Why do you believe God exists?

[Astargath]

There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.

Those are all "proofs" that god can't exist. I'll never understand why religious people don't ask the same questions about god. If all these things need an originator then so does god. He can't exist -- or be the original creator if we go by this logic. God would be, by definition, far more complex than us or the universe and therefor he also needs a creator. He can't just exist due to your own proofs. The truth is it's these flawed proofs that allow the religious to shut off their brain and just accept the easiest or simplest option to them -- which is, don't worry about it because god made everything. I'm sure there will always be unanswered questions about the origin of the universe but god or religions will never be able to answer them.

The point that somebody thinks that God needs a maker, is proof that God exists. Why? Here's why.

Everything we see in the universe was made by other things. Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.

The one thing we don't see at all is a thing that made the universe. We don't see this thing because it can't be in the universe. If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.

This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.

The point is, God can't have a maker. If He did, He would be just like anything else in the universe. But the Maker of the universe can't be in the universe, because nothing that is part of something makes itself.

God, being outside the universe, not only doesn't need something to make Him, but can't have something whereby He was made. If He did, He would be part of the universe, and we know that nothing makes itself out of nothing. Something else always makes it.

Proof that God doesn't need and can't have a maker.

'' Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.'' Who says so?

''If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.'' How are we going to have an example of this?

''This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.'' There is no real definition of ''outside the universe'' since it isn't know if such thing is possible

[1713431851]

1713431851

[1713431851]

1713431851

[1713431851]

1713431851

[1713431851]

1713431851

[1713431851]

1713431851

[BADecker]

There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.

Those are all "proofs" that god can't exist. I'll never understand why religious people don't ask the same questions about god. If all these things need an originator then so does god. He can't exist -- or be the original creator if we go by this logic. God would be, by definition, far more complex than us or the universe and therefor he also needs a creator. He can't just exist due to your own proofs. The truth is it's these flawed proofs that allow the religious to shut off their brain and just accept the easiest or simplest option to them -- which is, don't worry about it because god made everything. I'm sure there will always be unanswered questions about the origin of the universe but god or religions will never be able to answer them.

The point that somebody thinks that God needs a maker, is proof that God exists. Why? Here's why.

Everything we see in the universe was made by other things. Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.

The one thing we don't see at all is a thing that made the universe. We don't see this thing because it can't be in the universe. If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.

This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.

The point is, God can't have a maker. If He did, He would be just like anything else in the universe. But the Maker of the universe can't be in the universe, because nothing that is part of something makes itself.

God, being outside the universe, not only doesn't need something to make Him, but can't have something whereby He was made. If He did, He would be part of the universe, and we know that nothing makes itself out of nothing. Something else always makes it.

Proof that God doesn't need and can't have a maker.

'' Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.'' Who says so?

Show us an example of something making itself from nothing.

''If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.'' How are we going to have an example of this?

Why do you ask for an example of something you know never happens?

''This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.'' There is no real definition of ''outside the universe'' since it isn't know if such thing is possible

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it.

[Astargath]

There are 5 proofs of the existence of God. It is written by Aquinas. I give it below:

1. Proof through motion means that everything moving has ever been triggered by something else, which in turn was triggered by the third. It is God that is the root cause of the whole movement.

2. Proof through the generating cause - this proof is similar to the first. Since nothing can produce itself, then there is something that is the root cause of everything - it is God.

3. Proof through necessity — every thing has the possibility of both its potential and real being. If we assume that all things are in potency, then nothing would arise. There must be something that contributed to the transfer of things from the potential to the current state. This is something - God.

Those are all "proofs" that god can't exist. I'll never understand why religious people don't ask the same questions about god. If all these things need an originator then so does god. He can't exist -- or be the original creator if we go by this logic. God would be, by definition, far more complex than us or the universe and therefor he also needs a creator. He can't just exist due to your own proofs. The truth is it's these flawed proofs that allow the religious to shut off their brain and just accept the easiest or simplest option to them -- which is, don't worry about it because god made everything. I'm sure there will always be unanswered questions about the origin of the universe but god or religions will never be able to answer them.

