War, what is it good for?

[CaptainFritz28]

This is a bizarre and false statement.

I believe you may be thinking of "capitalism".

Yeah, that too :)

I should have explained that better, my apologies. I jumped from a premise to the conclusion without providing all the premises in between.

My point is to say the following:
A belief in which God created the world, and created humans, such as Christianity, gives inherent value to humanity, as we are a creation of God, and made in His image. The Bible states this in Genesis 1:27.

A belief in which there is no God removes this basis for inherent human value, and instead shifts one's value to how well they can be of use to society. If only the fittest survive, and we have the instinct to survive, then our primary goal is to be the fittest for survival, even at the expense of others surviving. Take, for example, the Nazi party's killing of people with disabilities. This was because they did not place inherent value on the individual. The idea that the Aryan race is better than the Jewish race as well was based on evolutionary ideas that some are further evolved and thus more valuable than others. Communism also did the same, just on a larger scale. If a people group was deemed "less evolved" then they ought to be wiped out. Same with slavery. This was rooted in the idea that Africans have less value than white people, simply because they were "not as evolved" as white people.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that every Athiest is a racist, a communist, and a Nazi. Not at all, many are very nice people. However, Athiesm provides no safeguard against racism, communism, or Naziism. There is nothing inherently involved with Athiesm that says "this is wrong" like there is in Christianity. That is the point I'm trying to make.

If you transplant Athiesm into the Middle East, you get the same thing you have now. That's because there is no inherent moral structure telling Hamas not to be terrorists and telling Israel not to commit war crimes. Only with Christianity do you solve these problems.

Do you realise that, for example, people who follow the Jewish faith also believe that God created the world?

You appear to be equating Jews with Nazis.

Are you an anti-semite?

Where do I make the equation of Jews to Nazis? Clearly I did not communicate that correctly, or else I wrote something wrong, because that is not my intention. I would appreciate you pointing that out specifically so I can make the correction/clarification needed.

[CaptainFritz28]

So much nut-casery in those recent Fritz posts, I can't even.

I appreciate the Ad hominem, and I won't require you to "even," since you can't, apparently. :)

[CaptainFritz28]

And before anyone jumps on me, look at the argument he is using:

1. Only Christianity provides the correct "inherent moral structure".

2. Anyone who is not Christian does not have the correct moral structure.

3. Examples include Atheists, Nazis and Communists.

4. Another example is the Middle East where there are Muslims and Jews fighting because they lack the correct moral code.

Ergo he is suggesting the Jews have no moral code (or, the wrong one)....like the Nazis.

Wow.

Ah, here we are. I just had to look a little further to find the explanation.
Hmm... let's see...
Yes, only Christianity provides the correct moral code. Judaism shares a majority of it, but misses the part in which the salvific perfect sacrifice promised in Jewish writings are fulfilled.
Examples do include Athiests, Nazis, and Communists, yes.
Another example includes any war not started defensively, such as the war from Hamas' perspective. Israel is fighting a defensive war, and thus a just war, although a lot of their actions in that war are evil.

So, what's the comparison being made?
Nazis genocidally killed for the fun of it and began a world war based on the view of their own superiority to all races.
The Jews are guilty of a few war crimes.
Jamie has lied in this forum.
All are guilty of moral evils (I am too). Thus, there is a comparison. It's not a direct comparison, nor a proportionate comparison, nor much of a comparison at all other than one factor, but yes, it is a comparison.
Well done straw-manning my point into oblivion, I hope you're proud.

[CaptainFritz28]

So it's not actually about belief in God.

This is now about Fritz's wild assertion that only Christians believe in God in the correct way, and that Atheists, Jews, Nazis, Communists and Muslims are all in the "wrong" camp.

Yes... that should have been obvious. Dozens of worldviews believe in a god, and contradict the teachings of Christianity. I was responding to a post which promoted either the eradication of all humans from the contested territory or the transplanting of Atheists to the Middle East, so I made my points specific to Atheism. But yes, your observation does hold true.
To clarify, I am making the following claim:

Only Christianity provides the correct worldview to deal with the origin of the universe, purpose of humans, events after death, and question of the source of good and evil.

All others fail in at least one of the four areas. Atheism, and thus Communism and Naziism, as well as Islam, fail all four. Judaism fails only one - the trouble of morality. Whereas Christianity provides a solution to the inherent sinfulness of man, in the sacrifice of God's Son and His resurrection, Judaism does not.

I could go point by point on this, but since Jamie "can't even" with what I have already said, I'll spare him the details.

[Jamiet99uk]

Only Christianity provides the correct worldview to deal with the origin of the universe, purpose of humans, events after death, and question of the source of good and evil.

This is an unverifiable claim and I reject it.

[CaptainFritz28]

Only Christianity provides the correct worldview to deal with the origin of the universe, purpose of humans, events after death, and question of the source of good and evil.

This is an unverifiable claim and I reject it.

I have cited evidence, which includes the entirety of history, but you may reject it if you like.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Only Christianity provides the correct worldview to deal with the origin of the universe, purpose of humans, events after death, and question of the source of good and evil.

This is an unverifiable claim and I reject it.

I have cited evidence, which includes the entirety of history, but you may reject it if you like.

CF, surely you can do better than this. "the entirety of history" lol. You seem like a genuinely motivated Christian booster, so now might be the time to try to come up with some arguments that might at least plausibly be convincing to someone who was not raised in your exact faith tradition.

[Jamiet99uk]

Only Christianity provides the correct worldview to deal with the origin of the universe, purpose of humans, events after death, and question of the source of good and evil.

This is an unverifiable claim and I reject it.

I have cited evidence, which includes the entirety of history, but you may reject it if you like.

It is your view that "the entirety of history" *proves* that Christianity is the only moral worldview?

Damn, you've lived a sheltered little life.

[Jamiet99uk]

I would especially like to know how "the entirety of history" provides proof that the exact version of God inagined by Cap'n Fritz created the universe. Must be some pretty important, verifiably true, historical events, that I have not heard about.

