Existence of god

Hello, friend. 1. Omnipotence: When describing the divine attribute of omnipotence, Christians have generally never meant God can do that which is logically absurd. No, God cannot create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift up as He lacks no power - contradictions are non-existent, as they are literally a self-contradictory combination of words; contradictions are not things, they are mixing words together that would violate the laws of logic (e.g. the law of non-contradiction). I believe it is John Lennox who says, 'Nonsense is nonsense, even to God'. Contradictions (e.g. a squared-circle, married bachelor, or an omnipotent being unable to lift something) are not possible in any worlds under any circumstances. They are what we could categorize as 'illogically impossible'. But of course, there is the other hand: we could state God can create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift, and lift it at the same time because he is God; and if the atheist's response is 'He cannot because that is a contradiction', then no further words are necessary - it is obvious that contradictions are not possible, period, and so they are really us mixing up nonsense in our logically created minds (e.g. claiming there is a 'non-existent - existing' being). We could say some things are at least possible to exist even if they don't (e.g. a teapot orbiting the sun, or unicorns) - but contradictions do not even fall into this category. 2. Omniscience: I do believe humans have 'free will' in that we can truly be held responsible and accountable for our actions justly by God. Yet, I do not believe humans have libertarian free will, in that I believe God not only knows the future (and since God is timeless and eternal, there is no before nor after for him anyways), but foreordains all that comes to pass. As John Calvin states, how God foreordains everything and how it is still our fault we sin is ultimately beyond the finite creation's comprehension. So on this, I have to answer that my human ignorance cannot understand everything about our infinite Creator; which I am glad I do not understand everything about God, because if we could put God in a box, so to speak, I believe that would be very concerning. If God is the Sovereign, the All-Knowing, and the Creator of the universe, he most definitely is the only being who has free will in the sense of ultimate determinism. 3. Omnibenevolence: The logical problem of evil basically states: 1. God is all-powerful and all-loving. 2. Suffering and evil exists. 3. Therefore, this God does not exist. But the atheist is assuming this: 'If God is all-loving and all-knowing, he will of course prefer to create a world without suffering'. But this assumption is unprovable. If it is even *possible* that God created the world with suffering to bring about an infinitely good ends, as he is omniscient and knows 'the best of all universes' so to speak, then this entire argument cannot be proven. And I believe it is disproven when concerning the Christian God. For Scripture teaches God, being all-knowing, knew what universe would bring his people the most good and him the most glory, and how people could love him without being robots. In his perfect, omniscient, sovereign will, he foreordained the existence of sin, the undeserving grace and mercy He would offer through His Son, the Christ, by His death and resurrection (which we can have forgiveness of sins by putting our faith in Christ Jesus and his saving work [i.e. his death and resurrection to save us]), and that his Son would return to establish the eternal kingdom of God, restore creation, and eliminate evil and suffering. And so, the Author of history (his story) completes his 'book' with the greatest means and ends. Ultimately, your argument is very ironic, as if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist, as morality would be an opinion (i.e. subjectivism). Also, it is very obvious from the Christian Scriptures that God is the Creator, Sustainer, and Provider of not just his children in Christ, but all humans, and all animals. Every day we live, every breath we breathe, every meal we eat literally comes from God - whether we recognize him as Giver or not. God 'creates' us every moment; that is, he keeps us in existence every millisecond. Now, I will focus on evidence of God, that you asserted is completely missing. In this round, I will go over them broadly: 1. The immaterial laws of logic, mathematics, and nature are evidence for an immaterial Creator and logical Lawgiver. For the universe is bound to them at all places in all times. For example, contradictions are never possible. But why? The simple answer is they are illogical. But why must a universe that arose purely by natural processes obey these laws under all circumstances? These laws are immaterial, and cannot possibly arise in a naturalistic/materialistic worldview. 2. The fine-tuning of the universe is evidence for God. For generally all scientists would agree with this (e.g. Stephen Hawking: 'The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life'). Consider the law of gravity for example (which this immaterial law itself is unexplainable in a universe where everything is material in the first place): if the gravity constant varied by 1 in 10 to the 60th power (1 followed by 60 zeroes), stars, planets, and life would be impossible to exist. And this is just one example of fine-tuning. 3. Uniformity in nature is evidence for God. For the universe continues to exist in a logical, uniform, orderly, regular way. But why? Why must the universe act so logical and orderly at all times? If the universe arose by natural processes alone, what determined its design it this way? 4. The origin of the universe is evidence for God. Though the atheist typically admits he does not know, the most reasonable explanation, I believe, to have been the cause of the universe (which evidence shows the universe came into existence and therefore has a cause), has to be beyond the caused universe - time, space, and matter; this cause would be uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and unbelievably power - the Creator - God. For this universe's existence is contingent; God *is* existence. 5. The burden of proof lies on the one who believes in abiogenesis - for there is not a shred of evidence that life can come from non-life. Every time we scientifically observe life coming into existence, it came about by pre-existing life. And so, I do believe one who *is* life - i.e., 'necessary life' - created all 'contingent life'. 6. The complexity of life of life is mind-boggling. Even simple organisms - e.g., worms, lightning bugs, tadpoles - have layer upon layer of complexity. But even something as small as a cell is so intricately made and yet has so many functions that all have to work for it be useful; if one of its organelles were useless, the cell itself becomes useless. 7. DNA contains immaterial genetic information. This makes seals seals, and elephants elephants, and humans humans.1. The naturalist must explain how the immaterial can arise from the material. 2. I find something very odd going on here: if we observed Chinese writing - even one symbol - in the sand on the beach, we would automatically assume prior intelligence. But when the naturalist observes DNA, the language of life, which is infinitely more complex than any human-made language, the naturalist proclaims it is by chance and natural processes. We must follow the evidence; many naturalists do not do this, on the contrary, they proclaim everything *has* to have arisen naturally (and so, natural processes becomes their 'god of the gaps', so to speak), and remain faithful to their naturalistic philosophy. 8. If God does exist, absolute moral values exist. We know child rape and murder, torturing animals and humans for pleasure, and using someone else for your own good is wrong. But it is not wrong nor right if there is no transcendent Lawgiver, whom will deliver perfect and ultimate justice upon the human race - his image-bearers. If morality is subjective, the morals are up to the subject (i.e. the human) not the object, and so 'murder' would be one animal killing another (and ultimately a chemical reaction acting on another - both which will cease to exist soon remembering nothing). 9. The ontological argument states simply: 1. It is possible an infinitely great being exists. 2. It exists therefore in some possible world. 3. If it is infinitely great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds. 4. It therefore exists in the actual world. 5. This infinitely great being, whom we mere humans generally refer to as 'God', exists. Now to go briefly over some of your futher arguments: 1. I have given evidence for God, his goodness, etc.so feel free to argue against my points for the existence of the Divine. 2. We would expect God to create an unimaginably large universe. God did not create the universe primarily for humans, rather, for him and his glory. Ultimately, this is a God-centered universe - not human. And all the galaxies show us a mere glimpse of the Majesty's glory. 3. If this God through special revelation, chose Israel to be his chosen people whom through the Messiah of the world would come about, I believe we have every reason to believe it. It is not silly if this being tells us why he chose to accomplish his will through certain means. This appears to be a mere assertion with no evidence. 4. A perfect universe? Now you are getting more into theological matters. Sin, human suffering and death, exists because of our rebellion against the eternal Creator. So what should we expect in the universe in Christianity? A universe which is worn down, suffering, and dying, which will be restored by God himself for all eternity. I have just about ran out of characters. I am most definitely excited for the discussion. Brayden