The point that somebody thinks that God needs a maker, is proof that God exists. Why? Here's why.

Everything we see in the universe was made by other things. Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.

The one thing we don't see at all is a thing that made the universe. We don't see this thing because it can't be in the universe. If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.

This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.

The point is, God can't have a maker. If He did, He would be just like anything else in the universe. But the Maker of the universe can't be in the universe, because nothing that is part of something makes itself.

God, being outside the universe, not only doesn't need something to make Him, but can't have something whereby He was made. If He did, He would be part of the universe, and we know that nothing makes itself out of nothing. Something else always makes it.

Proof that God doesn't need and can't have a maker.

'' Just the idea that something could make itself is absurd.'' Who says so?

Show us an example of something making itself from nothing.

''If it were, it would be the universe making itself, which never happens that we have any example of.'' How are we going to have an example of this?

Why do you ask for an example of something you know never happens?

''This means that something outside the universe made it. It also means that the outside thing doesn't follow the laws of the universe, because if it did, it would be part of the universe.'' There is no real definition of ''outside the universe'' since it isn't know if such thing is possible

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it.

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.

[OgNasty]

I'd like to know.... What is it that compels you to believe in God? How can you argue for his existence?

I would say I was compelled to believe in God because I was raised in a house that held religion in high esteem.  Since then I have seen a lot of good done in my local community by various churches, leading me to believe that whether or not God "exists" in a physical sense, God's impact is definitely felt and used to do a lot of good, at least in the communities where I have lived.

[BADecker]

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.

I actually am a little surprised at you. Science attempts to extrapolate backwards millions of years, and then talk about it like it is reality. Science attempts to suggest that big bang is something that existed, but is unlike anything that we have today, even though it had the "seeds" of what the universe would become within it. But you don't even want to wrap your mind around the idea of outside-the-universe? How totally unscientific of you. Sounds like you are moving back to the limited scientific thinking from the 1800s.  

[Astargath]

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.

I actually am a little surprised at you. Science attempts to extrapolate backwards millions of years, and then talk about it like it is reality. Science attempts to suggest that big bang is something that existed, but is unlike anything that we have today, even though it had the "seeds" of what the universe would become within it. But you don't even want to wrap your mind around the idea of outside-the-universe? How totally unscientific of you. Sounds like you are moving back to the limited scientific thinking from the 1800s.  

Define ''the idea of outside-the-universe'' then.

Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

That's the only thing we can observe or prove.

[BADecker]

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.

I actually am a little surprised at you. Science attempts to extrapolate backwards millions of years, and then talk about it like it is reality. Science attempts to suggest that big bang is something that existed, but is unlike anything that we have today, even though it had the "seeds" of what the universe would become within it. But you don't even want to wrap your mind around the idea of outside-the-universe? How totally unscientific of you. Sounds like you are moving back to the limited scientific thinking from the 1800s.  

Define ''the idea of outside-the-universe'' then.

Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

That's the only thing we can observe or prove.

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

[Astargath]

Show us an example of something that has existed forever

There is a real definition of "outside of the universe." The definition lies in as many ways as you can say it. No there isn't. As far as science knows and observes, this is the only universe but there are a lot of hypothesis about multi verses. The term ''universe'' by definition means everything, saying ''outside the universe'' makes little to no sense.

I actually am a little surprised at you. Science attempts to extrapolate backwards millions of years, and then talk about it like it is reality. Science attempts to suggest that big bang is something that existed, but is unlike anything that we have today, even though it had the "seeds" of what the universe would become within it. But you don't even want to wrap your mind around the idea of outside-the-universe? How totally unscientific of you. Sounds like you are moving back to the limited scientific thinking from the 1800s.  

Define ''the idea of outside-the-universe'' then.

Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

That's the only thing we can observe or prove.

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.

[BADecker]

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.

Just because none of that proves "outside the universe," doesn't mean there is no proof. I mean, there are lots of things that talk about lots of things, and yet are no proof for their existence. What of it?

