They both lose to any rational skeptic because both religions (like all religions) have no compelling, falsifiable evidence for their claims of the supernatural or god.
If nothing is eternal then all is temporal. If all is temporal then all had a beginning. If all had a beginning then something came from nothing. Since something can't come from nothing the opposite must be true: at least something is eternal. We call it "God" but "God" as a word holds as much meaning as "dark matter", it's a placeholder variable, nothing more.
They both lose to any rational skeptic because both religions (like all religions) have no compelling, falsifiable evidence for their claims of the supernatural or god.
How about a proof of existence by contradiction?
If nothing is eternal then all is temporal. If all is temporal then all had a beginning. If all had a beginning then something came from nothing. Since something can't come from nothing the opposite must be true: at least something is eternal. We call it "God" but "God" as a word holds as much meaning as "dark matter", it's a placeholder variable, nothing more.
Another example of how easy is to write a comment when you have no brain, no evidence, no logic.
Do you know what really lacks evidence? Your comment.
Sorry you never studied religion but you can easily spew your illogical nonsense online.
No one gives a fuck what you think man. Blind faith is the dumbest MO of them all. Thats you.
It's not blind, you are. I will just leave you to your anger issues then. Hope that's all from you.