If you don't know what then how do you know it WASN'T God?

We've been over this.

We have no reason to assume it was a god, much less -your- specific god. There are hundreds of thousands of different gods over time that have had the creation of the universe attributed to them.

How about you respond to some of our statements/questions, instead of simply avoiding everything?

Harking back to page 8:

"You're the one making the claim that it was God who started it all. Since you assert that, you need evidence."

"Proof for God please."

"What's your denomination?"

Okay if God didn't do it, WHAT Did.

[url=http://www.barbapapa.fr/image/b-a-r-b-a-p-a-p-a.gif]

The universe created God

so how do we build a god?
(i wanna sell gods i bet i can make a good profit on it.)

if the universe makes a god. then why can't wee see, feel, hear or smell god?

I don't have any.

but at the same time your 100% sure that god made a big bang.
if you can't even proof god yourself. why should we believe this unproven god did it?

But Since you don't have undeniable proof to prove God DOESN'T exist.

your the one making the claim tat he exists and so it's up to you to proof this.

You can't prove that he doesn't exist.

i think barbapapa exists. and you have no proof that barbapapa doesn't.
therefor barbapapa created the universe by a big bang.

The fact that something needs to be created to exist. And something needs to create it.

and why / how is god the only available option?

I never said I knew exactly how it happened.

you know precise enough to say whitout a doubt that "god did it"
and i want to know how you can be so sure about "god did it"

"You're the one making the claim that it was God who started it all. Since you assert that, you need evidence."

I have none. But That won't keep me from believing that's what happened.

"Proof for God please."

Above.

@blk, there was more to my post but it isn't showing up at the moment. So...until then, I'll pursue one of the ones you dodged earlier that haven't appeared.

Since you seem to be admitting here that your claim is unsubstantiated then it should be considered invalid.

Earlier you said "I understand common sense though. Something that doesn't have proof to back it up is invalid."

So yeah. What do you have to say about that?

if the universe makes a god. then why can't wee see, feel, hear or smell god?

Because he's Very, very, very, very, very, very, very far away.

your the one making the claim tat he exists and so it's up to you to proof this

I don't need to because you Can't prove he doesn't.

i think barbapapa exists. and you have no proof that barbapapa doesn't.
therefor barbapapa created the universe by a big bang.

Cool. God did too.

you know precise enough to say whitout a doubt that "god did it"
and i want to know how you can be so sure about "god did it"

Because I believe he did.

"I understand common sense though. Something that doesn't have proof to back it up is invalid."

So yeah. What do you have to say about that?

That only goes for scientific theories.

I don't need to because you Can't prove he doesn't.

Stop with the intellectual dishonesty.

You are the one making the claim God exists.
By your own admission the logic of "innocent until proven guilty" is valid.

Thus, you need to provide evidence for your claim in order for it to be valid.

FURTHER, these statements.

"I have none. But That won't keep me from believing that's what happened."
"I understand common sense though. Something that doesn't have proof to back it up is invalid."

Both were said by you. Again, by your own admission, your argument is invalid because you have no proof to back it up.

That only goes for scientific theories.

Blatant admission for double standards much...

On what grounds does that only go for scientific theories?

By your own admission the logic of "innocent until proven guilty" is valid

When I was using it to describe what I was talking about I said it means that things are True until proven False.

"I have none. But That won't keep me from believing that's what happened."
"I understand common sense though. Something that doesn't have proof to back it up is invalid."

Both were said by you. Again, by your own admission, your argument is invalid because you have no proof to back it up.

I can still believe what I think is true though. And I do.

Blatant admission for double standards much...

On what grounds does that only go for scientific theories?

Scientific Theories are based on proven facts. Beliefs are based on inferences and things you basically believe.