If God exists, then who created HIM? HE DOESN'T EXIST!

I didn't say that god was always there, of course we all know the universe exists.
Your argument irrational because you are saying it was "just always there by itself"

My argument is not that god always existed or where he came from that's irrelevant.

But to argue say that existence can " just be there by itself" is not rational because it things can't just magically appear can they? I'm simply stating the fact that Pure atheism is proven impossible because 0=0 so existence can't just appear out of nowhere and things can't magically be there by themselves.

So im just showing you how total atheism is impossible it just doesn't add up which is why people might as well believe in god because it can make a justification for itself whereas the atheism argument is proven false

The thing you say is clear about not knowing the answer is not a good reason for assuming the supernatural is wrong because we have the answer.
0=0 therefore existence cannot appear out of non existence. so the origin point cannot be 0

Therefore if the origin point is not 0 then how can it have got their it can't have because 0=0 and nothing can just magically be there all along.

Therefore the supernatural is the most rational feasible solution to an otherwise impossible equation

I'm not talking about a god your just bringing that in because your atheistic beliefs don't add up. I never said I believed in god or didn't I am just showing you that the mathematical physical evidence shows that atheism is false.

if you believe existence can't come from non-existence 0=0. So atheists think it's always been there magically by itself. But since things can't "just be there magically by themselves" atheism falls apart under this logic religions don't tho because they can believe in deviations from this

So you are saying that:
A) it is impossible for something to have always existed, and
B) It is impossible to create something from nothing.

Notwithstanding the fact that these two assertions are not axiomatic, where does this leave your claim that:
A) something has always existed, and
B) Something was created from nothing?

With all due respect, you may want to re-think your position.

With all due respect, you may want to re-think your position.

I didn't say that god was always there, of course we all know the universe exists.
Your argument irrational because you are saying it was "just always there by itself"

My argument is not that god always existed or where he came from that's irrelevant.

But to argue say that existence can " just be there by itself" is not rational because it things can't just magically appear can they? I'm simply stating the fact that Pure atheism is proven impossible because 0=0 so existence can't just appear out of nowhere and things can't magically be there by themselves.

So im just showing you how total atheism is impossible it just doesn't add up which is why people might as well believe in god because it can make a justification for itself whereas the atheism argument is proven false

The problem appears to be that you want atheists to defend a position you say they hold, but which they actually don't hold.

There is no mathematical physical evidence. There is no such thing.

If you believe atheism to be false, by the way, it means that you yourself must believe that gods exist.

I'm not talking about a god your just bringing that in because your atheistic beliefs don't add up. I never said I believed in god or didn't I am just showing you that the mathematical physical evidence shows that atheism is false.

if you believe existence can't come from non-existence 0=0. So atheists think it's always been there magically by itself. But since things can't "just be there magically by themselves" atheism falls apart under this logic religions don't tho because they can believe in deviations from this

Therefore atheism is stupidity, the belief that something can just appear from nothing, which is against the whole point of atheism.

Ah, but 0+1=1, therefore atheism wins!

Common sense if there is nothing absolute 0 and nothing else then it will stay as 0.

I have a theory to propose - Lets imagine an object placed on a table. if you walked past that object you would realise something had placed that object there, otherwise it is irrational for the object to simply appear. Same concept with the universe, it is irrational for it to just appear, rather something must have placed it there.

I'm not talking about a god your just bringing that in because your atheistic beliefs don't add up. I never said I believed in god or didn't I am just showing you that the mathematical physical evidence shows that atheism is false.

No it doesn't!
Atheism takes no position on the origin of the universe. It is simply a lack of belief in the gods of religion. That is all. You will find atheists with a wide range of opinions on the origin of the universe, from quantum fluctuation, through bang/crunch and multiverse, to computer model, to no opinion at all.

The reality is that we don't know, and there is nothing wrong with saying this, while continuing to look for answers
One thing is very clear though, not knowing the answer is not a good reason for assumong the supernatural and not looking any further.

Common sense simply doesn't work in many areas of physics, e.g. quantum physics. Physics obviously does work.

It is illogical to try to apply 'common sense' (i.e. your experience on Earth) to the beginning of the Universe or similar questions.

Conveniently missing the point. Atheism thinks it was magically there all along by itself. Which is scientifically impossible because things can't just magically be there. If you start with 0 then it would always be 0 i.e no existence.

Since there is not 0 i.e. there is existence it have "just always been there" for no cause altogether because then that's not atheism and certainly not physics and maths because how did it get there. "oh it was just there all along" is even less rational than belief in god.

God may be unproven but Atheism is proven to be false by it's own logic.

Either you believe that existence was there all along i.e. 0 not the origin piont- this is not true atheism as you can call this origin point which is not 0 whatever you want e.g. God

therefore to be an atheist you must believe things magically appear by themselves which is not scientific or mathematical at all because 0=0

"Common sense" aka basic maths does work but if you want to believe things can magically appear then somehow try and justify with made up physics which is not physically impossible then good 4 u

"Common sense" aka basic maths does work but if you want to believe things can magically appear then somehow try and justify with made up physics which is not physically impossible then good 4 u

But you've stated that a belief in a "God" is superior to atheism (How is this God defined as by the way). I don't follow how atheism is false, what proof do you have for this God you talk about?



I don't think you understand what Atheism is, others have already pointed this out to you, have a reread -



I myself am don't believe the universe came from nothing. So could you answer my question please, it seems you don't know (abit like those atheists you speak of).

Whatt did this god create the universe from? Was it something or nothing? If the former, what did he create that something out of, was it nothing (like you claim atheists fallaciously believe)? But "existent can't come from non existence", so what was the universe made of, or do you not know?

It's okay to say you don't know, I don't either.

So you are saying that:
A) it is impossible for something to have always existed, and
B) It is impossible to create something from nothing.

Notwithstanding the fact that these two assertions are not axiomatic, where does this leave your claim that:
A) something has always existed, and
B) Something was created from nothing?

With all due respect, you may want to re-think your position.

It doesn't add up to you because you clearly don't understand either what atheism is, or current thinking in cosmology and quantum mechanics.
What's more, you claim that because you can't understand how something could have occured by natural means, you will assume that it must have happened by supernatural means - despite there being absolutely zero evidence of the supernatural and 100% evidence of the natural.
*smh*