Quote from: af_newbie on February 11, 2016, 09:21:20 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 11, 2016, 09:01:56 PM

Quote from: af_newbie on February 11, 2016, 06:42:33 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 11, 2016, 02:44:05 PM

Quote from: mrflibblehat on February 11, 2016, 02:33:49 PM

Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.

Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.

1. Cause and effect; - you don't have cause for God. 1st down, two to go.
2. Complex universe; - yes it is, so are other universes. 2nd down, one to go.
3. Universal entropy. - we evolved from simpler lifeforms. Complex systems can form from less complex systems, or they can form from more complex into less complex. 3rd down.

1. God exists outside of the area where cause and affect apply to Him. Cause and effect are creations of His that apply to this universe. They help us to see for a fact that He exists.

2. If there are other universes, they are completely different than ours. If they weren't, they would simply be extensions of ours. If other universes exist, they were created by God, and in their own way lend credence to God in the same way that our complex universe does.

3. Evolution is not fact. Cause and effect says that things were programmed. Therefore, complex things that came from simple things were programmed by Something even more complex than it all. Because of this, complex doesn't really come from simple.

How retarded can you get? Keep on showing us.

1. You are proving that he exist and you are assuming he exist (outside of our universe) and rules of your proof do not apply to him. Does this make sense to you?

It is true that we do not have much if any proof about the attributes of God. But science has proven His existence to be factual, even if few scientists will admit it.

Quote from: af_newbie on February 11, 2016, 09:21:20 PM

2. You are not getting it. Complexity of OUR universe has no correlation on the existence of God. You assumed there is a correlation.

Now you are not getting it. Nowhere in our understanding or knowledge of the things of the universe do we find greater complexity coming from lesser complexity. We might have some ideas that this happens. We are looking hard for this to have happened. But we don't have any proof that it has happened.

A grain of sand is complex in its atomic makeup. A human being is far more complex in his atomic makeup. Thus, a human being could never come from a grain of sand without something even more complex than both making it so. This alone means that evolution is not true, but that God is true. When you add cause and effect to the whole thing, we see that God is true by the cause and effect action that has produced us thousands of years after the beginning.

Quote from: af_newbie on February 11, 2016, 09:21:20 PM

3. It is pretty close to a fact. Physical evidence is overwhelming. DNA testing makes it practically a fact.
Again, you are injecting God creation into proving that he exists with your 'programming' argument.

What are you talking about? Whatever it is that you are talking about, if it is pretty close to fact, it is NOT fact. Only if it is fact is it fact. If DNA testing makes it practically a fact, that means that DNA testing doesn't quite make it fact. This means that whatever it is that you are talking about hasn't been shown to be fact by DNA testing.

Since God has been proven by science, we can see that whatever facts there are come from God.

Quote from: af_newbie on February 11, 2016, 09:21:20 PM

You have to start with an assumption that he does not exist, AND then reason based on the evidence that he exist.

When you start, you start without science. Then, you start to invent science. You see that your inventing is slightly more complex than if you hadn't invented. Then you realize that the world around you is way more complex than your inventing. Then you realize that God must exist to make the complexity that is way beyond what you can invent. Then you expand your science to the point where even it proves that God exists.

This is the thing that has happened in modern science. Modern scientists, for their own reasons, don't like the idea of God. That's why they are promoting inconclusive theories to be truth. They are hoping that if they can make their inconclusive theroies to be accepted enough, God will simply go away.

Things don't work like that. Scientific law has proven God exists. When more of the theories are proven to be laws, they will prove more things about God. If they don't, they will either remain inconclusive theories, or they will be dropped even as theories.

Quote from: af_newbie on February 11, 2016, 09:21:20 PM

Not assume that he exist and look for evidence that he created the world to prove that he exist. Your efforts are pointless because you already assumed he exists before you even started your 'proof'.

int godExist = false;

if (!godExist) {
// oh shit he does exist
// repent, give all your money to church etc.
} else {
// yeah, I was right, I could not find any evidence for his existence
// burn the Quran, light it with the bible.
}

There is no assumption in the scientific facts/laws that prove God exists. People who understand that God exists might have all kinds of assumptions about His character. But there aren't any assumptions about the fact of His existence. That God exists is fact... not assumption. Sounds to me like you are assuming that God doesn't exist after science has proven that He does exist. You don't make any sense.