"This video contains content from MPI Media, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds"
First of all, you seem to be regurgitating old Aristotelian premises. Here's an informative response to your third, that "nothing cannot create something":
i would challenge any athiest to prove that god does not exist.
The burden of proof is upon the person who makes the claim. Being an atheist simply means that I haven't met anybody who has met that burden, and to be honest, nobody has come within artillery range of meeting it.
To Be clear, these proofs do not prove the existence of the Christian God nor do they necessarily even prove the existence of a deity
So, by your own admission, they are useless toward meeting the above stated burden of proof for the claim of a god's existence. So, what is your point of stating them?
but attempt to answer the question of the origin of the universe beyond what science can prove.
They answer nothing. They are corruptions of logical thought that anybody who passed an Intro to Logic class would be embarrassed by. The reoccurring themes in theist apologetics are intellectual dishonesty and scientific ignorance, and both of those themes are represented nicely in your post.
You're in an atheist forum. We're here because we don't believe in God. We're not making a claim unless it's "I don't believe God exists." Our evidence is the lack of evidence for God.
Your position is that God exists, which is your claim. Prove it.
"If you are skeptical of this, i would challenge any athiest to prove that god does not exist."
I'd be happy to accept your challenge. But I can't disprove your evidence because you haven't provided any. Please provide some, and then we'll continue. If you genuinely don't understand why this is necessary, or why the burden of proof is yours, then consider this example:
Crackpot: I've discovered cold fusion and a cure for cancer!
Scientist: That's amazing! Let me see them! How do they work?
Crackpot: No! Nobody gets to see them. I can't tell you how they work. You just have to believe it.
Scientist: Gosh. Well, I'm sorry but unless you have something to show me, I can't take your claims seriously.
Crackpot: What?! How DARE you! I've never been so insulted!
Scientist: I meant no insult. I only asked you to provide some proof.
Crackpot: Oh yeah? Well, if proof is so important Mr. Smartypants, then YOU prove to ME that I have NOT invented cold fusion and a cancer cure!
Scientist: Here, have a lollipop. SpongeBob is on in ten minutes.
Moving right along...
Atheism, by name, is the belief that God does not exist.
Atheism is not belief. Atheism is the absence of belief. The distinction is important, unless you're actually claiming the lack of something is actually the presence of it. If lack of belief is belief, then baldness is hair, health is a disease, and we all pee until our bladders are full.
Athiests have faith in the non existence of God and the scientific theories that rely on the non existence of God.
What scientific subject requires faith? Geology? Chemistry? Mathematics? Medicine? Please provide an example.
Logically something must come from something, nothing cannot create something. Back to the creation of the universe, everything in existence must have come from something, no thing spontaneously appears of no cause or creator.
So what created God? If he exists, then according to you, he requires a creator. Does God have a God have a God have a God have a God? If you're prepared to believe without any reason that God is eternal, then why not consider a perfectly reasonable cosmological theory that the universe and reality itself is eternal?
If there was no existence of a God, where would every concept of human perfection originate.
If you're referring to morality, that's a function of human social behavior. The concept of 'help not harm others' serves a mutual self-interest in a social group: the members are more cooperative and less likely to harm you in return. That increased the survivability of the early primates who first engaged in these behaviors. Selection pressure and a few million years did the rest. It was a natural process, not a supernatural one.
To Be clear, these proofs do not prove the existence of the Christian God nor do they necessarily even prove the existence of a deity, but attempt to answer the question of the origin of the universe beyond what science can prove.
We could say the United States Marine Corps is a pizza but that doesn't make it one. These 'proofs' don't prove a thing, so they're not proofs. God is no answer to these questions. He's a feeble excuse for not having any.
Gallup, I don't know what I could possibly add to that, I think you've said it all --
Pull up a concubine and have a seat.
Some of my best friends are concubines --
I'm not collecting disciples, who did you think I was?
"Shut the damn door, Jesus! You born in a barn?!"
- you go, Boy!
Very perceptive of you, very analytical - but he did seem to understand Tagalog, didn't he? You know, he could just be trying to make friends --
So -- should I take back all the things I said about how smart you are?
i can understand four languages, "spanish, japanese, english, tagalog"