Cmon, you have to believe me.

Still waiting for that list of contradicted laws...

The law of the conservation of mass

LOL, really? You want to go there???

“The Big Bang violates conservation of mass!"
Yeah, and my toaster violates the laws of aviation if you apply them incorrectly.

Mass conservation is a classical rule. The early universe wasn’t a calm chemistry lab—it was a relativistic, space-time-bending furnace where energy, not mass, is the conserved currency. Einstein spelled this out in 1905, and cosmology textbooks have been reminding students ever since.

The universe didn’t pop out of a magician’s hat; mass formed from energy through well-documented physics. Meanwhile, ‘God did it’ explains nothing, predicts nothing, and magically exempts itself from the very laws you claim are sacrosanct.

If you want to argue cosmology, at least use the right rulebook.

Ooohh, looks like you've got yourself in a scuffle here. Yes, this is the way to go.

The early universe was after the big bang, not before. If there was something before the big bang, that would have needed to start existing as well, so there was most definitely nothing before the beginning of the universe. So there was nothing (as in absolutely nothing, no medium, not even time) before the universe. As a result, the universe needs a cause, and it can't have caused itself. Well, let's check out our other options then. There was a God outside time and space who created the universe (in the form of the singularity), and...that's it. There's no other possible explanation.

This is called the Kalam cosmological argument, which was developed by a Muslim scholar in the medieval era. Try learning about it.

What the f**k are you doing in the athiests stream

No idea...

Now I get it, the bible says a lot of stuff that seem “absurd” for some. Like a talking snake, or genetics being changed in sheep by looking at bark.

But you have to be joking when you put your beliefs into a system that contradicts the laws of science.

No matter how much you try, you will never create or destroy matter. Yet atheists mostly say that the Big Bang created matter (which contradicts science) and others might still say that the universe existed forever (unusual nowadays, but ok).

And no matter how much you try, you can’t turn hydrogen into a cat that has a life, nor can you turn hydrogen into a single celled organism.

What is the narrative? ATHEISM IS NOT THE CORRECT FAITH! And God bless those who believe anyways, because that is just ignorant.

Combined with a fine tuned universe with consciousness and even morality, you have to believe that atheism just seems stupid. You can’t argue that the universe created itself out of nothing, because you something cannot come out of nothing, no matter how much Steven Hawking says that a God is not necessary.

Now I have to be clear, you can go to Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, but I encourage you to come to Christ, because he loves you.

true 👍(゜▽゜　)

I'm an athiest for two reasons:
1: Religion, at its core, is morally wrong. It's a tool of control. It's an excuse to divide people.
2: I want to live a life driven by curiosity, not bound by rules. I want to live like a person, not a sheep. And I want to know the REAL reason why things are the way they are.
Not knowing the truth makes you ignorant. Not wanting to know the truth makes you stupid.
So Christians are the real stupid ones. So there's that.

How can you have morals when you don't have a religion?

Your first argument will get you nowhere. Why? Because you don't realize that religion is not the only tool in life. Science is and has been used as a tool of control, a method of division. You ever hear of social darwinism? That's science used against men who are not white. And science doesn't have any morals.
Everything has an advantage and a disadvantage, when used correctly or incorrectly, including religion.

Your second argument is personal and I will not touch that.

Finally, by claiming to be atheist you're claiming to know whether God exists for sure, and that's essentially saying that you're God because you have to know everything to smooth out all the possibilities that God exists. You sound more agnostic anyway.

All I want is for people to stop arguing over whose imaginary friend is better and believe in real, unbiased science.

We're not arguing about who's imaginary friend is real at all, bro. It's all about using real, unbiased science to make real, biased claims about whether there is an imaginary friend.

whatever. I'm not stupid enough to engage in imgflip discourse

Typical strawman argument by people who believe in an invisible deity. NOT A SINGLE SCIENTIST says these things.

Oh, and Christ never existed.

Alright, being respectful here, not gonna start yelling at you, but I would like a bit of an explanation on this. How did the universe start? How could it possibly have started without being created?

"Oh, and Christ never existed." That's what I want explained, if you're confused.

LOL, literally the only "proof" you have is in a religious text.
Don't even try to talk to me about Christ not existing until you read "Nailed" by David Fitzgerald as well as his follow up books. You have done zero homework until after you read those ... and NOT the shortened apologist approach or "response" on some YT or blog post somewhere. Those are hilarious and so easily debunked ... IF the apologist can stay on point (usually they're too busy moving goalposts).
You may also want to read "The Case Against The Case for Christ" by Dr. Robert M. Price, or anything written by Dr. Richard Carrier, or any one of the growing number of people realizing that Jesus was a myth.

