Quote from: odolvlobo on Today at 12:45:44 AM

Quote from: BADecker on April 09, 2023, 08:34:07 PM

~

You didn't quote the rest of what I posted.
"God of the gaps" doesn't have anything to do with it. My claim had to do with the fallacies in standard scientific theory understanding of all kinds of things regarding the operation of the universe and life. Those things seem to be the standard by which you make your argument. We aren't getting deep enough into it in the posts here to even know what we are referring to.
The universe, itself, shows that God exists. The simple science of the combined existence of Complexity + Cause and Effect + Entropy as they exist together is impossible without God.
Further, the simple idea of machine universe - a complex machine made up of many complex machines - expresses God. Machines have makers. A machine as complex as the universe has to have a Maker far greater than the machine universe. As I said before, such a Maker matches our definition of God Almighty.

I didn't quote the second part because I didn't address it. I simply wanted to point out that I think you should avoid the first part because its obvious flaws will reduce the credibility of anything that follows.

As for the second part, the result of your claim that "every machine has a maker" is that your god exists simply because you define it as the "first cause".

In short, you have defined a god as the "first cause" and named it God, so therefore it exists. I agree that your logic is irrefutable. It exists because you have conceived it, but the existence of a concept is not the same as a the existence of a physical manifestation in reality. And even if this first cause is real, it certainly doesn't support anything else attributed to your god.

I understand. It's quite difficult to stay on track and avoid reality at the same time.

"I can't believe it. I just can't believe it." This is what people often say when some unexpected happening happens right in front of them. So, it is easily possible for people to not believe in God. It's a matter of wanting to not believe in God.

You might say the same thing for me in reverse. But if you read up on the latest science findings, you will find that scientists are coming to understand that God exists. They might not use the word "God," of course. But what they describe is something that matches what God is.

Quote from: nik268279 on Today at 09:42:58 AM

Reasoning on this topic is quite complicated, because everyone has their own God, and not about what is in their head, namely the topics of religion. Everyone was assured from birth in the image of a certain God, and therefore it is inappropriate to prove the word.

That's what scientific proof is all about. Many people hold themselves as God. They forget that they can barely do anything... or that there was a time that they didn't exist, and therefore couldn't have come into being by their own will. They want to suggest that there isn't any such thing as personal soul/spirit, but they still think that they are God.

No matter the religion, everybody realizes that there is God, way down in their inner subconscious.

Cool