[CaptainFritz28]

Alright, here it is:

A) I've already explained how Atheism fails here, but I'll go over it again.
1) From a philosophical standpoint, Atheism cannot explain the origin of the universe. The universe cannot have existed forever, based on the laws of physics observable today, and it must have had a beginning. The Big Bang isn't a viable theory, even most Atheists gave up on that and those who haven't have wildly different estimates of when it was. If there was a beginning, even if it was the Big Bang, the fact exists that something does not come from nothing. If the universe was contained in a few specs of molecules that happened to collide just right, that would mean those molecules would have to have existed forever, or else had an origin themselves. Again, due to physical science, they cannot have existed forever, nothing physical can. There had to have been an origin, and Atheism cannot explain that origin. The only explanation that makes sense is that in some form or fashion, a god of some type created life and the universe we have now. If Evolution is to be considered, it has never been observed, living or dead. It is empirically unproven, and shaky at best. The amount of blind faith that it takes to believe in Evolution is massive. Something else had to happen, and the simplest, clearest, and most logical explanation is that the god that started the origin of the universe did it. So now we are on to which God is the right one.
2) From a practical standpoint, Atheism is based on the lack of faith in a god. However, morality can only exist with a standard, meaning that Atheism relies on humans to make their own standards. That leads to either individuals determining their own truth, often conflicting with others (also known as anarchy) or society determining what truth is, which leads to the tyranny of the majority, and the chaos that unfolds from that. Here is where my citing the entirety of history comes in. Never has Atheism been put into place as a societal or governmental standard and succeeded. The West was based on Christian principles, not Atheist ones. Not once has a society built itself off of Atheism and improved itself. I'm talking about society itself - murder and crime rates, contentedness, etc. I cited numerous examples, including the USSR, French Revolution, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Argentina, and the modern decline of society. Once again, we are forced to choose something else, because Atheism fails both philosophically and practically.

B) Now that Atheism is off the table, we must determine which religion is correct. Only one can be, as none of them can coexist with others. They all contradict or exclude each other, so we must determine which one is correct.
1) Starting from a philosophical point of view once again, the only religion that a) does not contradict itself and b) explains the origin, purpose, destination, and morality of humanity adequately is Christianity. For example, Islam is filled with inconsistencies, and advocates for the killing of infidels (anyone who isn't a Muslim, especially Jews). This leads to practical failures which I'll go over in a moment. I've already gone over why Judaism fails, and that is because Jesus Christ can be easily proven to fulfill the prophecies of the Torah and the Jewish prophets. Hinduism cannot explain the origin of the universe, and again consists of many personal/family deities that often contradict each other. Buddhism suffers from similar problems, unable to explain humanity's purpose and destination. I could go through a list, but I will make a blanket statement and y'all can bring up individual religions to compete on a philosophical level: No other religion adequately addresses the four main points of worldview without contradiction, except for Christianity.
2) Now on to practical application. While other religions compare better than Atheism, as they at least provide an ultimate moral standard, those standards leave out important things that Christianity includes. For example, Islam leaves out rights for women, and the equality of humanity. Hinduism separates people into castes. Buddhism bases your value off of your ancestors. Again, I'll make a blanket statement: only Christianity provides us with equal rights and the social reforms of the modern day.

C) Now on to Christianity itself.
1) Philosophically, Christianity explains all four main questions - We originate from the six-day creation of the universe, and therefore are all created equally. Our purpose is to glorify our creator, and to love God and others no matter what. Our destination is either Hell, eternal separation from God and endless suffering if we choose to rebel against our creator and wallow in sin, or Heaven, if we choose to accept an entirely free gift of salvation, repent of our sin, and be forgiven of it. Our morality comes from our creation, where we were made perfectly, but soon after fell into sin due to the first created humans. This leads to all being born into evil, meaning that to repent is a conscious choice, not a default one. Our moral code is the Bible, and God's commands in it - all of which comes down to loving God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and loving your neighbor (that is, everyone) as yourself.
2) Practically, this has led to every positive social reform in the last 2,000 years, including the abolition of slavery in the West, which would not have been brought about were it not for Christian influence, subsequent civil rights advances, brought about by Christians, rights for women, existing due to the precept that all, both male and female, are created equally, which is intrinsically a Christian principle. In addition, the very concept of representative government was brought about by Christians citing the Bible. Hospitals were a Christian invention. Missionaries, sent to provide aid physically and spiritually, are a Christian invention. Huge advancements in science were brought about by Christian scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Pascal, and others.
I would contend that more good has been done around the world, both medically and socially, than all other worldviews combined. That is not a provable fact, but it is one that should be fairly obvious when observing the modern day. Almost all private foreign aid corporations and charities are Christian. Same thing with domestic charities and non profit organizations. A vast majority of hospitals still have a Christian affiliation. The only people in government not taking bribes and rigging elections are Christians, or those with a basis of Christian principles.
Even if you throw the ideas of the religion itself out the window, the fact remains that statistically, Christians are happier, more content, more generous, and more honest than any other group of people. Even in persecution, in places like Nigeria or the Middle East, Christians remain joyful.
If my religion is false, that doesn't change the fact that its precepts are responsible for the most good done out of any worldview. Is this all a coincidence? Perhaps. But if so, it is the greatest amount of chance to ever occur, other than the chances for Evolution. To deny that there is a correlation is absurd.
And sure, not all Christians are perfect. Many do evil things. But unlike Atheism, those evil things are condemned under an ultimate moral standard that doesn't change. Christians have the lowest murder rates, lowest crime rates, lowest rates of domestic abuse; I don't think I've ever seen an act of terrorism committed by a Christian, but perhaps y'all can find some obscure example for me. Regardless, the fact is that when one becomes a Christian, their life changes. They aren't going to cease all sin, no. But they are going to be a lot better than they were. And many people claim to be Christians who don't actually believe the Bible. If someone doesn't take the Bible as truth, they are not a Christian. These people taint the view of actual Christians, taking the name but not beliefs of Christianity.
All of that to say that when Christianity is implemented in a society, things change for the better. Not once in history has a nation based itself on Christianity and gotten worse. To be clear, I'm not talking about Catholicism. There are multiple heresies in that organization that disqualify it from Christianity. But even Catholicism, as close as it is to Christianity, has done much good.

