God Exists

1. Argument for a personal cause: Well the problem with saying that things randomly exist is that it devastates the reliability of information. For example your evidence for singularity is based on cosmic background radiation, I could point out that it could have simply popped into existence randomly a million years ago and has nothing to do with the big bang (the big bang is alleged 14 billion years, not a million)… You couldn’t prove that it didn’t pop into existence. I could probably push this further and point out that you couldn’t prove the universe existed beyond 5 minutes, everything randomly came into existence including memories. And if it’s true things randomly exist, why does it discriminate between existence and non-existence? Why not just simply have everything pop into existence in all space?A freewill agent can solve some of these problems by avoiding the randomness problem, and also why matter does have a bginning. So randomness is really detrimental to your case. As any proof of you proving anything would be impossible. 2. Argument for a designer I’m not really sure what to say right here, your worldview is so damaged that you can’t accept any evidence for design. If there was proof a creator, this is it So it's not like I never fulfilled the burden of proof. I really don't think it's a good idea to dismiss something on a guess that it is an illusion of the mind... that would be problemactic if I asked you to prove that what we see is real and not a dream, Then it would be impossible to prove the big bang or anything else as real or a dream or an illussion. This is why your refutation was bad because your dismissiong stuff on a guee that it's an illusion. 3. The Omnipotence Paradox Do I need to repeat myself here? Let me explain it this way. You cannot refute the existence of a being can do the impossible literally by stating whatever is impossible. If it can perform all action, this would include the performance of all actions that are impossible because they are actions too. You can even make a circle-square if you wanted to. 4. The Omniscience Paradox You’re assuming here that foreknowledge is not compatible with free will. For example if I gave you the option of getting a million dollars or a penny for free what would you choose? Obviously the million dollars. Now does this mean that I predetermined your decision even though I foreknew that most people would pick the million dollars? No. I just simply foreknew it by knowing the value of the money. Your not making any sense. Obviously an omniscient being can know that a contingency can happen. I myself know that a contingency can happen because I’m about to drink water cause I’m thirsty, and I’m pretty certain this event will happen. Yeah, just did. There is also no reason to assume that God is secretly manipulating you, as far as you know he might be up in heaven spelunking without a care in the world what you do. Bible wise, I just flat out disagree with your assumption that that a foreknowing being is required to predetermine everything a person does. That’s just a baseless assumption. 5. Miracles I thought it had something to do with secularism. If this is the case about rationalism, then I see no reason why to claim that Miracles are irrational, I submit it as a religious belief. If your saying that religious beliefs are unreasonable then this is clearly secularism. Anyway I don’t see any reason to argue on this further. I don’t need to provide proof that a miracle actually ever happened, clearly a miracle is possible though an omnipotent god or the creator of the universe and as the divine agent. The burden of proof is on god’s existence, the proof and existence of miracles is irrelevant. 7 The Grand Design Question I never stated God self-creates nor concluded that, as that would be just plain silly. I tried to explain to you it’s possible that God is like the abstracts (numbers in this case), that he exists out of necessity. To point out, the “personal cause” would be timeless as asserted in the argument for a personal cause, sense God is a personal cause, he would be timeless. He himself wouldn’t actually have a beginning nor would he need Response to notes Well the problem with that is that it is inventing God, not learning about God. I find this disgustingly immoral. If your going to modify God to suit your interest, it takes away the whole point in believing in God because God would be your creation.