And, if true, it shows that God cannot be the causal factor for the start of the universe.<quoted text>
1) Time is part of space they are connected, therefore they are both part of the universe. God is outside of the little box that holds his creation, our universe. That is why God can be the Alpha and the Omega.
Actually, it *is* possible. Look up Bell's inequalities some time. The universe is not a causal place at the quantum level. In particular, the time of decay of a muon is not caused. Nothing happens 'just before' the decay that is any different than at any other time.2) I have to really doubt you here.
As in the Theory of chaos. It would be Impossible to prove one event did not in some way start another event.
And why should we believe that collection of stories more than any other collection of stories? You have to show the existence of God *first* and *then* show the Bible is a reliable guide to the thoughts of that God.3) This is easy. See there is this book called the Bible and it tells us that there is only one God.
Complexity does not require intelligence.4) again the Bible explains creation. A single cell is more complex then any and all thing made by man. Hence intelligent's
Since that is NOT the typical atheist position, there is no problem. The typical atheist merely points out that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a deity.By definition, atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?
Wrong yet again. Part of the difficulty in proving a non-existence is having a definition that is precise enough to allow testing. But the theists cannot seem to agree with what testable properties God actually has. And, without testable properties, the question of existence defaults to non-existence (just as it would with any other thing in the universe).The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience).
Garbage. To show the non-existence of God simply requires the properties be well enough established that they can be tested. Your turn: give a test that you would agree would show you wrong if, in fact, you are wrong.To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. The Christian should therefore emphasize that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof of God's existence."