There you have it. I've cited all of history, and have used it to prove my point.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Alright, here it is:

A) I've already explained how Atheism fails here, but I'll go over it again.
1) From a philosophical standpoint, Atheism cannot explain the origin of the universe. The universe cannot have existed forever, based on the laws of physics observable today, and it must have had a beginning. The Big Bang isn't a viable theory, even most Atheists gave up on that and those who haven't have wildly different estimates of when it was. If there was a beginning, even if it was the Big Bang, the fact exists that something does not come from nothing. If the universe was contained in a few specs of molecules that happened to collide just right, that would mean those molecules would have to have existed forever, or else had an origin themselves. Again, due to physical science, they cannot have existed forever, nothing physical can. There had to have been an origin, and Atheism cannot explain that origin. The only explanation that makes sense is that in some form or fashion, a god of some type created life and the universe we have now. If Evolution is to be considered, it has never been observed, living or dead. It is empirically unproven, and shaky at best. The amount of blind faith that it takes to believe in Evolution is massive. Something else had to happen, and the simplest, clearest, and most logical explanation is that the god that started the origin of the universe did it. So now we are on to which God is the right one.
2) From a practical standpoint, Atheism is based on the lack of faith in a god. However, morality can only exist with a standard, meaning that Atheism relies on humans to make their own standards. That leads to either individuals determining their own truth, often conflicting with others (also known as anarchy) or society determining what truth is, which leads to the tyranny of the majority, and the chaos that unfolds from that. Here is where my citing the entirety of history comes in. Never has Atheism been put into place as a societal or governmental standard and succeeded. The West was based on Christian principles, not Atheist ones. Not once has a society built itself off of Atheism and improved itself. I'm talking about society itself - murder and crime rates, contentedness, etc. I cited numerous examples, including the USSR, French Revolution, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Argentina, and the modern decline of society. Once again, we are forced to choose something else, because Atheism fails both philosophically and practically.

B) Now that Atheism is off the table, we must determine which religion is correct. Only one can be, as none of them can coexist with others. They all contradict or exclude each other, so we must determine which one is correct.
1) Starting from a philosophical point of view once again, the only religion that a) does not contradict itself and b) explains the origin, purpose, destination, and morality of humanity adequately is Christianity. For example, Islam is filled with inconsistencies, and advocates for the killing of infidels (anyone who isn't a Muslim, especially Jews). This leads to practical failures which I'll go over in a moment. I've already gone over why Judaism fails, and that is because Jesus Christ can be easily proven to fulfill the prophecies of the Torah and the Jewish prophets. Hinduism cannot explain the origin of the universe, and again consists of many personal/family deities that often contradict each other. Buddhism suffers from similar problems, unable to explain humanity's purpose and destination. I could go through a list, but I will make a blanket statement and y'all can bring up individual religions to compete on a philosophical level: No other religion adequately addresses the four main points of worldview without contradiction, except for Christianity.
2) Now on to practical application. While other religions compare better than Atheism, as they at least provide an ultimate moral standard, those standards leave out important things that Christianity includes. For example, Islam leaves out rights for women, and the equality of humanity. Hinduism separates people into castes. Buddhism bases your value off of your ancestors. Again, I'll make a blanket statement: only Christianity provides us with equal rights and the social reforms of the modern day.

C) Now on to Christianity itself.
1) Philosophically, Christianity explains all four main questions - We originate from the six-day creation of the universe, and therefore are all created equally. Our purpose is to glorify our creator, and to love God and others no matter what. Our destination is either Hell, eternal separation from God and endless suffering if we choose to rebel against our creator and wallow in sin, or Heaven, if we choose to accept an entirely free gift of salvation, repent of our sin, and be forgiven of it. Our morality comes from our creation, where we were made perfectly, but soon after fell into sin due to the first created humans. This leads to all being born into evil, meaning that to repent is a conscious choice, not a default one. Our moral code is the Bible, and God's commands in it - all of which comes down to loving God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and loving your neighbor (that is, everyone) as yourself.
2) Practically, this has led to every positive social reform in the last 2,000 years, including the abolition of slavery in the West, which would not have been brought about were it not for Christian influence, subsequent civil rights advances, brought about by Christians, rights for women, existing due to the precept that all, both male and female, are created equally, which is intrinsically a Christian principle. In addition, the very concept of representative government was brought about by Christians citing the Bible. Hospitals were a Christian invention. Missionaries, sent to provide aid physically and spiritually, are a Christian invention. Huge advancements in science were brought about by Christian scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Pascal, and others.
I would contend that more good has been done around the world, both medically and socially, than all other worldviews combined. That is not a provable fact, but it is one that should be fairly obvious when observing the modern day. Almost all private foreign aid corporations and charities are Christian. Same thing with domestic charities and non profit organizations. A vast majority of hospitals still have a Christian affiliation. The only people in government not taking bribes and rigging elections are Christians, or those with a basis of Christian principles.
Even if you throw the ideas of the religion itself out the window, the fact remains that statistically, Christians are happier, more content, more generous, and more honest than any other group of people. Even in persecution, in places like Nigeria or the Middle East, Christians remain joyful.
If my religion is false, that doesn't change the fact that its precepts are responsible for the most good done out of any worldview. Is this all a coincidence? Perhaps. But if so, it is the greatest amount of chance to ever occur, other than the chances for Evolution. To deny that there is a correlation is absurd.
And sure, not all Christians are perfect. Many do evil things. But unlike Atheism, those evil things are condemned under an ultimate moral standard that doesn't change. Christians have the lowest murder rates, lowest crime rates, lowest rates of domestic abuse; I don't think I've ever seen an act of terrorism committed by a Christian, but perhaps y'all can find some obscure example for me. Regardless, the fact is that when one becomes a Christian, their life changes. They aren't going to cease all sin, no. But they are going to be a lot better than they were. And many people claim to be Christians who don't actually believe the Bible. If someone doesn't take the Bible as truth, they are not a Christian. These people taint the view of actual Christians, taking the name but not beliefs of Christianity.
All of that to say that when Christianity is implemented in a society, things change for the better. Not once in history has a nation based itself on Christianity and gotten worse. To be clear, I'm not talking about Catholicism. There are multiple heresies in that organization that disqualify it from Christianity. But even Catholicism, as close as it is to Christianity, has done much good.

There you have it. I've cited all of history, and have used it to prove my point.

This is a very long argument to not say very much. Basically you're a Christian chauvinist who believes in the superiority of your beliefs over everyone else on faith and who rejects other ways of knowing, including scientific facts that most other Christians have already incorporated into their understanding of the world (e.g., evolution).