Wow, you do realize that there is sufficient proof that Jesus existed, so much that even atheists agree on that, right? They still argue that he wasn't Christ but it's a fact that he existed.

The only proof I have is the Bible, eh? Well, for one, we've got the Bible's proof of events. People went digging to prove that the events in the Bible were false, and only found proof of those events. As a result, there is more proof of the Bible's events than any other history book.
Then for logical proof, I would like to bring your attention to one of many arguments made by religious people. The Teleological argument's good, but I like the Cosmological one. This was put together by a Muslim, isn't that interesting? It goes like this, using simple deductive reasoning: everything that started to exist has a cause, the universe started to exist, therefore it has a cause. If you research the argument, you'll discover how the universe can not have existed for infinity, and proceed to realize that once you're down to how the universe existed, you don't have many options. Mainly just God.

You think I haven't done my homework, but you have no idea how much homework I've done. There is A LOT of proof of my religion.

LOL, that's not the Cosmological argument. That's William Lane Craig's adaptation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and yes, it's been refuted. Substantially. He had to modify it because he was getting trounced. What was added to the original? The words "begins to" because all you gotta do is Do your homework first Mr Dunning-Krueger.

Graham Oppy has shown that the first premise of the Kalam—that “whatever begins to exist has a cause”—is not a conceptual truth but an empirical generalization that cannot be extrapolated to the putative origin of spacetime itself (Arguing About Gods, 2006). Wes Morriston has further argued that Craig’s notion of a “timeless cause” is incoherent because causation, as understood in metaphysics, presupposes temporal relations (What’s So Good About the First Cause?, 2014). In contemporary cosmology, Sean Carroll notes that quantum gravity models often lack a global temporal boundary, meaning the universe may not have “begun” in the sense required by the argument (“Does the Universe Need God?” in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, 2012). Thus, every step of the Kalam—the causal premise, the claim of a temporal beginning, and the inference to a personal creator—is contested in the peer-reviewed philosophical and scientific literature.

Read "On the Historicity of Jesus" if you think atheists all think Jesus existed. Dr. Richard Carrier thought he did ... until he began writing the book. 100% chance you won't read it or you'll simply go to an apologist or an AI and ask, "How do I refute 'On the Historicity of Jesus'."

You've been a busy little boy it appears, over 15 responses to me. Go get your Sunday School teacher to give you a cookie.

See my explanation to that at the bottom of these comments, where I replied to you.
And I don't think all atheists think that, just the ones that know what they're looking at, which is apparently not you.

Are you stupid? Did you even read my argument or are you ignorant enough to say possibly the dumbest words I’ve ever heard from you. A scientist who has even a single braincell will realize this.
Admit it, you’re a arrogant dumbass.

You have to be serious. Literally all you wrote Down was an opinion. No evidence, nothing else. Do you really expect an opinion to debunk MY argument? That’s literally like bringing a knife to a gunfight. What a typical straw man response made by a “rational” person who believes that a single cosmic event somehow bent the laws of the universe and a bunch of coincidences made the earth perfectly and then hydrogen somehow turned into a single celled organism, which then evolved into you. Ya right, tell me another joke.

I can go on and on with this topic. How do you believe that ‘nothing’ created us? Might as well call it the ‘nothing delusion’ because this practical joke is making science worse. You can prove that x created y, but you can never prove that x created x. Nonsense remains nonsense even when brilliant minds say so. Now you might say “well you can’t completely prove a Christian God, let alone A god exists”, and you’d be right. But I find it strange that people like YOU say that a bunch of peasants would just follow Jesus and then preach his word for no reason. NO! Those disciples followed Jesus’ word, even though they were at the threat of execution, spread his word because they saw what Jesus did. Because otherwise why would they risk martyrdom just to spread a religion that was banned by an empire. Money? Fun?

Who said "nothing" created us? Please cite your scientific sources. Otherwise, you are the dumbass with nothing but the opinions and musings of 3000 year old goat-f*ckers from the Middle East intent on controlling men, women, society, camels, sheep, goats, and willing to make up ridiculous stories to do so.

I, too, can go on and on. I have research and science on my side whereas you simply have a stupid book written 2000-3000 years ago BY PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THE SUN WENT AT NIGHT.

LOL. You keep saying that Christianity was started by people who didn't know what 2+2 was, yet you believe that the universe came from nothing.

I'm sorry about how I misworded that, but my point still stands. Your "knowledge" came from a crackhead who decided a God didn't exist because people died painfully, and there is evil.

