God vs athiesm

We can't PHYSICALLY observe numbers, words and God. If you can't physically observe something then, why can it not exist. Almost all theories include a beginning and God can still fit in that description. How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence. God exists in multiple dimensions of time The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created. Why can't the universe be eternal? The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" that attempts to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.2 Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe Energy has existed forever and we have witnessed it. Genesis 6:11 - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. Con fails to see the true meaning of "before God" , in this case (before God)actually means in "front of". This was also where God was telling Noah of his regret for making humanity. Con has censored/missed out so much information. Is it truly logical for people to read? Illiteracy was a big problem in the past and reading was only for the wealthy. It was illogical for education to women in the past. Some mentally disabled people can't read and is that not logical. If you still support this logic argument, then logic can change. Changing logic will destroy all of your arguments presented. God never promised paradise or a good life on earth for his believers and never promised to punish all disbelievers on earth. God will reward the believers that passed away though. You try to use the minor Bible details to disprove God when the major details that disprove almost all you arguments are completely ignored in your arguments. I am a believer in Jesus and have a perfect GPA. Not every Christian is guaranteed a good life like me. That argument is invalid. Human decisions are all random and not predetermined and constantly change God's "script" for life. If, you claim that Zeus is invisible to nonbelievers then, I can not give definite proof against his existence. I can not disprove him with clear evidence. The argument of truth is not a clear piece of evidence but, just a theory. The "facts" that support this are mostly very controversial philosophy. How does evolution disprove this argument? The Argument from Time and Contingency 1.We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies. 2.Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility. 3.Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything. 4.Then right now nothing would exist. For 5.If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed"literally"nothing at all. But 6.From nothing nothing comes. So 7.The universe could not have begun. 8.But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But 9.If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So 10.There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary. 11.Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being. 12.This absolutely necessary being is God. Question1: Even though you may never in fact step outside your house all day, it was possible for you to do so. Why is it impossible that the universe still happens to exist, even though it was possible for it to go out of existence? Reply: The two cases are not really parallel. To step outside your house on a given day is something that you may or may not choose to do. But if nonbeing is a real possibility for you, then you are the kind of being that cannot last forever. In other words, the possibility of nonbeing must be built-in, "programmed," part of your very constitution, a necessary property. And if all being is like that, then how could anything still exist after the passage of an infinite time? For an infinite time is every bit as long as forever. So being must have what it takes to last forever, that is, to stay in existence for an infinite time. Therefore there must exist within the realm of being something that does not tend to go out of existence. And this sort of being, as Aquinas says, is called "necessary."