That God created the universe doesn't solve the deep problem of why is there something rather than nothing, it just shifts the problem one level higher - who created God? If God's existence can be assumed out of nothing, then so to could a universe of matter and energy.

Evolution can be observed in an afternoon using yeast or single celled organisms. Evolution can be observed within a few lifetimes for animals facing high selective pressures (e.g., butterflies adapting camouflage to a dirty environment following industrialization). Evolution can be observed over several recent generations (e.g., domesticated animals). Evolution can be observed over millennia, through the fossil record. It is nuts to reject this evidence.

Morality can have many standards, not all of which need to come from God. The Golden Rule can be derived without belief in any particular God, and indeed has been discovered by various faith and intellectual traditions independently. Moreover, a morality that requires God's guidance and/or punishment isn't necessarily moral at all, it's just an appeal to an authority. Nor is this style of morality practical, since there is no way to know God's will in any particular circumstance and all written- and church-derived morality is subject to multiple interpretations.

It's extremely revealing that you think that Christianity has no internal contradictions, but that every other belief system does. I know you're a young person now, and I guarantee that if you spend some time outside your usual social circles, go to a non-religious university, etc., you'll just naturally discard this obviously parochial view.

Those moral dictates that you view as necessarily coming from Christianity are not straightforward, nor are they agreed upon by those who call themselves Christian. What if values like "glorifying our creator" and "loving others no matter what" come into conflict? What if we disagree about the definition of "glory" and "love"?

Your argument about the good things Christians have done is frankly very stupid. Slavery abolitionists were Christians, but so were the slavers themselves. Christianity is obviously not sufficient to create a moral society - when many more people were Christians in the West, society was much more unfair to women, racial minorities, etc.

I want to highlight one of the many statements you're making that just has no evidence: "The only people in government not taking bribes and rigging elections are Christians." Obviously untrue, and it does not even take more than 5 minutes with google to find counter examples. It would be a waste to mention them all, but many of your other statements fall into this category: "I don't think I've ever seen an act of terrorism committed by a Christian"

The claim that anyone who doesn't follow your exact Christian beliefs isn't a real Christian is not a get-out-of-jail free card. If the argument boils down to "Christianity = only good things, so therefore it can't be involved in any bad things or it isn't truly Christian" you haven't made a substantive point, you're just redefining the word "good" to mean "Christian". By what basis are you able to judge what things are good and bad in the first place? What is your authority to redefine Christianity in terms of your personal moral intuitions / your particular view of what scripture demands?

[CaptainFritz28]

Alright, here it is:

A) I've already explained how Atheism fails here, but I'll go over it again.
1) From a philosophical standpoint, Atheism cannot explain the origin of the universe. The universe cannot have existed forever, based on the laws of physics observable today, and it must have had a beginning. The Big Bang isn't a viable theory, even most Atheists gave up on that and those who haven't have wildly different estimates of when it was. If there was a beginning, even if it was the Big Bang, the fact exists that something does not come from nothing. If the universe was contained in a few specs of molecules that happened to collide just right, that would mean those molecules would have to have existed forever, or else had an origin themselves. Again, due to physical science, they cannot have existed forever, nothing physical can. There had to have been an origin, and Atheism cannot explain that origin. The only explanation that makes sense is that in some form or fashion, a god of some type created life and the universe we have now. If Evolution is to be considered, it has never been observed, living or dead. It is empirically unproven, and shaky at best. The amount of blind faith that it takes to believe in Evolution is massive. Something else had to happen, and the simplest, clearest, and most logical explanation is that the god that started the origin of the universe did it. So now we are on to which God is the right one.
2) From a practical standpoint, Atheism is based on the lack of faith in a god. However, morality can only exist with a standard, meaning that Atheism relies on humans to make their own standards. That leads to either individuals determining their own truth, often conflicting with others (also known as anarchy) or society determining what truth is, which leads to the tyranny of the majority, and the chaos that unfolds from that. Here is where my citing the entirety of history comes in. Never has Atheism been put into place as a societal or governmental standard and succeeded. The West was based on Christian principles, not Atheist ones. Not once has a society built itself off of Atheism and improved itself. I'm talking about society itself - murder and crime rates, contentedness, etc. I cited numerous examples, including the USSR, French Revolution, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Argentina, and the modern decline of society. Once again, we are forced to choose something else, because Atheism fails both philosophically and practically.

B) Now that Atheism is off the table, we must determine which religion is correct. Only one can be, as none of them can coexist with others. They all contradict or exclude each other, so we must determine which one is correct.
1) Starting from a philosophical point of view once again, the only religion that a) does not contradict itself and b) explains the origin, purpose, destination, and morality of humanity adequately is Christianity. For example, Islam is filled with inconsistencies, and advocates for the killing of infidels (anyone who isn't a Muslim, especially Jews). This leads to practical failures which I'll go over in a moment. I've already gone over why Judaism fails, and that is because Jesus Christ can be easily proven to fulfill the prophecies of the Torah and the Jewish prophets. Hinduism cannot explain the origin of the universe, and again consists of many personal/family deities that often contradict each other. Buddhism suffers from similar problems, unable to explain humanity's purpose and destination. I could go through a list, but I will make a blanket statement and y'all can bring up individual religions to compete on a philosophical level: No other religion adequately addresses the four main points of worldview without contradiction, except for Christianity.
2) Now on to practical application. While other religions compare better than Atheism, as they at least provide an ultimate moral standard, those standards leave out important things that Christianity includes. For example, Islam leaves out rights for women, and the equality of humanity. Hinduism separates people into castes. Buddhism bases your value off of your ancestors. Again, I'll make a blanket statement: only Christianity provides us with equal rights and the social reforms of the modern day.

