Yes but the point is.  1+1 does not always = 2.

In some places it equals 2 in others it equals something else.

Alright, I'll be honest with you, if you prove to me that god's chance of existence is above 80%, I'll probably start believing. Current progress: 0%. I'll update this as breakthroughs are are made! Statistics and probabilities are still as much concrete math as all the other math.

Agreed

About 50 years ago most atheistic views were that the universe was eternal and therefore no need for God, however overwhelming evidence for the 'Big Bang' has given us evidence that the universe did in fact have a start. So therefore something needed to 'create' the universe, perhaps you believe in a 'universe creating machine' but a God who is spirit and outside of our known space and time seems more reasonable than a bread making machine for universes in another dimension that somehow came into being without a cause, or was caused by something that was uncaused, and happened to make a universe with the right conditions to expand and form stars and planets and life.

And with regards to Leprechauns etc, people claim to have seen them, Christians don't claim to have physically seen God, surely the best way of convincing people to follow a lie would be to tell them you saw something? As it is xtns just say they have seen God's work etc, which if it was a lie, wouldn't make much sense to me. Also, surely something that is capable of creating our universe is going to be completely beyond our comprehension anyway, so a God who is spirit explains that, rather than people who are convinced 'science' (seriously, can people not be more specific?) will explain everything in due time, even Stephen Hawkings has admitted that won't be the case.

Three statements I find issues with:

1. The fact that there was a Big Bang doesn't mean that the universe started with the Big Bang.  The Big Bang was a huge explosion of energy from a single point in space, but that doesnt mean that space-time and physical laws did not exist before this explosion.  Have you heard the idea of an oscillating unvierse?  Where energy is condensed to a single point, expands due to physical forces, then collapses back in itself to repeat the process.  Have you heard of the idea of nil energy?  Where the total amount of energy in the unvierse is zero with positive and negative energies being seperated (think of the equation 1-1=0).  The underlying point here is that we cant see past the Big Bang (to the best of our knowledge), so its only an assumption that the universe started at this point in time.

2. So you suggest that God came into being without cause, but you insist that everything else must have a cause?

3. Christians have made such claims.  One of the biggest points in Christianity is that God came to Earth in the form of Jesus, or however you interpret this complicated monotheistic relationship.  Thats not to mention other stories of seeing or being in contact with God, such as Moses and the burning bush (a great example regarding your above point) or regular people who claim to have an experience with angels or God.

1. What about energy loss/entropy, surely eventually the universe would stop expanding, plus I seem to remember my physics teacher telling us that the rate at which the universe is expanding atm is increasing, which definately wouldn't fit with that theory, though unfortunately I have no idea what the source was on that! :(

2. According to atheistic beliefs the material universe is all there is, Christianity plus I'm sure other religions (!) accept that what there is around us isn't all there is, it isn't that weird to have a God who doesn't need a cause as he works outside of the constraints of a purely physical universe.

3. I was referring to many things people may make up nowadays. However, Jesus is a moot point given that even non-Christian primary sources from the period indicate he existed, rather than historical records (ie not stories/myths etc) indicating say Unicorns exist in modern times.

(notwithstanding, the objections of sqrl)

1.  The problem with an oscillating universe is that such a case would mean an infinite amount of time has passed for us to have reached this point in time, as the oscillating universe idea avoids the problem of a beginning.  An infinite amount of time cannot be transversed, so I find the idea to be unsubstantiated.

2.  The idea that God exists without cause can work; He is outside of time, and thus could "always have" existed, so he never actually came into being.

 EDIT: Ah, Tispower's responded already.

Feel free to ignore this post, then.

I'll try to comment on both posts.

1. If the universe stopped expanding it would collapse upon itself, perhaps eventually resulting in another Big Bang.  That is true, scientists believe the universe is actually accelerating away from each other, which would mean an repulsive force our the universe (Dark Energy?) or an attractive force outside of our universe.

Why cant time be infinite?  Are you suggesting that time will not go on forever, regardless of the shape that our universe is in?  I have more concern with infinite energy (omnipotent being) which would violate the laws the physics, not to mention that such a source would have an infinitely strong gravitational attraction.  I'm leaving out mention of the spiritual realm because, like other examples, there is no way to know if it exists and what properties it has.

2. But religious assumptions of a supernatural being outside of the physical realm is just that, assumptions.  Humans desire to understand the world around them, for the same reason (in my opinion) ancient humans created religion we create theories today about concepts we dont have a grasp of.  Dark energy, dark matter, accelerating universe, before the Big Bang, are concepts that we are not able to grasp with today's technology.  Hopefully, one day will we understand these phenomena, but it seems that the trend has always been science over religious belief, and thats not to mention some other silly scientific ideas too.

3. Jesus existing and Jesus being the son of God (or a manifestation of God, how this fits within monotheism confuses me) are two different things.  We also know that Mohammed and pharoah gods existed, for comparison's sake we have a lot more about them than Jesus.

 Bolded: there ya go. Yes, My logic is a paradox, but some things just are

Underlined: Maybe god and the universe are intertwined. You know? Personally, I do not believe in the "big bang" theory. So alot of options are possible.

All I am saying is that science cannot explain, nor prove everything. People think they can explain everything away with it, but it isn't possible when you get close to the "god" issues.

No, they are not. I can prove to you that you will never be able to get to work/school or that every human on the planet ha equal amounts of money, that doesn't make those true. Science also can't prove or disprove The Flying Spaghetti Monster either, do you think it's real then?

no. But I can prove you watch south park at least occasionally. j/k

 You have to admit though, even if you don't, that god is far more likely than a spagetti monster. But he might have created one. You never know, science can't disprove it. But..... a noodle can't live.... unless it wasn't a noodle.... but a worm.... a Flying worm monster.... is that what you meant?