And saying that my IQ and knowledge is lower than yours doesn't help at all. You are like an idiot who yell and insult people after they lose an argument.

How about you tell me your scientific sources? Did you pull this bullsh*t out of Richard Dawkins' ass? By the way, it's embarrassing when my science notes from school proves atheism wrong.

Again, no scientist says that.

“Hydrogen didn’t magically ‘become life.’ Here’s the actual chain:
Stars fused hydrogen into heavier elements (stellar nucleosynthesis, B²FH 1957). Those elements formed planets where simple organics appear naturally—lab-verified since Miller & Urey (1953). From there, chemistry takes over: self-copying RNA (Szostak & colleagues), spontaneous metabolic reactions in vents (Wächtershäuser; Martin & Russell), and lipid bubbles that form protocells on their own (Deamer). Life emerges step by step, not by miracle.”

“Matter from one cosmic event?”
Big Bang cosmology never said ‘all matter popped in fully formed.’ The early universe expanded and cooled (WMAP; Planck), produced light nuclei in the first minutes (standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis), and stars built the rest over billions of years. It’s cosmic evolution, not cosmic poofing.

“How do elements become consciousness?”
Neurons evolved gradually (Arendt et al., Nature Reviews Neuroscience), brains scaled up under selection (Striedter), and consciousness arises from complex information processing (Global Workspace Theory; Integrated Information Theory). It’s architecture, not alchemy.

Nothing about this chain requires the magic you desperately hope is real. Just physics, chemistry, biology, and time.

Except, there are a couple flaws there. Here's one. You didn't properly answer how the universe started. There was a start to everything as we know it, and since something can't have come out of nothing, the Big Bang could not have been without a God.

Fun fact: I actually believe the Big Bang happened, as there is plenty of evidence supporting such a theory, however, it was God who caused it.

What is nothing? Can you show me some nothing?

And for the record, "without faith, it is impossibly to please God." Science is the opposite of faith big boy.

And for someone who thinks YES, MY LIFE SHOULD BE RUN BY THE WRITINGS OF MIDDLE EASTERN GOAT F*CKERS, those same goat f*ckers wrote that your god, who was offended and killed people if they "sacrificed" a piece of fruit to a wooden carving, said a couple magic incantations and POOF the world was created. LOL. You Christians are so pathetic that when science disproves your BuyBull, you adapt your beliefs in a desperate attempt to not appear stupid. You failed.

Wow. It's actually funny that you're so convinced we're that stupid. When science catches us doing something wrong, we at least have the good sense to change our customs, you, on the other hand, completely ignore the problems science presents.

Don't strawman me. You, someone who used to be a pastor, claim that God is offended on that? You should know better. The sacrifices are in place of what we would've deserved. And so, God was the enactor of justice, he had righteous anger. The way that the universe started is debatable, including among Christians.

1. remember that God is all-powerful, unlimited. He can actually say "a couple magic incantations and POOF the world was created," because his power is unlimited and there's NOTHING you can say that makes that impossible, as long as God is all-powerful.
2. It's likely the world started in a big bang, it makes a lot more sense, but the way that it was created was most definitely by God.

Sir, faith and science are two different things. Faith is what'll get you saved, but that doesn't mean science can't point to the existence of God. You are at the loss here, sir.

Eh, no we don't just have the Bible. We have plenty of evidence to prove that "stupid book written 2000-3000 years ago BY PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THE SUN WENT AT NIGHT." And it's reliable evidence. Proven by the very thing that you claim disproves Christianity. Science.

You also claim that people use religion to control people. Those people who wrote the Bible didn't. And, in fact, anybody could do that tactic with anything, INCLUDING SCIENCE. They used social darwinism for "proof" that black people were inferior. You have nothing on us.

Please, PLEASE use the Josephus argument ... I can't wait ... or any other historian you think works. I'm ready! Let's go!!! This will be fun!

Uh...so you want to question the existence of Jesus, whose existence is so widely accepted that even the atheists accept? Well, I guess it can't hurt to see what you've got against the multitude of evidence. Shoot then. Question the anti-Christian witnesses of Jesus's existence.

Yes! You're out of touch if you think all atheists accept your BuyBull and all accept the existence of a man who's DNA was a mix of a god's and a married woman's.