C) Now on to Christianity itself.
1) Philosophically, Christianity explains all four main questions - We originate from the six-day creation of the universe, and therefore are all created equally. Our purpose is to glorify our creator, and to love God and others no matter what. Our destination is either Hell, eternal separation from God and endless suffering if we choose to rebel against our creator and wallow in sin, or Heaven, if we choose to accept an entirely free gift of salvation, repent of our sin, and be forgiven of it. Our morality comes from our creation, where we were made perfectly, but soon after fell into sin due to the first created humans. This leads to all being born into evil, meaning that to repent is a conscious choice, not a default one. Our moral code is the Bible, and God's commands in it - all of which comes down to loving God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and loving your neighbor (that is, everyone) as yourself.
2) Practically, this has led to every positive social reform in the last 2,000 years, including the abolition of slavery in the West, which would not have been brought about were it not for Christian influence, subsequent civil rights advances, brought about by Christians, rights for women, existing due to the precept that all, both male and female, are created equally, which is intrinsically a Christian principle. In addition, the very concept of representative government was brought about by Christians citing the Bible. Hospitals were a Christian invention. Missionaries, sent to provide aid physically and spiritually, are a Christian invention. Huge advancements in science were brought about by Christian scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Pascal, and others.
I would contend that more good has been done around the world, both medically and socially, than all other worldviews combined. That is not a provable fact, but it is one that should be fairly obvious when observing the modern day. Almost all private foreign aid corporations and charities are Christian. Same thing with domestic charities and non profit organizations. A vast majority of hospitals still have a Christian affiliation. The only people in government not taking bribes and rigging elections are Christians, or those with a basis of Christian principles.
Even if you throw the ideas of the religion itself out the window, the fact remains that statistically, Christians are happier, more content, more generous, and more honest than any other group of people. Even in persecution, in places like Nigeria or the Middle East, Christians remain joyful.
If my religion is false, that doesn't change the fact that its precepts are responsible for the most good done out of any worldview. Is this all a coincidence? Perhaps. But if so, it is the greatest amount of chance to ever occur, other than the chances for Evolution. To deny that there is a correlation is absurd.
And sure, not all Christians are perfect. Many do evil things. But unlike Atheism, those evil things are condemned under an ultimate moral standard that doesn't change. Christians have the lowest murder rates, lowest crime rates, lowest rates of domestic abuse; I don't think I've ever seen an act of terrorism committed by a Christian, but perhaps y'all can find some obscure example for me. Regardless, the fact is that when one becomes a Christian, their life changes. They aren't going to cease all sin, no. But they are going to be a lot better than they were. And many people claim to be Christians who don't actually believe the Bible. If someone doesn't take the Bible as truth, they are not a Christian. These people taint the view of actual Christians, taking the name but not beliefs of Christianity.
All of that to say that when Christianity is implemented in a society, things change for the better. Not once in history has a nation based itself on Christianity and gotten worse. To be clear, I'm not talking about Catholicism. There are multiple heresies in that organization that disqualify it from Christianity. But even Catholicism, as close as it is to Christianity, has done much good.

There you have it. I've cited all of history, and have used it to prove my point.

This is a very long argument to not say very much. Basically you're a Christian chauvinist who believes in the superiority of your beliefs over everyone else on faith and who rejects other ways of knowing, including scientific facts that most other Christians have already incorporated into their understanding of the world (e.g., evolution).

That God created the universe doesn't solve the deep problem of why is there something rather than nothing, it just shifts the problem one level higher - who created God? If God's existence can be assumed out of nothing, then so to could a universe of matter and energy.

Evolution can be observed in an afternoon using yeast or single celled organisms. Evolution can be observed within a few lifetimes for animals facing high selective pressures (e.g., butterflies adapting camouflage to a dirty environment following industrialization). Evolution can be observed over several recent generations (e.g., domesticated animals). Evolution can be observed over millennia, through the fossil record. It is nuts to reject this evidence.

Morality can have many standards, not all of which need to come from God. The Golden Rule can be derived without belief in any particular God, and indeed has been discovered by various faith and intellectual traditions independently. Moreover, a morality that requires God's guidance and/or punishment isn't necessarily moral at all, it's just an appeal to an authority. Nor is this style of morality practical, since there is no way to know God's will in any particular circumstance and all written- and church-derived morality is subject to multiple interpretations.

It's extremely revealing that you think that Christianity has no internal contradictions, but that every other belief system does. I know you're a young person now, and I guarantee that if you spend some time outside your usual social circles, go to a non-religious university, etc., you'll just naturally discard this obviously parochial view.

Those moral dictates that you view as necessarily coming from Christianity are not straightforward, nor are they agreed upon by those who call themselves Christian. What if values like "glorifying our creator" and "loving others no matter what" come into conflict? What if we disagree about the definition of "glory" and "love"?

Your argument about the good things Christians have done is frankly very stupid. Slavery abolitionists were Christians, but so were the slavers themselves. Christianity is obviously not sufficient to create a moral society - when many more people were Christians in the West, society was much more unfair to women, racial minorities, etc.

I want to highlight one of the many statements you're making that just has no evidence: "The only people in government not taking bribes and rigging elections are Christians." Obviously untrue, and it does not even take more than 5 minutes with google to find counter examples. It would be a waste to mention them all, but many of your other statements fall into this category: "I don't think I've ever seen an act of terrorism committed by a Christian"

The claim that anyone who doesn't follow your exact Christian beliefs isn't a real Christian is not a get-out-of-jail free card. If the argument boils down to "Christianity = only good things, so therefore it can't be involved in any bad things or it isn't truly Christian" you haven't made a substantive point, you're just redefining the word "good" to mean "Christian". By what basis are you able to judge what things are good and bad in the first place? What is your authority to redefine Christianity in terms of your personal moral intuitions / your particular view of what scripture demands?

If you disregard everything I've said, then sure, I'm not saying much. You assume that evolution is scientific fact, and have not proven it. That means you have lost all credibility there. You assume that I am claiming that all Christians must follow what I say, while disregarding the Bible entirely, and thus have lost all credibility there. You have not proven any of your points vie logic or evidence, but have simply claimed that I am wrong.
You ask who created God. This demonstrates complete ignorance on the Christian beliefs of God, including His eternality.
You claim that morality can have many standards, demonstrating ignorance of the Christian belief of morality, and in fact the very definition of morality, being what defines good and evil. If everyone can have their own definition of good and evil, then good and evil mean nothing. That's Atheism for you.
You claim that Evolution can be observed in an afternoon. This demonstrates a wild extrapolation. Species have never been observed to change into other species. You cite evolution within species into a better version of themselves as evidence that life came from non-life. That is an utterly absurd conclusion. If by Evolution in the fossil record you mean those little charts given to us by Evolutionists with no real backing, then sure, Evolution exists. But again, never has one species been observed, either dead or alive, to be changing into another species. To claim that is ridiculous.

