Proof of God

thanks for accepting. "Argument from Design" We recognize design by contrasting it with that which naturally occurs. A building requires a builder, A painting requires a painter, Creation requires a creator. I agree on all point. How did you determine it was a building? How did you determine it was a painting? How did you determine it was a creation? When you talk about the universe, Labeling it a creation in order to claim that there is a creator, Is a dishonest apologetic. It is a circular argument, Where you are injecting the very thing you are trying to proof, Right in the beginning. When you say "This had to have been designed", What you are saying is, It is not possible or not probable for this particular set of circumstances, To come about by natural means. How did you determine that? The "What are the odds" argument With respect to the universe. . . What are the odds? When we are talking about odds and probability we are talking about a ratio (or comparison) of favorable results to possible results. As far as I can tell, This is something you can't calculate. How do you know that this isn't the only possible universe? How do you know that the mechanisms by which universes come into being, Can produce anything other that the universe we are living in? You have to assume that there are other possibilities in order to calculate the odds other than 100%. We don't know enough about the universe and how it was formed to be able to make a determination about what other universes are possible. What other universes can be produced by the mechanism because we don't fully understand that mechanism. What about the multiverse? Maybe there are billions of universes where there are intelligent beings trying to calculate the odds that a universe like theirs would come into existence? But the mistake there is that they also think that their universe is the only favorable result when in reality there are billions of universes that are the favorable result that produce intelligent life that are capable of asking the question, What are the odds that a universe could exist. But for the sake of argument let's say you are able to calculate the odds. No matter what number you come up with, What you are saying is that the odds of a universe like ours coming to existence by natural means, Is so improbable that it is more probable that the universe came into existence by supernatural means. How did you calculate that. How did you determine the probability of supernatural means? If you are going to calculate the probability of something based on the possible outcomes and its relationship to the favorable outcomes, How many possible supernatural causes do we know of? None How could you say that the supernatural cause is more probable than a natural one? No matter how improbable it seems, It's still on firmer footing than a supernatural cause "Chance of simple protein" I understand that you can't accept the odds for a simple protein evolving to a more complex structure, Because then you are accepting the theory of evolution by natural selection and that is something you won't do. If your goal is to undermine a existing scientific model, You have a lot of work to do. But if you have a cometing model and you throw out everything that might lead you to the other conclusion, You are now engaged in a biased persuit of an explanation. You are asserting that evolution by natural selection did not happen or could not happen and you are trying to prove that. And by doing so you're ignoring some of the observations that lead to that conclusion. "Evolution" "The chance of evolution occurring is equivalent to the chance of a blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outerspace, Knocking down a satellite that then crashes down on a target on a van on a highway" Even in a billion years, That's never going to happen" That is just wrong. Evolution is little change over time, Which happens constantly, Therefore it is true. "Big Bang" "You believe in the big bang theory but the Big bang itself is a theory and according to the scientific method, A scientific law has so much more credibility then a theory. So, In this case, In order to believe in the big bang theory, You are forced to rely on the LEAST reliable data while ignoring the MOST reliable data. Not good scientific practice. " A law is an observation. A theory explains the theory. A law can not change, A theory can change. I think a theory has more value than a law. A law has no explanatory power 1. A law is an observation; a theory is the explanation of that observation. 2. A theory requires experimentation under various conditions. A law has no such requirements. 3. A theory may become obsolete with time. This is not the case with a law. 4. A theory can be replaced by another better theory, However, This never happens with a law. 5. A theory may be strong or weak according to the amount of evidence available. A law is a universally observable fact. "Cosmological argument" P1: everything that exists has a cause of existence Here i already disagree. Because we have no data of something coming into existence without a cause, Doesn't mean it can't happen. For instance a black swan. Just because we haven't seen one, Doesn't mean it doesn't exist