''We are greater intelligence making lesser intelligence.'' That depends, if you have a son and he is more intelligent than you, does that mean you are able to make greater intelligence with lesser intelligence? Even If I agree with all your points and everything suggests that there has to be a greater intelligence that created the universe, your argument never mentions or shows why that being would be god and not something else. There is nothing to suggest your god did it and not some other entity.
People don't make their children. They get them started by having fun, and nature takes over and makes the kids. Your deception only helps to strengthen the fact that there is proof that god exists.
The reason the being would be God is that He is supremely capable, not only in the ways that we are, but in multitudes of ways we are not enabled. Why is He that way? He is that way because He programmed everything by cause and effect. Such programming is not even fathomable by people. I have shown and told this to you on many occasions, but you just slide by it and ignore it.
So, thanks for strengthening the fact that God exists... in the minds of others.
So the reason that being would be god is because god is supremely capable, you see the circular reasoning there right? You can't say the reason the creator of the universe has to be god because god bla bla. You have to prove god, you can prove god with god, that's nonsense
No circular reasoning. Don't use the word "God" for a moment. Imagine that big bang made the universe. Wouldn't big bang have to be extremely capable to make something like the universe? We are so week in our theory making, that there is only a tiny amount of stuff in BB theory that fits what it would take to make the universe and all the complexity therein. There isn't any of the strength, knowledge, capability in BB to make a universe like ours.
Whatever made the universe fits the definition of God regarding the power, intelligence, personal identity, emotion, and a whole lot of other factors that BB would need to accomplish this gigantic feat.
Cause and effect combined with complexity shows us that there is no other way to approach this subject. If there is, show it to us. Or are you saying we just don't know and probably never will? Any other way would have to include pure random.
''Whatever made the universe fits the definition of God'' Which god, certainly not your god (Bible god) If we can't know who did it exactly then there is no point, you are just defining god as the creator of the universe, ok, so? What other attributes does he posses, is he like us, from another universe, we can't know anything about him/her/it, you can just say it's god but there is nothing else after that, you don't have any type of evidence to indicate what he really is, you just keep calling him god.
God: creator of the universe
Your argument: Well the creator of the universe is god
Me: Who is god
You: god is the creator of the universe
Circular reasoning.
However, at the same time there definitely exists an omnipresent and omniscient something, namely the entirety of existence. Calling that entirety God is perfectly legitimate and something that most rampant atheists are too ignorant and/or arrogant to realize.
Whether or not that entirety is conscious is a different question (and an odd one at that, as there wouldn't be any change to be conscious of for something that is everything - temporal, spatial, etc. - at once), but we can't even answer what human consciousness means in any satisfactory way. Alas, any and every God debate is no more than a mental exercise or just yet another way to pass time as a human being at best, and a way to manipulate others at worst.
Problem is, you can call it many many different things, there is no value in calling it god just like there is no value in calling it an alien from another dimension or a computer program simulation, all of those would be perfectly legitimate too then but what's the point, we don't have sufficient evidence for any of them and we may never have, at least in our lifetimes. I recognize the possibility of a intelligent creator, there is no evidence that something like that could exist but because there is also no evidence it does I simply don't believe it. The problem I have is people who actually say they KNOW or they have PROVED god existence when it's simply not true. I'm not an atheist and I really don't like to label anyone with silly tags.
And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence, and it might be enough to get everyone to move on with their lives and to assume that they've figured something out. But in the end, no amount of evidence will ever be conclusive and thus will never constitute as an ultimate proof.
Anyone who claims to have proof of anything either uses the term loosely or doesn't know what they are talking about.
No, you totally misunderstood what I said just like badecker didn't even attempt to understand because he knows I'm right. The point is that big bang was a name given to something that was observed, all the evidence led to that assumption and the assumption was simply called big bang and it could have been called anything. God on the other hand is not like that, we didn't observe him, we don't have evidence for him. The point is that god is like ghost or like demon or any other imaginary creature you can find, we never observed them, we don't have evidence for them, their descriptions are made up, big bang's description is not made up, is backed up by science and evidence so even if it was called big poop it would still have the same qualities and description that are real. There is no point in saying the creator of the universe is god when we don't know what god is, I think that's pretty simple to understand. The logic is circular, you are saying the creator of the universe is god and then you are describing god as the creator of the universe, no information is gained from this, you might as well call it holly poop, what do I care? If we don't know what it really is, then there is no point.