There is a God

1. When you claim "there is a lack of evidence for God" you're stating an absolute. Con appeals to population by saying "its not just my opinion"2. Electricity is presupposed in this case, because your light could not work without it Con isn't getting it. We can come up with how this light works without electricity. That doesn't mean electricity isn't there, but we can say it doesn't work all we want. It won't cause the lights to cease to work 3. The answer is in my response. We live in a fallen world of sin. "No, I'm not. I'm implying that it's illogical to try to infer design from things that show no evidence of being designed." So if I come across a building or a painting and all I have is one of those. How can I know they were designed? Sure we know other buildings are designed,but what about the one your at? What is the evidence that one was designed? There is no evidence that a random building in the middle of nowhere is designed other than the building itself.1) The entire argument is fallacious. It can be refuted like this:Some things that look designed do not have a designer.From 1, it is not the case that everything that looks designed has a designer.From 2, the second premise of the argument from inferred design fails. But those that look designed are not information, its patterns. Nature can produce patterns all they want,but it has never produced information. In fact such patterns fail the ID design filter and as such are not considered evidence of design.In other words, we can watch an airplane get built and observe its designer(s). Likewise, we can watch evolution by natural selection take place and observe that there is no designer. So if you didn't see an airplane get built you wouldn't know it had a designer? If you come across an airplane,building,painting whatever the only evidence you have is the object itself.3. This is basically a "who created God" argument. By definition He is not created. God exists outside of space,time,matter,energy and causality. So logically causality doesn't apply to himZero Energy UniverseAstro society was describing what this hypothesis is. Which helps my case. As I described before VP doesn't come from nothing at all.So what's the solution? To redefine the word "nothing" to mean "something". So to say something can come from nothing is actually to say something can come from something.Wrong again. Another quote from the same website easily disproves this: There are effects of negative energy have not been observed in gravity.[1][2]TAGCon say he don't need to account for the laws of logic,but this is borrowing from a theistic worldview to use logic. Con says the logical absolutes are the result of our material worldLogical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.If they were properties of the universe then they could be measured the same way heat, motion, mass, etc., are measured. Since they cannot be measured, they are not properties of the universe. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot bring itself into existence and that if A=B and B=C, then A=C. The condition of the universe does not effect these truths. For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world. Prove that logic is a reflection of God's nature. As I have said, the principle of logic do not change because there are certain things in our world that do not change. I still fail to see how God follows from thisThe opening argument did. Show a connection between God and Absolutes Thoughts reflect the mind A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind. A mind that is irrational, will produce irrational thoughts. A mind that is rational, will produce rational thoughts. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space, and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature. In my conclusion Con seemed to state the zero energy hypothesis like it was fact and defined "nothing" as "something"Sources1. http://web.archive.org...2. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net...