TLDR version since you refuse to read anything that doesn't match your preconceived bias.
1. The earliest Christian writings describe a celestial Christ, not a recent teacher on Earth. The earliest Christian documents—Paul’s authentic letters—show no knowledge of a recent, earthly Jesus. Paul’s references depict a celestial figure revealed through visions rather than a biographical teacher.
2. No historian of the time noticed Jesus—remarkable silence for such a supposed public figure. Again, NO first-century historian—Jewish, Roman, or otherwise—mentions Jesus during his lifetime, despite recording far less consequential individuals. Later passages in Josephus and Tacitus are proven and accepted to be interpolated or hearsay.
3. The Gospel “biography” is built from scripture, not memory. Nearly every biographical element of Jesus’ life recorded in the gospels (birthplace, family, miracles, trial) appears to be constructed from Old Testament proof-texts rather than memory or history.
4. The Gospels were written long after the fact by anonymous theologians, not eyewitnesses. These were unnamed authors, heavily shaped by theological aims rather than eyewitness testimony.
5. Their contradictions show literary invention, not preserved history. How many women went to the tomb. Was it open when they arrived? Was it dark or had the sun risen? How many angels/men? Were they in the tomb or outside?
6. Jesus fits the mythic pattern of other ancient savior gods, including a virgin birth.
7. Early Christian factions developed independent theologies that didn’t require a historical founder.
8. “Fulfilled prophecies” are reverse-engineered from the Old Testament or copied from other myth stories.
9. Key Gospel events collapse under historical scrutiny ... and reality.
10. Christianity’s origins look exactly like other mythic cults that invented founders retroactively.

READ and STUDY. Ask yourself WHY the Clergy Project exists. Why do pastors abandon the faith despite their immense knowledge of the BuyBull?

I didn't say that all atheists claim that Jesus exists, just the experts. And, more importantly, I didn't say that ANY atheist believes in the virgin birth, just the existence of Jesus.

Also, I don't know how many times I have to tell you, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH READING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T MATCH MY BIAS. I am a bit lazy and probably would't read anything that did match my bias either.
1. For an atheist, Paul's and other people's writings would be considered negligible because he's a Christian, but Paul did allude to Jesus as a human. Take a look at Galatians 4:4, or Romans 8:3. He pretty clearly says that Jesus was a human. This massive inaccuracy makes me more skeptical to other evidence you'll present in the future.
2. Yes, there are first-century historians who write about Jesus. Tacitus and Josephus are examples of whom and, being against Jesus's teachings, are likely to be accurate.
3. I know, isn't that amazing? The Old Testament is runs in so well with the New Testament.
4. And...how does this prove your point? Paul didn't meet Jesus in this world, but he was a great guy.
5. This proves nothing. In fact, the way they claimed that the witnesses were women makes it more likely that it was fact than literary invention because women weren't considered good witness.
6. Eh, not really.
7. Which proves what?
8. The fulfilled prophecies are allusions from the Old Testament–part of the same Bible. It's crazy how non-contradictory and linear the Bible is, despite multiple different writers from multiple different times.
9. No, they don't. They are proven under scrutiny.
10. Do you know how many fake Christs there were? A lot. Jesus has the proof of actually being the real Christ.

Are you blind? Do you not see that Atheism isn't the only worldview that will get converts? Have you never seen a Christian convert? People leave Christianity because they didn't properly take root in Jesus. There's a saying in chess, "loose pieces drop off." Take root in the Lord, abide in Jesus, for he is the vine. You cannot survive apart from him (John 15).

Typical Christian comment. My IQ and research dwarfs yours. I'd bet my soul on it. LOL ... easy bet since we don't have one.

Typical athiest comment. You state an opinion that you say is supported by 100% of scientists, and you call me stupid. LOL

You ARE stupid. You believe in an invisible man in the sky.

And I do this for a living. You're up against a former preacher, a church planter, a missionary.

For your peanut gallery mind:
1. Physics explains the early universe’s energy and matter.
2. Astrophysics and chemistry explain how elements formed and complex molecules emerged.
3. Biology explains how replicating systems arose and evolved.
4. Neuroscience explains how enough complexity yields conscious experience.

Every step is grounded in empirical research ... not in gaps filled by assertions from a stone age group of nomads in the Middle East who were given credibility by a Roman Emperor who combined Christianity with Sun Worship.

You accuse us of committing the personal incredulity fallacy when it seems you are doing just that? Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it can't happen.
And we are NOT saying that evolution and all that crap doesn't make sense, and therefore is impossible.

Dude, YOU have personal incredulity for all the thousands of other gods in human history. I just take it one god further. Try reading "The Outsider Test of Faith" by John Loftus ... who worked with William Lane Craig and his ministry. Loftus, before becoming an atheist, once wrote "How to Defend the Christian Faith" then wrote a bunch of books showing how that was a pile of garbage.

