How to debate a Christian

[LastPoet]

God has always existed, independent from anything he created.Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.So, if there were onces absolutely nothing, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

That is called Special Pleading. You say nothing exists without a cause, then make a special case of your god, sorry, but this is poor argumentation. Repeating bold assertions afterwards, and citing scripture hardly constitutes evidence.

The claim, our universe came to be out of absolutely nothing, would be a even more extraordinary demand, since nothing has no properties at all, and is in essence a inefficient cause. While God as incredibly powerful being, is a efficient cause. So your hypotheses, absolutely nothing as a better explanation, would need a even more extraordinary evidence. Do you have any ?

And I claimed that? Infact no reputable scientist will make any claim to that, no one knows what happened before the big bang, and saying it was god, its simply an empty assertion. It adds nothing to our knowledge, it answers nothing. It Is my honest to me to simple answer: I don't know what happened, perhaps we should investigate?. Instead you posit that god was there without any real proof, this is not an ad-hom, but I find that a dishonest stand. You didn't answered my question, just moved the goal post to before the big bang, another dishonesty, I'm sorry to say,

I am here less than two days. A admirable ability you have to evaluate peoples knowledge. But i think, you are not here to make such avaliation, but to debate my arguments, right ?

If you stand on ignorance when your arguments are nothing but bullshit... And when you regurgitate things that were fed to you in church or evangelical sites like "Fine Tuning", "Irreducible Complexity", you show you know very little about Evolution and Biology. And when you speak about evidence you disregard the scientific method, that shows you know nothing on how science operates. Science does not fear to say "We don't know yet", while your religion claims absolute truth, with no regard for evidence, ultimately falling to "faith".

Despite this, life on earth is happening. Without Jupiter, no life would be possible.

What? Were is your evidence of this, yet another, bare assertion? Still you answered nothing... Keep running away little rabit...

please present it then.

Sure, here is one of them:
The Miller-Urey Experiment

Incredulity is an argument of scepticism about a certain point of view, and the evolutionist and atheist are not innocent of using such an argument. Incredulity, doubt and scepticism about God and special creation, are implicit in every naturalistic explanation they try to concoct about abiogenesis and many other facets of their "theory".Incredulity is based on human experience and on what we actually know. For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be sceptical of it, because it has never been observed. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life. What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer. Atheists imply that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; Considering what atheists are willing to believe, they, can indeed be classed as credulous.

What the? Atheists are the credulous? You believe in a magical sky-daddy, that was a murderous genocidal maniac, that after sacrificing himself to himself to save us, turn all good with no evidence!! Atheists only say that there is no evidence of god or gods and we are credulous? Are you serious? You surely must be mocking me, because even if all you know from life is the indoctrination you had, no serious person would say that!

It not about debunk a argument. Its just about different views of the same issues.

You are free to believe in whatever you want, but when your view as no evidence, then its wothless, so do not expect others to believe. Subjective views have nothing to do with science.

and in the end, a adhom again. If this is your motivation, i think a further discussion is worthless.

An ad hominem? How is that? I am purely saying to use your mind, your thoughts, not old used arguments, or do you think you are the only apologetic we have debated before? And post links to peer reviewd scientific articles, not evangelical ones please. I know from the beginning this is worthless, because I know I wont deconvert you, you have to do it yourself. I only thought you could bring something original, but no.