The fact of everything that exists in the universe is the proof for outside-the-universe. How is it proof? We understand countless things in the universe being made by other things. We have no example of even one thing in the universe that was not made by something else, or example of even one thing that made itself. Before the universe existed, it didn't exist. After the universe started existing, it existed. Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it. That's all we see, and we see it in such quantities that it is scientifically acceptable to say that something outside the universe made the universe. Even your beloved big bang theory essentially states it.

[Astargath]

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.

Just because none of that proves "outside the universe," doesn't mean there is no proof. I mean, there are lots of things that talk about lots of things, and yet are no proof for their existence. What of it?

The fact of everything that exists in the universe is the proof for outside-the-universe. How is it proof? We understand countless things in the universe being made by other things. We have no example of even one thing in the universe that was not made by something else, or example of even one thing that made itself. Before the universe existed, it didn't exist. After the universe started existing, it existed. Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it. That's all we see, and we see it in such quantities that it is scientifically acceptable to say that something outside the universe made the universe. Even your beloved big bang theory essentially states it.

''Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it'' No.

[BADecker]

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.

Just because none of that proves "outside the universe," doesn't mean there is no proof. I mean, there are lots of things that talk about lots of things, and yet are no proof for their existence. What of it?

The fact of everything that exists in the universe is the proof for outside-the-universe. How is it proof? We understand countless things in the universe being made by other things. We have no example of even one thing in the universe that was not made by something else, or example of even one thing that made itself. Before the universe existed, it didn't exist. After the universe started existing, it existed. Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it. That's all we see, and we see it in such quantities that it is scientifically acceptable to say that something outside the universe made the universe. Even your beloved big bang theory essentially states it.

''Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it'' No.

As I said in another post, you aren't required to accept proof, or to state that you do if you do.

[Astargath]

You are unusually slow today. Because we operate according to universal physics, and our minds think according to the way physics dictates, there is no way to absolutely describe what outside-the-universe really means.

So, the way we describe it is to simply say that it includes whatever is not part of this universe.

If it were to be described in any more detail than that, it would have to be part of the universe, just so it could operate with universe physics enough that we could recognize it with our universe physics way of thinking.

Now, it is true that there are probably others that could use better words than I do. So, if you are that interested, seek them out.

None of that proves ''outside the universe'' is possible, we don't know of anything that's not in the universe, there is no point in assuming it's possible, it's scientifically not proven and even if you think it's logical that something must be outside the universe, you still have no idea what it is, so it could be anything anyways, pointless discussion.

Just because none of that proves "outside the universe," doesn't mean there is no proof. I mean, there are lots of things that talk about lots of things, and yet are no proof for their existence. What of it?

The fact of everything that exists in the universe is the proof for outside-the-universe. How is it proof? We understand countless things in the universe being made by other things. We have no example of even one thing in the universe that was not made by something else, or example of even one thing that made itself. Before the universe existed, it didn't exist. After the universe started existing, it existed. Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it. That's all we see, and we see it in such quantities that it is scientifically acceptable to say that something outside the universe made the universe. Even your beloved big bang theory essentially states it.

''Therefore something outside the universe made or caused it'' No.

As I said in another post, you aren't required to accept proof, or to state that you do if you do.

As I said many times, you can make as many assumptions as you want, it doesn't mean they are real. Saying ''therefore something outside the universe made it'' doesn't mean it's true since you have no evidence of it.

[sirazimuth]

"The question of God existence or non-existence is not even a scientific question."

it is most certainly a scientific question; just because you cant use your scientific method dont mean you cant use another.

"We are all born into one religion or other.  Very few people alive today were born in Atheist families.

This, of course, will change in the future as more and more people lose faith in the supernatural."
very few people were born in atheist families because atheists create fewer babes; see where this would go? maybe an endless cycle, but not change without some new thing to change peoples minds on a massive scale.
people see the same evidence, and take it as evidence for different beliefs; people see evidence and dont even see the same evidence.
we always see everything through the lens of our own worldviews. we use worldviews to interpret what we see. so,, iwas taught creationist
sphell, and so take everything ive learned with this lens. the existance of God is a scientific fact. standard geology is error, big bang cosmology is error, plate tectonics is error, bacteria evolving into hyenas and snakes evolving into birds is error; i wont say darwinism is error, as i love to look at insects and other creatures and think about how they evolved/adapted;(survival of the fittest can be a useful theory, but maybe i misuse darwinism in this writing.)  i like to think of my philosophy as darwinistic, i think of myself as a darwinist, but maybe im delusional.