Oh, and Bill Craig now REFUSES to debate John. Funny because John knows all Bill's tactics and arguments.

Right. Isn't it nice when it's so easy to play the texas sharpshooter?

You are an atheist on all the other gods in history but that doesn't bother you one bit.

ONLY ONE OF US CAN BE RIGHT. Can you not see that? By being a Christian you deny all other worldviews. By being an atheist you deny all other worldviews. Do you even know what you're typing?

Not just the sky, sir, all around us, in us. In our souls. Everywhere. He is outside this dimension.

Prove it.

It's the only way that the universe can possibly have existed to me. Pure deductive reasoning. You deny one point of it so you'll just deny everything I say by proving it.

"to me" = I don't understand it therefore GAWD.

LOL, you ignorant, gullible, silly, delusional little boy.

You're the ignorant, gullible, silly, delusional little boy here. "to me" = that's my statement and argument and you can disagree with me. How dare you use the strawman to claim that I use personal incredulity.

I hate to hear such judgemental false claims. One person is not better than the other. What, are you trying to indoctrinate us into subjecting to you? I am subject to God alone.

Every single ounce of Christianity has been refuted, yet you're still here trying to make some cosmic point to the pathetic god who only exists between your ears.

Your "personal relationship" (never mentioned in the BuyBull - that's a 20th Century thing) with god is solely between your ears, within the confines of your own mind. This is why your god can seem so very real to you. In a very real sense, he is real because HE ... is YOU. This is why your god's opinions are so very often your opinions. This is why two believers of the same religion can both claim to agree with god's opinion but not with each other's. When you pray and god gives you answers, YOU are the source of those instincts, those intuitions, those feelings, those "insights." When you pray and you believe you're hearing the voice of god, you're simply having a conversation with yourself but you don't want realize it. This is why god can always assuage the doubts of the believer. Your "god" knows exactly how you think because he is you. He knows your tastes, your biases and all the gaps in your logic.

Therefore it follows that "he" knows what arguments you will find compelling and what mental gymnastics you are capable of to ignore any arguments to the contrary and the way you'll neatly make everything fit into your worldview, excusing and ignoring anything that doesn't. He knows how you'll move the targets to accommodate your beliefs, how you'll excuse the most horrific behaviors by him in his book. He knows how you'll excuse murder, rape, torture, ignoring the pleas of innocent people, killing those who aren't in the right tribe, abortion (“ripping up” the pregnant wives of your enemies), or enslaving people and then beating them within an inch of their lives.

Doubting your “salvation” or your faith is evidence that your mind is fighting back against the ridiculous concept that an inter dimensional being actually exists and cares about your individual life ... or any human life for that matter. I probably can't convince you of anything I stated above because of the very fact that it is, in fact, true. You are your "god". Congrats.

False, false, and false. That's a bold claim there, sir, and it's the most nonsense I've ever seen come from text.

You aren't giving me an argument, you're just claiming that God isn't real without much backing. Well, He is real. You claim that Christians say they're in agreement with God, but don't agree with each other. This is not the case. We admit that some of our views of Him are incorrect, we also admit that we don't know everything about God.

You know why that crazy claim is false? Because when we receive answers, we compare it against scripture to make sure it comes along with God. Scripture is one view, which we all follow.

We don't ignore God's "atrocities." We accept that the Lord is performing justice. Our God is merciful and just, but when we refused to repent, God let justice take part. The punishment for sin is death, no one is exempt. We live and have lived in an evil, sinful world, where beating slaves half to death, adultry, and murder are still prominent, as well as men going after men and women after women. The Lord isn't evil, he is just, and he loves all of us, if only you'd accept him.

What have you to say about morality? If there's no God, then there's no reason to care if someone dies. When your view is taken, fascism is not evil, sex before marriage is not sin, and exploiting children to make maximum profit is good. We are not our gods. YOU are yours, worshipping yourselves, if not science.

I've given you backing -- books, papers, evidence -- but you dismiss them because they don't match your cognitive bias. You are so desperate to believe you can't fathom NOT believing in your magical sky daddy.

Try proving the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Try proving the Trinity of the Hindu gods don't exist (oddly similar). You'll get all the same explanations YOU give.

Your god is an immoral monster if he existed. He just watched a child get r*ped and did nothing about it. He just watched someone be tortured and did nothing about it.

You worship the god between your ears when it's convenient and fluffy and makes you happy. You're a delusional fool.