"Moreover, a morality that requires God's guidance and/or punishment isn't necessarily moral at all, it's just an appeal to an authority."
*sigh*
You don't understand morality at all.
Morality is an appeal to authority. That is ALL that morality is.

Ahh yes, the ol' "Once you spend some time in the REAL world, you'll see how wrong you are." No, I'm not claiming that Christians don't disagree with each other. Obviously. That would be stupid, and I'm appalled that you would think that I'm making that claim. You have a very narrow view of Christians, and it shows here. What I've said is that Christianity does not contradict itself. Christians contradict each other, but the Bible does not. Those are two vastly separate things.

I want to highlight one of the many statements you're making that just has no evidence: "The only people in government not taking bribes and rigging elections are Christians." Obviously untrue, and it does not even take more than 5 minutes with google to find counter examples. It would be a waste to mention them all, but many of your other statements fall into this category: "I don't think I've ever seen an act of terrorism committed by a Christian"

I'm not saying Christian politicians don't take bribes. I'm saying the ones that don't do so because of integrity, an inherently Christian principle. You've flipped my argument around backwards, which is easy to refute, but it isn't my actual argument.
Yes, many of my statements do fall into that category. You didn't refute that. Give an example of an act of terrorism committed by a Christian, or your words are worthless.

Those moral dictates that you view as necessarily coming from Christianity are not straightforward, nor are they agreed upon by those who call themselves Christian. What if values like "glorifying our creator" and "loving others no matter what" come into conflict? What if we disagree about the definition of "glory" and "love"?

I see that you have not read the Bible.
Loving others is the greatest commandment, and thus takes precedence. The definitions of glory and love are in the Bible. All you've done here is show your ignorance of the Bible and Christianity.

Your argument about the good things Christians have done is frankly very stupid. Slavery abolitionists were Christians, but so were the slavers themselves. Christianity is obviously not sufficient to create a moral society - when many more people were Christians in the West, society was much more unfair to women, racial minorities, etc.

None of the social reforms mentioned would have been brought about without Christianity. They existed before Christianity, not due to Christianity. Thus, while Christians participated in them, Christians did not begin them, but inherited them, and then ended them. And again, you disregard the fact that Biblically, those are evils. It doesn't matter what anyone, Christian or non Christian, does, the fact stands that the Bible condemns them and Atheism does not.

The claim that anyone who doesn't follow your exact Christian beliefs isn't a real Christian is not a get-out-of-jail free card. If the argument boils down to "Christianity = only good things, so therefore it can't be involved in any bad things or it isn't truly Christian" you haven't made a substantive point, you're just redefining the word "good" to mean "Christian". By what basis are you able to judge what things are good and bad in the first place? What is your authority to redefine Christianity in terms of your personal moral intuitions / your particular view of what scripture demands?

In a way, you are right. But you have also done what is now characteristic of you and straw-manned my point.

Here's the thing. The Bible states that slavery is immoral. It states that all, including women and the poor and the weak, are equally valuable. It states that murder is wrong. That theft is wrong. That dishonesty is wrong. It commands us to love others, to the point of sacrificing of ourselves, no matter who they are or what they've done.

I don't make the rules. The Bible does. If those are all good things, then yes, Christianity is good. Many Christians disobey the Bible's commands. So? I'm not arguing that the beliefs of every Christian are right. I'm arguing that the Bible is right.
If you have an issue with the Bible, then you have an issue with Christianity. If your issues are purely with what individual Christians have done, things that contradict the Bible, then your issue is not with Christianity, but with the sinfulness of humanity.

I wish to be perfectly clear:
Everything the Bible commands is good.
Everything contrary to it is bad.
That is, fundamentally, what Christianity is.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

No one has time to teach you evolution in 2023 lol. The examples I put forward are compelling and you don't have a single argument against them. This is one where I'll leave you to your own research. We absolutely have evidence for speciation.

Your claim that God is eternal still doesn't answer the question of why is there something rather than nothing. Why is there God rather than no God? If you can assume God's existence as a given, why couldn't someone else assume the existence of matter and energy as a given?

"Morality is an appeal to authority. That is ALL that morality is." What if the moral authority is wrong or their tenants are misinterpreted? Even if you think God is the only source of moral truth, which is a faith claim, how do you proceed in a world where that moral authority is hotly disputed even among Christians, where it is impossible to interpret objectively, where it is not directly applicable to specific moral choices you'll face in your life, etc. It seems like, in practice, real moral choices need to be made in a way that can't defer 100% to authority.

If you think that all Christians agree perfectly on the definition of things like Love and Glory then you've exposed your ignorance of theology lol.

The Bible has, at best, mixed messaging on slavery. Here are how anti-abolitionists justified their beliefs in scripture:

Genesis 9:25-27:
"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." (Genesis 9:25, NIV)
This verse was sometimes interpreted to justify the enslavement of African people, as they were believed to be descendants of Ham, and therefore, of Canaan.

Ephesians 6:5:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." (Ephesians 6:5, NIV)
This passage was used to argue that the Bible condoned the practice of slavery and encouraged enslaved individuals to submit to their masters.

Colossians 3:22:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." (Colossians 3:22, NIV)
Similar to Ephesians 6:5, this verse was cited to justify the obedience of slaves to their masters.

Philemon 1:10-16:
The entire book of Philemon deals with the issue of a runaway slave, Onesimus, returning to his master, Philemon, with the Apostle Paul's letter advocating for reconciliation. Some pro-slavery advocates interpreted this as a tacit endorsement of the institution of slavery, as Paul didn't explicitly condemn it.

[CaptainFritz28]

No one has time to teach you evolution in 2023 lol. The examples I put forward are compelling and you don't have a single argument against them. This is one where I'll leave you to your own research. We absolutely have evidence for speciation.

Yeah, no, this doesn't cut it. You either provide logic or evidence, and you chose to just not do either. The least you could do is give me a source to read. Evolutionary scientists often contradict each other; how am I to know what to believe?
If you can't even cite a source or use a syllogism, your word here is worthless.

My claim is not that species evolve. That is easily proven fact, which you have given evidence for. But that is not the basis for the evolution of cells to life as we know it now. My claim is that species don't evolve into other species, and you have not provided any evidence for that. Until you do, you are uncredible on this point.

