atheists do not believe in God.
Deism and atheism are only different in what is the final cause. All other reason is same. After all, "God doesn't care" and "God isn't there" aren't very different notions for mortals.
The Kalam Cosmological argument has been refuted many times.
Big Bang is still material, and every material effect requires a cause. God, on the other hand, specifically wouldn't.
That's why the refutations aren't worthy enough.
Same could be said between atheism and Christianity.
I don't see how.
As to all the "Low probability, therefore God" argument users,
I wonder, though, what is convincing at all in the argument either way.
Yes, it is all a coincidence.
Have you read your scriptures? Are they, at all, consistent with your theological deity in christianity?
Read your Bible, keeping in mind the features you expect of your God. Especially that he is independent of time.
Anyway, when do you think was the universe created? And how did humans come? I'd like to see your level of indoctrination.