Does God Exist

I would like to first talk about the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case. That case was focused largely around the use of creationism in schools, and they voted it down because of "separation of church and state" along with the violation of the Establishment Law. It was simply speaking on whether creationism is permitted to be taught in schools. Now I still believe there's a reason why there are 2 names, ID and creationism. I believe there are two names because they are two different things. ID is a theory that empirically tests nature and concludes that it is most reasonably explained when there is an intelligent designer behind it. Creationism most often starts with a biblical text and then tries to press science into that mold. This is intelligent design I'm talking about. Next, Paul Davies. I said he does not believe in a personal god, and he doesn't. He believes the universe is most reasonably explained by God, but he doesn't believe the god is personal. That was a very misleading statement. Let's move on to the questions you provided. (1) Does it focus on the natural world? - Yes: time, space, matter, energy. If you didn't notice, I only looked at our universe, I looked at the law of gravity (natural world), our atmosphere (natural world), our sun, our moon, magnetic fields, and galactic zones. These are all the "natural world." (2) Does it aim to explain the natural world? - Yes, it looks to find the most logical and most reasonable way to explain the natural world. And after looking at the evidence, I've found it is most logical to assume that it came about by a designer. (3) Does it use testable ideas? - Yes, we are testing the idea of ID. Just as other scientists test the idea of a big bang and other things you cannot exactly test in themselves. We create a theory to test because you cannot test the universe per say. (4) Does it rely on evidence? - Yes, ID uses the evidence from: the universe's characteristics and biological life found on Earth. It definitely uses evidence. (5) Does it involve the scientific community? - Yes, scientist who propose ID as a theory are scientist too. (6) Does it lead to ongoing research? - Yes, people can keep researching to try and disprove the theory. If the theory breaks under pressure, then the theory will be thrown out. But it hasn't. (7) Have researchers in this "science" behaved scientifically? - Yes, ID scientists research and dig deep just like everybody else. Next you talk about the few scientists that believe in ID. You cite no sources for you statistics, and in my research I have found that a lot more than that believe in at least a god. (http://www.annarbor.com..., http://www.pewforum.org...) Moving along to your favorite question. I just looked up ID scientists and found a few for you. Michael Behe,Scott Minnich and Wolf-Ekkehard Lanning. And when I listed my sources, I'd first like to point out that... I listed my sources. Second, The mere fact that they were written by people affiliated with a religion and given a religious sounding title does not exclude them from having any credibility. When I said I wouldn't use religious texts, I'm sorry for not making this clearer, I meant I would not use any text that proclaimed itself true based on a divine authority. (The Bible, the Qua-ran, the Torah, etc.) Next, quite simply, no. I cannot do the math. I don't know enough about physics and the universe to do so. But neither can you. Do you have any support for saying the moon will only shift an inch? I did not use sig figs. to show the size more clearly. Many people don't grasp the immensity of 10^38 or the meagerness of 10^-38. Please remind me on why you call this pseudo science and that the calculations, that neither of us can compute, are made up. I am also not quoting anyone that lived 3500 years ago, and you have no evidence for saying everything is not designed. You have falsely made accusations that you yourself cannot stand to. I most definitely gave you reason why there is need for a designer, and you said "You yourself stated that "everything is designed" (without offereing a single character as to how you arrived at this notion)." I didn't say that, even though I do believe it. Now your questions: 1. There is no need for me to prove my designer wasn't designed. The debate is about the existence of the designer, that's all. 2. The "alien" will have to be outside time, matter, space and energy in order to create all of it, and we call that "alien" God. 3. Science doesn't exclude the supernatural, it only wishes to explain the natural. Therefore, my God doesn't have to be of the natural world. If he was, it wouldn't make sense that he created the natural world. You have given me no reason to believe that all those specific needs of our real world could have been produced by chance. Please do that.