Your claim that God is eternal still doesn't answer the question of why is there something rather than nothing. Why is there God rather than no God? If you can assume God's existence as a given, why couldn't someone else assume the existence of matter and energy as a given?

True. It is a circular argument. Why is God eternal? Because He is God. What defines God? Eternality, etc.
Then again, every worldview is circular when it comes to this. Atheism, for example: why do we base things on empirical evidence? Because that is what science is based on. Why do we believe science? Because it is able to be observed. What does that mean? Science is empirical. You see? It's all circular.
The question, then, is: What circular argument makes most sense? Well, Atheism relies on evidence that we don't have and chances in the trillions, and Christianity relies on the existence of a God who has shown Himself throughout history.

What if the moral authority is wrong or their tenants are misinterpreted? Even if you think God is the only source of moral truth, which is a faith claim, how do you proceed in a world where that moral authority is hotly disputed even among Christians, where it is impossible to interpret objectively, where it is not directly applicable to specific moral choices you'll face in your life, etc. It seems like, in practice, real moral choices need to be made in a way that can't defer 100% to authority.

Well, that is the whole reason we are having this debate, no? To determine which standard of morality is correct - either the Bible or the individual.

I claimed that the Bible is the source of morality, and I listed my reasoning why.
It is possible to determine objectivity - what is objective truth? It is what is in line with the Bible.
The Bible gives instruction for moral choices of the modern day. Give an example, we'll discuss it.

If you think that all Christians agree perfectly on the definition of things like Love and Glory then you've exposed your ignorance of theology lol.

I'm beginning to wonder how much you actually read my responses. I've stated numerous times that Christians often don't agree on things. I don't care. What I care about is what the Bible says, that's all. Christians don't agree, but that doesn't change what the Bible says.

The Bible has, at best, mixed messaging on slavery. Here are how anti-abolitionists justified their beliefs in scripture:

For the first verse, that was in the context of a specific offense done by a specific person.
For the second, third, and fourth, read this:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

What matters most here is the question of what exactly is wrong with slavery. Is it the inherent nature of being a slave, or the idea that some are less valuable than others, and treatment based on that? Before I answer, I would like to hear your answer to it.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

My claim is not that species evolve. That is easily proven fact, which you have given evidence for. But that is not the basis for the evolution of cells to life as we know it now. My claim is that species don't evolve into other species, and you have not provided any evidence for that. Until you do, you are uncredible on this point.

I suppose I'm confused by what part of evolution by natural selection you don't believe in? I'm going to drop the religious talk for now because I'm more concerned that you don't believe in evolution.

Organisms reproduce, but not with perfect copies - their offspring have some random mutations (and, in the case of sexual rather than asexual reproduction, also some random variety owing to how two distinct parents create a unique genetic mix).

Many of these mutations prove to be disadvantageous, but some will confer a benefit to the individual's reproductive fitness for its environment. Those individuals with advantageous mutations will have more offspring. Some of their offspring will inherit this advantageous mutation. And over generations, the share of individuals in the population with this advantageous trait will increase.

When two or more groups of animals from a single species get reproductively isolated from one another, they begin to speciate. Imagine a population of sea gulls that get separated by a storm to two different islands that are not within flying distance of one another. Although they're all the same species, the genetic composition of group A does not exactly equal the genetic composition of group B. In addition, the genetic similarity of the two groups will drift slowly over generations due to random mutations in each generation. If an individual bird in group A is born with an advantageous mutation, the presence of those genes and that advantage will become common throughout group A, but it will not even exist in group B's gene pool.

Moreover, even if the two islands are similar, they will not be identical. Imagine that Island A is richer in edible bugs, while Island B is richer in edible fish. Over generations, mutations that are advantageous to those specific environments will be preferenced in the gene pool (e.g., a mutation that improves the birds ability to digest fish would propagate more on island B than island A). This process is happening for every single trait controlled by genetics, all at once, and works to gradually adapt a population of organisms to their environment.

Eventually, assuming they stay reproductively isolated, the birds of Islands A and B will no longer be reproductively compatible with one another, either because they no longer recognize one another as potential sexual partners (different shaped beaks, different coloration, etc.) or because their genetics have drifted so much that they can't produce reproductively-viable offspring.

There is evidence of evolution by natural selection and adaptive speciation everywhere.

One of the most famous examples is the case of the peppered moth in England. During the Industrial Revolution, the bark of trees in the region became dark due to pollution. This led to a shift in the moth population from primarily light-colored moths to predominantly dark-colored moths, as the dark moths were better camouflaged against predators on the soot-covered trees. This change was reversed when pollution levels dropped and the trees returned to their lighter color.

More recently, scientists isolated a group of Italian wall lizards on an island in 1971. When they came back in 36 years the new population differed significantly in their head shape, bite strength, etc.

There are mosquitos in the London Underground that differ genetically from the above-ground population and are considered a separate species by some scientists.

And of course, these are only those examples viewable over the course of a lifetime.

Extreme selective pressure from humans provoked rapid evolution and even speciation among domesticated plants and animals. This isn't always just artificial selection - e.g., humans coexisted with cats for a long time before we controlled their breeding. In that time, populations of cats that lived near/with humans became very different from their wilder ancestors to the point where they would not try to reproduce with one another even if they could produce viable offspring.

The fossil record has lots of indirect evidence for natural selection. The environment isn't perfectly preserved, but some individuals are. So we can't know why some early fish-like creatures first hopped on land (better food availability? a worsening problem with water-based predators? a new mutation that unlocked a previously un-reachable food source? a founder population being stranded in a shallow pond?), but we do have plenty of preserved individual organisms over time that present compelling evidence for how generations of those organisms adapted to life on land.

[CaptainFritz28]

Yes. I agree with almost all of what you said here. Natural selection is observable in nature. Case in point, the famous Galapogos Finches. Differences in habitat cause differences within the species.

What I mean is that this is not evidence for all known life having come from a single-celled organism, nor of that living organism evolving from a non-living gene pool slime. Just because species become better versions of themselves doesn't mean that they can turn into other species. No matter how many times you breed a pair of dogs and then their offspring, you won't end up with a cat, or a bird, or a dinosaur, or a human, regardless of their circumstances and environment. You'll just get a different dog.

[Jamiet99uk]

Alright, here it is:

A) I've already explained how Atheism fails here, but I'll go over it again.

