Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Esquilax]

It depends what you mean by "interact" you likely don't mean the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

It's really simple: does your god grant prayers, cause miracles in the present, or influence events on earth? If so, those effects can be tested. If not, then why should anyone care?

So you want to prove say the resurrection of Christ happened, how are going to do that? Build a time machine? Clearly no you can't prove it happened you take it on faith that it happened. Not necessarily blind faith as it is reasonable to suppose that the Jesus Movement within Judaism was based on something profound that happened to someone. If you mean miracles and supernatural events that still happen today then alright we don't have concrete proof they may or may not happen we don't know for sure. Would it be nice to have more evidence of the supernatural? Well yes but if we did it would just become of a part of the world as we understand it. If we had evidence for say ghosts we would likely be able to study them and explain what they are.

So it's all presuppositions. Cool.

Asking for scientific evidence of God himself is pointless, asking for evidence of miracles that happened thousands of years ago is pointless and asking for evidence of miracles today isn't that relevant.

It's only irrelevant in that you know that science probably wouldn't agree with you when they test these supposed miracles. It should be the most important thing in the world to you, given that it would prove your position right and allow you to spread the word of your god that much more effectively. The fact that you're just brushing it off even the possibility of investigation is incredibly telling.

If you're interested you can take a look at the supernatural claims made in recent years there is quite a lot there to go at. Some of it if you're not looking to dismiss them right away are interesting, these are things that could be real they may not be we don't know, that's just how it is. Chances are no-one here will see or experience anything like that (in this lifetime) even if they are real events.

Why is your first assumption that I haven't looked at such claims?

I gave you scientific indications in the fine tuning of the universe. I also covered the physiological results of prayer at one point. But it's miracles you seem to want for which I can't give you anything concrete. I can just point you to these books that cover the subject.

No, what you did was ignore the very valid realities of the universe that I pointed out to you, and instead used poetic language, avoiding any mention of anything that wouldn't help your point. As has been pointed out to you over and over, just ignoring shit that doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you're right.

It means you're ignorant.

I keep saying there isn't the kind of evidence you demand but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It doesn't mean these things can't or don't happen. Yes perhaps they're ultra rare events that tend to happen at particularly key moments of history, at least the larger scale events such as the resurrection.

If there's no evidence that would convince me, then why did it convince you? Because I'm sure you're not saying I'm any more rational or level headed than you are, Sword. I don't have any bias against your god; I'm simply following the evidence. Assuming you're doing the same, how come this stuff- which you admit isn't actually evidence- convinced you but not me?

To me you're looking at good evidence of contingency in the universe, a universe purpose made to develop life and you're screwing your face up at it. I'm not lying when I say I find this to be compelling.

No, you're not. But you are lying when you point out all this stuff in the face of all the evidence to the contrary you've been presented with. Trundling along and not modifying your argument in the face of the opposition is dishonest by definition.

Though I'm not starting with your assumption that it was all "coincidental" as all this will do is demonstrate to you how massive a coincidence it was not that there was any design/intention involved.

Oh, I've got no assumption here, dude. Why would there be one? What reason do I have not to follow the evidence directly where it leads? If there is a god, and if this stuff is so amazingly convincing, what advantage do I gain by not accepting that?

The universe has no cause/caused itself and is the way it is because it made itself that way for particular reason is the alternative.

A few days ago I posted a response to you that contained maybe five or six other alternatives- including a few featuring a designer- that I came up with off the top of my head.

It makes less sense to me anyway, I like things that have an explanation.

Do you care if the explanation is right, or are you just desperate to have one?

God is an integral part of the explanation itself not the thing that needs to be explained in the first place. You either have an explanation, in this case it would be God or you don't have an explanation. The ultimate explanation of everything that exists is God you don't need an explanation of the explanation it isn't necessary and it isn't special pleading.

That's the definition of special pleading. "Everything has to follow these rules, except for these things that I don't want to." Do you have any reason for why we don't need an explanation for god, other than you don't want to provide one?

Something can't be the cause of itself! God didn't cause himself because he wasn't caused. You see? A nicely done job there.

And there's the problem: you define a set of rules, and then exclude your god from them by definitional fiat by just asserting that god has no cause. That's not convincing, and equally, someone else could just assert that the universe is uncaused. In fact, I will right now: the universe was uncaused.

There. We've both made assertions. And yet, I'm willing to bet you don't take my assertion seriously. Why is that?

See, you can make up as many handwaving rules as you like, but you can't just demand that the universe comply with them because you want it to. And your youtube video just makes you look like an arrogant piece of shit, just FYI.

I'm not just claiming I'm explaining how God makes more sense than the alternative you would suggest.

And an explanation without evidence is called a claim. You need to back it up, and you haven't.

An alternative you yourself can't prove either you take it on belief. Belief is belief it isn't the same thing as knowing for a fact.

Which is why I just admit that I don't know.

I'm supporting my position just fine here. I don't see you supporting your position particularly beyond "prove it for certain or it ain't real" obviously I can't do that. I'd be world famous by now if I could. You have unrealistic expectations.

I expect any kind of evidence, and I don't believe absolute certainty is a useful concept. Just asserting something over and over, as you've been doing, isn't supporting a position. It's stamping your foot and demanding that we all take you seriously because you've put your position out there.

You would dismiss that kind of speech out of hand from other religions; why should I accept it from yours?

I have quite a lot here just not what you're asking for. Not being able to provide absolute certain evidence of the kind you want is not good evidence against the existence of God or a good argument in defense of atheism.

I don't think certainty is possible outside of a few very basic things, though. You're assigning a level of expectancy to me that I just don't possess.

The truth is, you could prove your god quite easily to me. Imagine what you'd do if you wanted to show me your girlfriend existed. Apply those same things to god. Problem solved.

But, you can't really do that. Even the most mundane of evidentiary claims can't be provided for god, and why is that?