Morality is an evolved process. You can watch it evolve over time in human interactions. NO god NEEDED. It's called being social animals in a global society.

And religion is on the way out. In another 100 years, we will uncover more and more of the answers to your silly "but I don't understand it so therefore god" questions ... your god gets smaller and smaller and one day, will become nothing at all and we will finally be done with the travesty of religion. That day cannot come soon enough.

You gave me biased evidence. Everyone has a bias mine is Christianity, yours is atheism. When I give you evidence, you just throw it away because of your cognitive bias.

Claiming that the Hindu gods are similar to our trinity? Really? Those three are NOT the same. God is three persons, but also one. It's not exactly like a clover, that has three separable parts.

You finally give me the problem of evil. My God is an immoral God. He merciful, but just, and he loves us. The evil that happens in the world was our choice. BECAUSE OF THIS we deserve death. If we accept the Lord through Jesus, we can reach eternal life.

Why do you care about your morality? By your reasoning, if most people say that rape is fine, it's fine.

I am not committing a logical fallacy. I'm not saying that I don't get it, I'm saying I do get it, and it points to God. I am very tempted to call you a fool right now, my fellow theologian.

Evidence isn't biased. Belief is biased. Evidence just IS. If you come into a home with yellow police tape over the door and see an outline of a body on the floor with a red stain on the carpet by the head, it's safe to assume someone died there. That isn't bias. That's evidence and unless you can show me otherwise, any logical person would know that a someone died there. Christians on the other had prefer to listen to Mrs. Kravitz from next door in an anonymously written letter, most of which has rotted away, which swears it was a "dragon in the garage" that did the dastardly deed.

I agree ... your god is an immoral god.
Why does god say that he is the creator of evil and chaos? You didn’t know? Isaiah 45:7
Why does god intentionally deceive people? Ezekiel 14:9
Why does god employ harmful spirits? 1 Samuel 16:14 Rules for thee but not for me?
Why does god wield famine and disease as weapons? 2 Samuel 24.
How malicious can one get? Isn’t this the god of love, mercy, and forgiveness? Isn’t the line: “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for the ungodly…” Oh, that’s the old vs new testaments and god changes his expectations, punishments, & personality depending on the era. I thought “God never changes.”

How does evil emanate from a “good” god? How is everything I just wrote is in direct opposition to current Christian thought? How is it in direct opposition to most of the New Testament? I know you’ll probably try to redefine “good” or claim that I cannot know what “good” is because I’m a tainted human. Perhaps you’ll claim that there’s no way for me to know the mind of god when the Bible says differently in 1 Corinthians 2:10 (For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.) And don’t give me the old/new covenant thing -- GOD NEVER CHANGES, right? Right?? The same yesterday, today and forever? Malachi 3:6 says “I am the Lord thy God. I change not.” And Jesus said it’s easier for the universe to fall apart than any one piece of the Mosaic law to fail (Luke 16:17 and Matthew 5:18). Is your universe falling apart yet? If not, the Mosaic Law and the Old Covenant still applies.

Matthew 7:11 and Luke 11:13 say that ** I ** am evil yet ** I ** know how to give good gifts to ** MY ** children … but I’ve never wielded disease and famine as a weapon, I’ve never committed genocide, I’ve never deployed evil spirits against my enemies or intentionally create evil and chaos. Who’s the evil one here?

Yes, evidence just is. I miscommunicated that evidence is biased. I meant that the way people view evidence is biased. Let's go back to your analogy. Here's the evidence of a dragon doing it: the next door neighbor's note swears it, there are scales of which comes from something people have never seen it before, which, when the DNA is run through the system, generate a scaly dragon-like creature, and there are burnt things all over the house. The Christians will say that it was a dragon, not because of the note, although the note exists, but because of the scales. The atheist completely ignores the scales and claim that there's no way the dragon can exist and criticizes the Christian for believing in the note.

Sorry, another miscommunication. God is very moral. And you've completely missed my point. I just explained it to you. Yes, this is the God of love, mercy, and forgiveness, but he's also the God of justice. In a couple instances, God gave Israel hundreds of years to repent, as he is patient, but they never did, so he sent famine, invaders, cannibalism upon them. As Chris Renzema claims, "my God is love." God loves us, and he'll bring justice upon us when we need it. There is no opposition between the old testament and the new testament. In fact, the new testament often quotes the old testament (I believe the considered the old testament to be called Torah at the time).