1) From a philosophical standpoint, Atheism cannot explain the origin of the universe. The universe cannot have existed forever, based on the laws of physics observable today, and it must have had a beginning. The Big Bang isn't a viable theory, even most Atheists gave up on that and those who haven't have wildly different estimates of when it was. If there was a beginning, even if it was the Big Bang, the fact exists that something does not come from nothing. If the universe was contained in a few specs of molecules that happened to collide just right, that would mean those molecules would have to have existed forever, or else had an origin themselves. Again, due to physical science, they cannot have existed forever, nothing physical can. There had to have been an origin, and Atheism cannot explain that origin. The only explanation that makes sense is that in some form or fashion, a god of some type created life and the universe we have now. If Evolution is to be considered, it has never been observed, living or dead. It is empirically unproven, and shaky at best. The amount of blind faith that it takes to believe in Evolution is massive. Something else had to happen, and the simplest, clearest, and most logical explanation is that the god that started the origin of the universe did it. So now we are on to which God is the right one.

Wow. You're advancing a version of the cosmological argument here. It's a bad argument and I'd be happy to argue it with you but goodness me you're framing it badly...

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

No matter how many times you breed a pair of dogs and then their offspring, you won't end up with a cat, or a bird, or a dinosaur, or a human, regardless of their circumstances and environment. You'll just get a different dog.

That's the part that's factually untrue. If you could separate dog species on two different islands for 10,000+ generations you will get two new species that are different from one another and will not be able to interbreed. Give it a couple million generations and you will have a branching tree with many different species, some of which differ by a lot.

Every species today evolved from some other species, and this evolution branched from common ancestors in ways that are measurable with genetic and paleontological evidence.

I'm curious what your alternative is for the emergence of new species. How did we go from no birds to birds? If a common early bird ancestor evolved into both finches and ostriches, when is a "bird" no longer a "bird"? Why do we have fossil records that show huge morphological changes happening incrementally over time?

[CaptainFritz28]

Alright, here it is:

A) I've already explained how Atheism fails here, but I'll go over it again.

1) From a philosophical standpoint, Atheism cannot explain the origin of the universe. The universe cannot have existed forever, based on the laws of physics observable today, and it must have had a beginning. The Big Bang isn't a viable theory, even most Atheists gave up on that and those who haven't have wildly different estimates of when it was. If there was a beginning, even if it was the Big Bang, the fact exists that something does not come from nothing. If the universe was contained in a few specs of molecules that happened to collide just right, that would mean those molecules would have to have existed forever, or else had an origin themselves. Again, due to physical science, they cannot have existed forever, nothing physical can. There had to have been an origin, and Atheism cannot explain that origin. The only explanation that makes sense is that in some form or fashion, a god of some type created life and the universe we have now. If Evolution is to be considered, it has never been observed, living or dead. It is empirically unproven, and shaky at best. The amount of blind faith that it takes to believe in Evolution is massive. Something else had to happen, and the simplest, clearest, and most logical explanation is that the god that started the origin of the universe did it. So now we are on to which God is the right one.

Wow. You're advancing a version of the cosmological argument here. It's a bad argument and I'd be happy to argue it with you but goodness me you're framing it badly...

I probably am doing a poor job of framing it, so let me simplify it to the basics of what I'm saying.

The universe exists, and we can observe that it is expanding. We also have the scientific law that everything tends towards chaos. Thus, some time in the past, there had to have been an origin, in which things were ordered better than they are now.
That origin may be a big bang, it may be a creation, it may be whatever you like it to be, but whatever it is it had to start with something existing. However, that doesn't explain how that initial existing thing existed in the first place. It too must have an origin. Atheism cannot explain that origin, as whatever originated that had to exist, and whatever originated that existing thing had to exist, and so on and so forth. Thus, there must be an initial originator, something that could cause into existence a chain of events, or just one event, that would cause the universe to be what it is now. That initial originator has to be intelligent, as whatever existed first must have been more ordered than what we have now, and order does not come from chaos. That initial originator must also have to be eternal.
So we have an eternal intelligent being that has the power to set into motion the creation of the universe. Christians call that God.

[Jamiet99uk]

Alright, here it is:

A) I've already explained how Atheism fails here, but I'll go over it again.

1) From a philosophical standpoint, Atheism cannot explain the origin of the universe. The universe cannot have existed forever, based on the laws of physics observable today, and it must have had a beginning. The Big Bang isn't a viable theory, even most Atheists gave up on that and those who haven't have wildly different estimates of when it was. If there was a beginning, even if it was the Big Bang, the fact exists that something does not come from nothing. If the universe was contained in a few specs of molecules that happened to collide just right, that would mean those molecules would have to have existed forever, or else had an origin themselves. Again, due to physical science, they cannot have existed forever, nothing physical can. There had to have been an origin, and Atheism cannot explain that origin. The only explanation that makes sense is that in some form or fashion, a god of some type created life and the universe we have now. If Evolution is to be considered, it has never been observed, living or dead. It is empirically unproven, and shaky at best. The amount of blind faith that it takes to believe in Evolution is massive. Something else had to happen, and the simplest, clearest, and most logical explanation is that the god that started the origin of the universe did it. So now we are on to which God is the right one.

Wow. You're advancing a version of the cosmological argument here. It's a bad argument and I'd be happy to argue it with you but goodness me you're framing it badly...

I probably am doing a poor job of framing it, so let me simplify it to the basics of what I'm saying.

The universe exists, and we can observe that it is expanding. We also have the scientific law that everything tends towards chaos. Thus, some time in the past, there had to have been an origin, in which things were ordered better than they are now.
That origin may be a big bang, it may be a creation, it may be whatever you like it to be, but whatever it is it had to start with something existing. However, that doesn't explain how that initial existing thing existed in the first place. It too must have an origin. Atheism cannot explain that origin, as whatever originated that had to exist, and whatever originated that existing thing had to exist, and so on and so forth. Thus, there must be an initial originator, something that could cause into existence a chain of events, or just one event, that would cause the universe to be what it is now. That initial originator has to be intelligent, as whatever existed first must have been more ordered than what we have now, and order does not come from chaos. That initial originator must also have to be eternal.
So we have an eternal intelligent being that has the power to set into motion the creation of the universe. Christians call that God.

If all things must have an origin, then God must have an origin.

How did God originate?