Sorry but that article contains some pretty rubbish arguments.Are they seriously trying to say that the existence of morals is evidence for God? I'm sorry i don't have the scientific knowledge to prove how wrong those arguments are,but im sure somebody will.At the end of the day,science will admit it makes mistakes and will keep advancing whereas the religious will stand by the same argument,no matter how much evidence piles up against it.

That was an awesome show. Still one of my favourite cartoons of all time. So glad they haven't tried to re-make it and ruin it.

Where did God come from again in your view?

Flintstones, meet the Flintstones

if you cant disporve it with any arguments than dont quote it

A God can not ''come from'' anything. However,that question goes far beyond my understanding as a mortal. But i think this quote from the article i posted is somehow related to that quesion:

The skeptic sometimes asks, "Well, then, who created God?" The answer is that no one created God, as he is eternal. A rule of logic states that every effect must have an antecedent cause. But God is not an effect; rather he is a cause. The logic here is simple but compelling. Since something exists, and since something cannot arise from nothing—and further that the universe itself is not eternal—something outside of the universe must be eternal. An infinite creator God must be that something. Time and space had a beginning, but God exists outside of time and space.

That's the lamest argument ever. If we're going with assumptions (as the ideea that the deity you worship exists and the necessity for it to exist are mere assumptions), there's absolutely no reason why one couldn't assume that the deity you worship (God), wasn't created by another being. Also what's outside time and space?

I don't assume a god at all personally.  But you say that existence could not have come out of nothing, but why should a god be able to? 

For there to be a god to create the universe one of two things must be true 1) God came into existence from nothing and created the universe or 2) God has always existed and created the universe

If you assume the argument of (1) then the argument is self defeated because one must ask what created god?   and what created that creator? and it's creators creator?  It goes on forever.  If in argument (1) you assign god the property of being able to spontaneously exist from nothing then the argument again is self defeating.  If you can assign that property of spontaneous existnece to a god why not the universe?

For the second argument (2) you must ask the same question, if one can assume god has always existed then why can one not assign the same property of eternal existence to the universe?  This is the position I hold, that the universe is eternal but has no creator.  The big bang is not the beginning of time (as any physicist will tell you, it's the beginning of our universe, not of all existence) but merely a point in time from which all previous events have no meaning.  Anything that happened before the big bang does not affect what happened after it, thus the beginning of our universe, our time. 

How are you going to say you want people to have an open mind and have a mature discussion....when you flat out say "evolution is a lie". Where's your open mind?

If you can't understand the huge leap on the Jump To Conclusions Mat the article's writer took with that bolded sentence, I do not know what to say to you.

Just as a God could arise from nothingness, so could matter. Both are beyond our current comprehension but just because we cannot explain it, the answer does not default to "God did it", which that paragraph implies.

I'm not saying there ISN'T a god of some kind (I'm an Agnostic), but not keeping an open mind about the creation of the universe and trying to explain it away with a far-reaching supposition like the one above is ridiculous to anyone with an ability to think critically about the subject.