"Prove me wrong or get off the pot"
Your "challenge" is accepted.
"1) Something can't come from that which does not exist, so the universe requires a cause. "
First, there is no theory that says the universe came from nothing. Second, you defeat your own assertion that God exists. God cannot be "nothing" if God exists, and therefore must be "something" - and by your own assertion, something can't come from nothing, so God requires a cause. Oops... you wanna try again?
"2) The universe can't always have existed because a) heat death would be far greater than it is"
Incorrect. This assumes a steady-state model of the universe, which has long been shown to be an incorrect and useless model of the universe.
"b) mankind would have approximated into that alleged past eternity and not still be sinning to the extent it still does along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on."
I have no idea what you meant by this. If you meant anything at all. But "sin" is a useless concept anyway outside of a specific religion's definition of it - sin is not an absolute "thing" that exists empirically.
"What other option is there than the uncaused (uncreated) created?"
Well, as I just said above, "something" cannot be uncaused by your own first assertion. You cannot assert that the "universe" is a something that must have a cause, and then assert that "God" is a something that does not require a cause. This is called special pleading and it fundamentally undermines any argument that uses it. If any one something can be uncaused, then any other something can also be uncaused. Hence, if God does not need a cause, neither does the universe.
"You would have to be God (having omniscience) to know if God exists when you hold out having to know all things to be sure. "
Well we don't hold out having to know all things to be sure. You're putting on atheists a burden that they don't assert in the first place.
"Obviously Christianity is the most personal because God reveals Himself in Christ."
This is a mere claim. There is no evidence that supports this claim. Bible? No, that is merely a book. There are many other books - the Quran, the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, etc. Many religious books. You would not accept any of these books as proof of the claims in those books. Why is the Bible treated differently? If you insist the Bible must be treated differently, that again is special pleading, and you undermine your argument at its roots.
"And only Christianity is proven by the resurrection proof and multiple resurrection appearances in various group settings. "
These are also mere claims. Eye-witness accounts would not hold up in a court of law in any western country. Why should so-called eye witness accounts from the Bible be taken on their face? Especially when they are not eye-witness accounts, but merely reports of other people's "eye witness" accounts.
You might also do well to answer, without contradicting any of the four Gospels:
- When Jesus rose
- Who went to the tomb
- And when
- and who was there
- and whether the stone was already rolled away
- and whether the women went into the tomb or not
- and who the women told afterward.
Good luck.
