Woah, what? How'd you know the universe and time were created? How could you possibly know what created them? These are huge leaps in logic.

I always wondered what difference there would make if there were a god.

The universe is really big. And really old. Lots of shit has happened/is happening that we don't know about. Who's to say there wasn't some being created? Who's to say that being wasn't powerful? Who's to say that powerful being wasn't self-aware? Who's to say that self-aware, powerful being wasn't also aware of everything there is to know?

Hell, for all we know, the universe IS god. Yep, let's just say that. The universe is god. Seems plausible to me.

But of course, that deviates from most Earthly definitions of god.

Of course I think it would be better, but history has taught me that tact doesn't get you anywhere when dealing with a collective group that falls back on the "it's faith, deal with it" argument every time they've been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that they're wrong.  the only way to make the world see how dated religious beliefs are and move on from them is to make it clear that such behaviour is not really acceptable, at least not when there are millions of people worldwide doing all they can to inject religious beliefs and attitudes into politics, education, and other aspects of the world that the spiritual has no place. 

This thread has not gotten  us anywhere. While people have mostly been pretty civil, there's still a metric tonne of faulty logic being thrown around on top of the pile of poor debate skills.  also, 'based on this thread' means nothing.  I've written dozens of essays and papers for school and in debate articles online explaining in an even MORE objective and detached ways that religion makes no sense (not talking about it being me who didn't believe, simply laying down the facts and counter facts to come to a conclision, the way a debate SHOULD work), and that didn't do anything, just got more of the same faulty logic and 'don't judge me based on my religion' and 'I have a right to have faith' kneejerk reactions we get the world over when they're backed into a corner.  'proving' something means at least some sort of consistency, if anything, this thread has only proven that you can't have a rational argument with those who believe in god (at least on the subject on whether God exists or not, or what religion is right). 

I do prefer to elicit a strong, passionate response if only to get people to put their best foot forward rather than just spouting nonsense.  The places I used to discuss this was in school (debate club, law class, philosophy class, history class etc), amongst my friends (all of which are known to be very intelligent), with my ex girlfriend (who is a nurse and very intelligent, aside from her faulty logic when it comes to religion), amongst others online, and even on other forums, and I always, ALWAYS get the same responses:  a wave of people insisting that they're allowed to have faith, or that you can't prove god exists so we shouldn't bother.  The only people I've ever had a decent debate with were my friends...who are all atheists and have come up with more logical, rational arguments in favor of religion than any fundamentalist or other religious type I've ever met.  

so yes, I've spent a lot of time being civil, but unless you're Ghandi, peace does not equal progress.  

I know what you meant to say. When time began, god already existed.

But you still haven't addressed my argument. You've argued that (1) something can't spontaneously come into existence from nothing, and (2) the big bang was something, so therefore (3) the big bang must have been caused/created by something (for example, god).

By the same logic, I'm arguing that (1) if something can't spontaneously come into existence from nothing, and (2) god is something, then (3) god must have been caused/created by something.

To accept the existence of god, I think you have to accept that either (a) something (for example, god) CAN spontaneously come into existence from nothing, or (b) god was caused/created by something. So which one of those two premises (a or b) do you accept? Can something spontaneously come into existence from nothing, or was god caused/created by something?

sweethart, you need to realize that the logic of a omnipotent being creating anything is flawed at it's core.

Why would a god create something? He would alredy know how it would look, and what would happen to it and how it would end, even before he started.

There is absolutely no reason for a perfect being to create.

Hi. First, welcome to VGChartz. Second, I really don't want to look like I'm bashing you, so I'm sorry if I cause offence.

You seem to think you are coming at this from a "scientific" perspective, which you are most certainly not. Here's the deal with science; if theory A is wrong, it doesn't mean theory B is right. You seem to think that is how it works.

Let's assume for a minute that evolution/abiogenesis is wrong, and let's assume that everything couldn't have come from nothing - Then why does that make God's existence fact?

For example. If I say our space and time was caused by the big bang (theory A) and you say it was created by god because something had to initiate it (theory B), then you can prove theory A is wrong all you like, but it doesn't make theory B right. The actual answer could be theory C, or D.

I haven't seen you take this into consideration in this thread so far. All I've seen you say is "the universe had a beginning, all things that have a beginning need an origin. The origin can only be God". I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it and in no way falls under "science". All you have are a bunch of made up premises and then an arbitrary conclusion.

How can you test this? How can you find out that your conclusion is the correct one given your premises? How can you even test that your premises are correct? - you can't just rely on knocking down other theories and then claiming yours the victor, it doesn't work like that.

And that is why some of us understand that one cannot apply a scientific approach to philosphical issues and vice versa. Religious zealots that have no grasp on science and its application is nothing new. Have you seen Kent Hovind trying to explain the Great Flood?

Are you saying that the Hovind "theory" doesn't make any sense and that it is full of holes!?! How dare you! Dr Hovind's "theory" is watertight (unlike the crust of the Earth, which shot out subterranian water to the moon under the pressure of the Earth's crust, apparently).

The thing is, if religious people want religion to compete with accepted scientific theories (like many of them do), then they need to understand the structure of science. They can't just say any old stuff and expect to get away with it.