God never changes, He's still the merciful, patient, loving, just God he was yesterday, a year ago, ten years, a hundred, EVEN TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTY YEARS AGO. In fact, he loved us so much that he sent his one and only son to save us all. When Jesus came, he DID NOT COME TO CHANGE THE LAW. He came to clarify it. Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Your last part is the biggest miscomprehension I've seen. That's not what those verses say. They say that even evil people can be generous sometimes, and so God is generous and gives people what they need. You are very evil. I have much sin in my heart. Why do you think we need God, eh?

The impulse in human culture to create or cultivate a religion is driven by people's own existential angst, their innate and instinctive fear of death, their own death and the death of the people they love. It can seem easier to deal with death by convincing yourself that it is not real. "My loved one is not dead - they are in heaven and we will see each other again!", you'll tell yourself. And ... "Of course I will never 'die!' that's absurd! I'll just go to a 'better' place."

The other impulse in human culture to create a religion is driven by the desire for power and money. An all powerful god wouldn't need your money but his representatives are always crowing about the tithe. Power and wealth. Power over other men. Power over women. Power over culture. Power over society. That's all religion is truly about at its core.

You need to grow up. And make the most of the time you actually do have. You are mortal. Death is real ... get over it. I sincerely and earnestly do not believe that god or gods exist because there is zero compelling evidence. Even your own TOP APOLOGISTS are willing to admit this but YOU aren't HAHA. But you Christians have each other to go to "worship" with your imaginary god. Perhaps that could bring meaning to your lives as you comfort and console each other when bad things happen, blaming them on sin and the devil, and give credit to your god when the good things happen, all while ignoring the fact that anything that could be called a god would be in control of it all (kinda like Isaiah says in chapter 46:7).

10 years ago, I was just like you. There's hope for you but it'll probably take some type of crazy event to snap you out of this god-fog.

I gotta say, well done, man. You said exactly what's on my mind. Bravo, lad.

Appreciate it. :)

lol ... show us your immense knowledge of how the entire scientific establishment should listen to you and how their knowledge "violates" any laws of science. (incoming stupidity about the laws of thermodynamics)

tell me how hydrogen turns into life. tell me how one cosmic event created all the matter in the universe. tell me how a bunch of elements turned into consiousness.

Who claims this ... wait ... NO ONE. You make up arguments then want me to address them as if they're a valid argument made by a scientist.

“Tell me how hydrogen turns into life.”

Hydrogen does not directly become life. Instead, it participates in a long, stepwise process documented in astrophysics, geochemistry, and biology:

Stellar nucleosynthesis:
Hydrogen formed helium and heavier elements in stars through fusion (B²FH paper: Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler & Hoyle, Rev. Mod. Phys., 1957).

Planetary chemistry:
Those heavier elements formed planets and atmospheres. Prebiotic organic molecules form readily under plausible early-Earth conditions, as demonstrated experimentally in the Miller–Urey experiment (Miller, Science, 1953) and in modern atmospheric and hydrothermal models (Pearce et al., Nature Communications, 2017).

Abiogenesis models:
The transition from simple organics to self-replicating systems remains an open field, but leading frameworks are empirically grounded:

RNA-world hypothesis: catalysis and heredity demonstrated in ribozymes (Kruger et al., Cell, 1982; Bartel & Szostak, Science, 1993).

Metabolism-first models: spontaneous formation of metabolic precursors in hydrothermal vents (Wächtershäuser, Microbiol. Rev., 1988; Martin & Russell, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 2007).

Lipid-world (protocells): amphiphiles naturally form vesicles able to encapsulate polymers (Deamer, Microbiology & Molecular Biology Reviews, 1997).

Life did not “pop out” of hydrogen; rather, hydrogen was the starting point for the cosmic chemical evolution that produced the complex chemistry from which self-replicating systems could emerge.

“Tell me how one cosmic event created all the matter in the universe.”

The current model does not claim that matter appeared fully formed in one moment. Instead:

Hot Big Bang
The ΛCDM cosmological model, supported by CMB data from WMAP (Bennett et al., ApJ Suppl., 2003) and Planck (Planck Collaboration, A&A, 2020), describes an early universe that expanded and cooled.

Matter production

Baryogenesis: matter–antimatter asymmetry arises via CP-violating processes (reviewed in Riotto & Trodden, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 1999).

Nucleosynthesis: protons and neutrons formed light nuclei (H, He, small amounts of Li) in the first ~3 minutes (Steigman, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 2007).

Heavier elements: created later inside stars and supernovae (again, B²FH, 1957).

The “cosmic event” (the Big Bang) set the initial conditions—temperature, density, expansion—not the final inventory of elements.

Just one problem, where did all that matter come from?

