True, I did. However, in my mind I'd say I consider both options 1, 2 and 3 (although 3's kind of out of place when I think about it) more probable. I just can't accept that something lack a beginning. Everything begins somewhere.

What's the beginning of the number line?

i feel i should clarify the scientific position. its generally accepted by both sides of the arguement that our universe had a beginning, the 'steady-state' theory populized by fred hoyle has been widely disregarded. when they say existing forever they generally refer to a cyclical universe cycle not one universe existing forever.

Zero. All numbers below are meant only for scientific studies, explaining the reduction of something.
Actually all numbers are abstract creations we humans have devised to explain our surroundings, in short: they are not real.

2 is a real number. You're wrong.

It's a real number, however a number is per [my] definition isn't real. It's all a matter of perspective.

By the way, why 2?

Another good one for the original post:

1st Thess. 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

This is a very old argument, but generally doesn't get too far with people nowadays.

I'm not sure if it's the original, but John Locke wrote about it in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (pub. 1689). He dismissed Descartes' proof of God (We can imagine something perfect, therefore there must be an ultimately perfect being: God), which was rather Platonian, as inadequate. But he also considered the existence of God to be very sure:

"If, then, there must be something eternal, let us see what sort of being it must be. And to that it is very obvious to reason, that it must necessarily be a cogitave being [as opposed to "purely material"]. For it is as impossible to conceive that ever bare incogitative matter should produce a thinking intelligent being as that nothing should of itself produce matter." (p. 530)

The whole cause-and-effect focus must have been a big namer of the enlightenment, because nowadays with things like natural selection and what-naught. It's not "obvious to reason" that intelligence had to have an intelligent source.

SigmaX

1) He was answering in response to the Pharisees asking for a miraculous sign to prove that he was who he said he was. He responded "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth..." Matthew 12:39-40. Jesus is referring to his resurrection being the ultimate evidence for his messiahship. Nothing to do with the existence of God.

2) I have. Please be more specific.

3) This is speaking about the end days when many people will claim to be the christ. Nothing to do with the existence of God or Jesus.

4) Thomas was not doubting the existence of God. He was doubting the resurrection of Jesus, which by the way he does believe once Jesus appears to him. See the end of Luke 20.

5) I don't know what you are referring too. Sorry.

I'm sorry sir, but you are wrong. The bible is fairly clear that it does not take blind faith to believe in God.

That's rather useless "evidence", then, because his resurrection was only visible to a select few in that generation only.

That's why his followers wrote it down. But I don't want to get into the historical reliability of the new testament.

It's still hearsay. Why would a future reader choose that book instead of another one?

Have you considered the possibility that the Bible was actually written by Satan?

How else can we explain the strange fascination with cutting foreskins, mass killings, and animal sacrifice? The author of the book could *not* have been the creator of humans, since the author is unhappy with the way humans are designed (which is a puzzle dont you think)?

The biggest problem of proving God's existence is that there are more than one ideas of God.

i think God is what we make him/her up to be.
and Religion is definitely a way of unjustly enforcing the existence of God on people. Where science fails to explain somthing, God is used as a means to explain the same.

God will exist as long as we find an answer to all that is out there.
God is just an escape route into a false belief, nothing more, nothing less.

Jason, I think I understand where our differences lie. Would you please define the word 'spirtuality' for me! Not from the dictionary but, rather as from experience and how it affects your life.....

lol!
God is also cast as a mass murderer.
I like this argument.

Your argument is based on ignorance. The practices you speak of are things which were actually done; not just a fascination. (and some of them still done )

"It is simply this:
1)Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2)The universe began to exist.
3)Therefore the universe has a cause."

but what caused God ?

You don't think it's odd that the purported author gets off on watching an animal die? The whole religion is based on blood sacrifice, and culminates in a human sacrifice.

You're condensing your words for shock effect. Some quotations and context would be preferable -- and more honest.

SigmaX

indeed, and something that caused god would have to be by definition even more powerful and omnipotent than god, and the cycle begins again, and if that thing was more powerful than god, why would it not skip the middle man and create the universe itself?

as far as im concerned the bible is not really a proof for any gods existance any more than the 4 books of harry potter are proof that wizards exist.