"As for the God of the Gaps, well, we do have unknowns, let's leave them unknowns until they become known."

we need to assume something is true, because we will never have infinite knowledge. have to assume something, then you can build everything else on top of that.

Ok, whatever you say chief. Learn how to use the keyboard.  "{" vs "[", use the Preview button.
I think you are overly excited to disagree with me.

Felt kinda compelled to correct that clusterfuck (apologies if it's wrong, and yeah, definitely use preview...) as I was interested in the bolded  (I bolded it btw) part.
I was born not so much into an atheist family as a family that just never discussed anything remotely religious.
We had no need of it.  We did fine without involving any imaginary invisible entity in the sky. Thank you Mom and Dad.
I seem to recall as a 7 year old kid in school at playtime (the UK term for recess in USA, I'm  a british expat btw)after assembly,
(the daily morning ritual of singing hymns and prayers before start of school lessons) I'd always be like "hey do you believe in God" to all my friends
 because I had my doubts even at seven years old.
I was always thinking if grown-ups don't believe in Santa Claus why on earth do they believe in this supernatural God nonsense?
Haven't figured that out to this day....

[BADecker]

As I said in another post, you aren't required to accept proof, or to state that you do if you do.

As I said many times, you can make as many assumptions as you want, it doesn't mean they are real. Saying ''therefore something outside the universe made it'' doesn't mean it's true since you have no evidence of it.

Except that such is what the universe shows us all over the place. Nothing in the universe makes itself spontaneously without something else making it. And the "something else" isn't the thing that it makes. This entirely means that something that is not the universe or of the universe made it. Since we don't seem to have a scientific clue about what made the universe other than some science theory, it's something outside the universe, because if it were in the universe, we would have at least a few clues.

Science agrees with that in big bang theory. I don't have to prove it. Science already does. Wanna know more? Research BB. Or hit the religions if you like the "God" idea better.

[Astargath]

As I said in another post, you aren't required to accept proof, or to state that you do if you do.

As I said many times, you can make as many assumptions as you want, it doesn't mean they are real. Saying ''therefore something outside the universe made it'' doesn't mean it's true since you have no evidence of it.

Except that such is what the universe shows us all over the place. Nothing in the universe makes itself spontaneously without something else making it. And the "something else" isn't the thing that it makes. This entirely means that something that is not the universe or of the universe made it. Since we don't seem to have a scientific clue about what made the universe other than some science theory, it's something outside the universe, because if it were in the universe, we would have at least a few clues.

Science agrees with that in big bang theory. I don't have to prove it. Science already does. Wanna know more? Research BB. Or hit the religions if you like the "God" idea better.

''Nothing in the universe makes itself spontaneously without something else making it.'' How do you know? Do you know how everything is made in the universe?

[BADecker]

As I said in another post, you aren't required to accept proof, or to state that you do if you do.

As I said many times, you can make as many assumptions as you want, it doesn't mean they are real. Saying ''therefore something outside the universe made it'' doesn't mean it's true since you have no evidence of it.

Except that such is what the universe shows us all over the place. Nothing in the universe makes itself spontaneously without something else making it. And the "something else" isn't the thing that it makes. This entirely means that something that is not the universe or of the universe made it. Since we don't seem to have a scientific clue about what made the universe other than some science theory, it's something outside the universe, because if it were in the universe, we would have at least a few clues.

Science agrees with that in big bang theory. I don't have to prove it. Science already does. Wanna know more? Research BB. Or hit the religions if you like the "God" idea better.

''Nothing in the universe makes itself spontaneously without something else making it.'' How do you know? Do you know how everything is made in the universe?

You see? That's the thing about science and the universe. We don't really know anything in the universe 100%. But science judges things by vast majorities. One great example is evolution.

We see countless number of living things that we can prove exist and change by adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change. But we don't even have one proven example of evolution... proven because we know that it was evolution and not adaptation, like-begets-like, and/or simple change.