And don’t say “it’s been here forever” because of the law of the conservation of matter. Assuming that this was the universe at that point, then shouldn’t all that matter come somewhere? The Universe didn’t exist forever for sure, so all the matter couldn’t have existed either. You’re saying an event created hydrogen in the first 3 minutes, which contradicts the law of the conservation of matter. Matter cannot create itself, because otherwise we’d have chunks of argon falling from the sky for no reason.

I'll second that, though that last bit might be somewhat of a stretch. You'll need a better example.

Oh boy. You kids and your desperation to believe in fairy tales. PLEASE READ MORE.

The claim that the Big Bang contradicts the conservation of mass arises from applying a classical rule to a relativistic context. In modern physics, conservation of mass alone is not a fundamental law; rather, the conserved quantity is energy–momentum, expressed in general relativity by the vanishing divergence of the stress–energy tensor (∇·T = 0). This is the formulation found in standard texts on relativistic cosmology, such as Steven Weinberg’s Gravitation and Cosmology (Wiley, 1972 an oldie but a goodie!) and Barbara Ryden’s Introduction to Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, 2016).

Classical conservation of mass holds only in closed, non-relativistic systems. The early universe was neither. General relativity describes spacetime itself as a dynamic entity; when spacetime expands, global energy conservation does not necessarily hold in the Newtonian sense. Sean Carroll summarized it in Spacetime and Geometry (Addison-Wesley, 2004), general relativity “does not imply a conserved total energy in an expanding universe,” because energy conservation is defined locally rather than globally.

The Big Bang was not an explosion in space ... it was the rapid expansion of space. Under this framework, mass–energy can transform forms (e.g., radiation ↔ matter via pair production), fully consistent with relativistic energy conservation (E=mc²). Early-universe particle creation under high-energy conditions is well established in quantum field theory and outlined in Kolb & Turner’s The Early Universe (Addison-Wesley, 1990).

Furthermore, contemporary cosmology models a universe whose net energy may be zero, with positive energy in matter balanced by negative gravitational potential energy. This “zero-energy universe” concept was articulated by Edward Tryon in Nature (1973) and is discussed by Alan Guth in The Inflationary Universe (Addison-Wesley, 1997). If the total energy sums to zero, then no violation of conservation occurs even on a massive Universe type scale.

In summary:
The classical law of mass conservation is inapplicable to the conditions of the Big Bang. But NICE TRY! General relativity and quantum field theory provide conservation laws appropriate to those conditions, and modern cosmology is fully consistent with them.

I ain't committing the personal incredulity fallacy, I am claiming that still doesn't get past the cosmological argument. Nothing to do with claiming that I don't know.

Wild how you’ve turned “I personally don’t get it” into a cosmological proof. Hydrogen “can’t become anything but hydrogen”? Tell that to the periodic table, which exists because stellar nucleosynthesis, described in any standard astrophysics text such as Clayton’s Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis (Univ. of Chicago Press),shows exactly how heavier elements form through fusion in stars. You’re not debunking science; you’re announcing you slept through it.

Your entire argument hangs on the idea that your confusion is a universal limit on reality. That’s not cosmology; that’s the personal incredulity fallacy with a Bible cover. If your best evidence for a deity is “I can’t imagine how hydrogen became carbon, oxygen, and eventually life,” then congratulations ... you’ve proved only that reading comprehension f scientific literature isn’t your strong suit.

I repeat, that is not my claim, stop pushing in that direction. I don't tolerate you using the strawman to claim my personal incredulity.

It underlies every claim you make. You just can't see it because you are your god.

"In the end, that still must have been created by a God."
Classic personal credulity fallacy.

In the end, that still must have been created by a God.

“Tell me how a bunch of elements turned into consciousness.”

There is no single-step explanation; instead, there are layered, evidence-based accounts from neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and information theory:

Neuronal emergence:
The evolution of neurons and synapses is traced in extant organisms and genetic pathways (Arendt et al., Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2009).

Increasing neural complexity:
Brains evolved via incremental increases in network size and specialization driven by ecological pressures (Striedter, Principles of Brain Evolution, 2005; Kotrschal et al., Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2020).

Consciousness as an emergent property:
Main scientific models treat consciousness as arising from organized information processing:

Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (Dehaene et al., Neuron, 1998; Dehaene, Consciousness and the Brain, 2014)

Integrated Information Theory (Tononi, BMC Neuroscience, 2004)

Higher-order thought theories (Lau & Rosenthal, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2011).

None claim that consciousness is “magic dust.” It arises when matter is arranged in specific informational and functional architectures.