The existence of God

Opening questionYou stated "There are no compelling proofs or arguments for the existence of God" but it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God. This does not mean there is no God (only applies if you identify yourself as a strong atheist, or one who asserts there is no god)what kind of evidence would be acceptable? If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state there is no evidence for God. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?Defense of Cosmological ArgumentTimeWhen you are talking about time not being linear are you talking about the eternally oscillating universe model because that what it sounds like. Time as we know it is more than sequential events, it is a physical dimension. It is this physical dimension that began with the Universe. Eternity would still have sequential events, but it is simply not time as we know it. In this sense there can be a cause before the time of our universe. Furthermore, our notions of causation are restricted to what we know about the material world. Non-material causes are not necessarily restricted to the same rules as material causes. Big bang cosmologists (atheists or not) have come to a consensus view that something made the original "singularity" go bang, but they don't—and probably never will—have a clue as to what it was. So they'll ignore it.Who created god? You're now assuming that time exists in every possible worldYou cannot have an infinite regression of causes lest an infinity be crossed (which cannot happen). Therefore, there must be a single uncaused, cause. The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him. Why don't we reduce the problem and not jump to any God conclusions. So are you saying we should assume that god didn't create the universe because you cannot think of where he came from? Its already been proven that the universe isn't eternal. There's a difference between having a cause and not.God of the gaps argument I didn't say God exists because "we don't know" but because its either an eternal universe or creator and the eternal universe has been falsified. Then giving what we can expect the attributes of the creator.There are some flaws in the god of the gaps argument. Double standard: While atheists accuse theists of making a "god of the gaps" argument, atheists are making a "science of the gaps" argument. Just as the theists says, "I don't know how it actually happened, but I know God did it," The atheist says, "I don't know how it actually happened, but I know God didn't do it." The only important fact is that there are gaps. Excluding action by God from the definition of science: The argument begs the question that it is unscientific to credit God with acting in the universe. But certainly if God were to act in the universe, then science would have to acknowledge and even study those acts. The argument that it is unscientific to admit acts of God into science is premised on the philosophical assumption that God either does not exist or does not act in the universe. Expected gaps: The last issue is one of predictions and consistency. Theist makes a limited number of claims about what God did. It claims that he created life,the universe ect... The longer atheists fail to fill these "gaps," the more reasonable it is to believe that those gaps in an atheistic worldview are permanent, because natural creation from nothing did not occur. Virtual particlesA vacuum isn't really "nothingness"According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2]Virtual particles are produced from spacetime. But spacetime is not “nothing”; it is something. And it seems to have the ability to produce and absorb short-lived particles called “virtual particles.”If space were really nothing, we would not be able to measure it. When I measure the volume of an “empty” room, I’m really measuring the amount of space within it. Space has three dimensions—width, length, and height. When an object moves, it moves through these three dimensions of space. Defense of TAGYou seemed to have claimed that logical absolutes are the result of the semantics of the language. And how we describe them. Semantics deals with the study of the meaning of words, their development, changes in meaning, and the interpretation of words, etc. But semantics and descriptions by nature deals with the changing meaning of words and the often subjective nature of language and its structures. To say the absolutes of logic are a result of the use of the subjective meanings of words is problematic. How do you derive logical absolutes from the non-absolute semantic structures of non-absolute languages and descriptions? Furthermore, simply asserting that logic is a result of the descriptions does not explain the transcendent nature of logic. Remember, the TAG argument asserts that Logical Absolutes are independent of human existence -- reasons given at the beginning. Since language, in this context, is a result of human existence, the argument would suggest that logic came into existence when language came into existence. But this would invalidate the nature of logical absolutes and their transcendent characteristics. Therefore, this objection is invalid.If logic is the result of language, and since language rules change, then can we conclude that the laws of logic would also change? If so, then the laws of logic are not laws, they are not absolute.This does not account for logic, but presupposes existence of logic. This is begging the question.Sources Astrid Lambrecht (Hartmut Figger, Dieter Meschede, Claus Zimmermann Eds.) (2002). Observing mechanical dissipation in the quantum vacuum: an experimental challenge; inLaser physics at the limits. Berlin/New York: Springer. p. 197. Christopher Ray (1991). Time, space and philosophy. London/New York: Routledge. Chapter 10, p. 205.