Science is wise in this respect. They leave evolution in the theory category. It's a bunch of talkers, hopefuls, the moneymakers, and media who have kept evolution alive as a theory, when it should have been dropped long ago, or even never elevated to theory status.

The whole evolution thing is, itself, proving that it is stupid, and is proving God thereby. Or do you have something else...

[Astargath]

As I said in another post, you aren't required to accept proof, or to state that you do if you do.

As I said many times, you can make as many assumptions as you want, it doesn't mean they are real. Saying ''therefore something outside the universe made it'' doesn't mean it's true since you have no evidence of it.

Except that such is what the universe shows us all over the place. Nothing in the universe makes itself spontaneously without something else making it. And the "something else" isn't the thing that it makes. This entirely means that something that is not the universe or of the universe made it. Since we don't seem to have a scientific clue about what made the universe other than some science theory, it's something outside the universe, because if it were in the universe, we would have at least a few clues.

Science agrees with that in big bang theory. I don't have to prove it. Science already does. Wanna know more? Research BB. Or hit the religions if you like the "God" idea better.

''Nothing in the universe makes itself spontaneously without something else making it.'' How do you know? Do you know how everything is made in the universe?

You see? That's the thing about science and the universe. We don't really know anything in the universe 100%. But science judges things by vast majorities. One great example is evolution.

We see countless number of living things that we can prove exist and change by adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change. But we don't even have one proven example of evolution... proven because we know that it was evolution and not adaptation, like-begets-like, and/or simple change.

Science is wise in this respect. They leave evolution in the theory category. It's a bunch of talkers, hopefuls, the moneymakers, and media who have kept evolution alive as a theory, when it should have been dropped long ago, or even never elevated to theory status.

The whole evolution thing is, itself, proving that it is stupid, and is proving God thereby. Or do you have something else...

Didn't answer the question. How do you know everything is made by something and not spontaneously appearing.

[BADecker]

As I said in another post, you aren't required to accept proof, or to state that you do if you do.

As I said many times, you can make as many assumptions as you want, it doesn't mean they are real. Saying ''therefore something outside the universe made it'' doesn't mean it's true since you have no evidence of it.

Except that such is what the universe shows us all over the place. Nothing in the universe makes itself spontaneously without something else making it. And the "something else" isn't the thing that it makes. This entirely means that something that is not the universe or of the universe made it. Since we don't seem to have a scientific clue about what made the universe other than some science theory, it's something outside the universe, because if it were in the universe, we would have at least a few clues.

Science agrees with that in big bang theory. I don't have to prove it. Science already does. Wanna know more? Research BB. Or hit the religions if you like the "God" idea better.

''Nothing in the universe makes itself spontaneously without something else making it.'' How do you know? Do you know how everything is made in the universe?

You see? That's the thing about science and the universe. We don't really know anything in the universe 100%. But science judges things by vast majorities. One great example is evolution.

We see countless number of living things that we can prove exist and change by adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change. But we don't even have one proven example of evolution... proven because we know that it was evolution and not adaptation, like-begets-like, and/or simple change.

Science is wise in this respect. They leave evolution in the theory category. It's a bunch of talkers, hopefuls, the moneymakers, and media who have kept evolution alive as a theory, when it should have been dropped long ago, or even never elevated to theory status.

The whole evolution thing is, itself, proving that it is stupid, and is proving God thereby. Or do you have something else...

Didn't answer the question. How do you know everything is made by something and not spontaneously appearing.

Well, since I answered the questions many times over for you, and essentially proved it to you, should I supply the links? Should I re-post it all? Should I say it again?

You really need to get out there and do your own research.

[sirazimuth]

.  Watch him, he is going to come out of the shadows and cut&paste his 5 links to other threads to proof that God in fact exists.  Any minute now...

awesome, when he does... I drink ...
oh wait a minute I'm all confused, that's another thread ...nm

[sirazimuth]

. But science judges things by vast majorities. One great example is evolution.....<snip blah blah blah.. same old.. same old....>
.

wrong thread dude. the evolution one is 2 blocks over...