Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

Just admit we cant prove or disprove such thing,and move on.

We can disprove retarded ''proof'' though. If you can't prove such thing then there is no reason to believe in it.

But you haven't been able to prove God doesn't exist. Your rebuttals to the proof that He does are simply circular reference blabber.

https://www.quora.com/Does-G%C3%B6dels-Incompleteness-Theorem-prove-the-existence-of-God
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8475/g%C3%B6dels-ontological-proof-and-the-incompleteness-theorem
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/7013/g%C3%B6dels-theorem-and-god?rq=1


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg24030533#msg24030533


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684



The difference between me and you is that I actually take time to review your ''arguments'' and debunk them. The only thing you can do about my arguments is saying ''simply circular reference blabber.'' over and over again as if that would change anything. You are dishonest and a liar, god will not send you to heaven if you continue like this.

The difference between me and you is that you forgot to review your own arguments. If you had, you would have debunked them by default.

Meh, took you all this time to come up with the same excuse

You haven't taken enough time to review what you say objectively. Rather, you turn your ideas into religion for yourself, so that you can believe the things you want, rather than finding the truth objectively.

How many of these bullshit responses do you have lol, just admit I beat you, my arguments destroyed yours. No need to cry, be a man and admit it.

It's not a point of "beating" or "winning." The point is that of finding the truth.

Treating science theory as fact when it is not known to be fact is not truth. Everything you have pointed out scientifically against the existence of God, and against the science law that proves God, is science theory. It isn't known to be factual, even if it is factual.

Science law is what is known to be factual. Science law is what proves the existence of God.

You see, my argument is against the way you use the laws to prove god, the laws themselves do not talk about god or the creator of the universe, even if they are factual. You state a few laws and then deduce/assume god existence with them, my argument shows why your deduction/assumption is wrong. So it doesn't matter whether the laws you use are factual or not.

No. I show how the laws cannot exist together in a universe like ours without God. There is no assumption.

The thing you constantly do is assume that I am assuming. You do it because you don't take the time to calculate the proof for God out.

You try to show that but you are wrong as pointed out in my posts that you refute to answer to because, well, because you can't really, you know you can't, that's why you don't.

Your refutations are assumptions or assumption based.   

[dns]

First of all we have to decline what is God? God is different for the people and the culture. My God is not sure mean your God.  I don't really believe in God but I believe in a "power" with me in my life as soul or mystic power.

[Astargath]

Just admit we cant prove or disprove such thing,and move on.

We can disprove retarded ''proof'' though. If you can't prove such thing then there is no reason to believe in it.

But you haven't been able to prove God doesn't exist. Your rebuttals to the proof that He does are simply circular reference blabber.

https://www.quora.com/Does-G%C3%B6dels-Incompleteness-Theorem-prove-the-existence-of-God
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8475/g%C3%B6dels-ontological-proof-and-the-incompleteness-theorem
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/7013/g%C3%B6dels-theorem-and-god?rq=1


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg24030533#msg24030533


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684



The difference between me and you is that I actually take time to review your ''arguments'' and debunk them. The only thing you can do about my arguments is saying ''simply circular reference blabber.'' over and over again as if that would change anything. You are dishonest and a liar, god will not send you to heaven if you continue like this.

The difference between me and you is that you forgot to review your own arguments. If you had, you would have debunked them by default.

Meh, took you all this time to come up with the same excuse

You haven't taken enough time to review what you say objectively. Rather, you turn your ideas into religion for yourself, so that you can believe the things you want, rather than finding the truth objectively.

How many of these bullshit responses do you have lol, just admit I beat you, my arguments destroyed yours. No need to cry, be a man and admit it.

It's not a point of "beating" or "winning." The point is that of finding the truth.

Treating science theory as fact when it is not known to be fact is not truth. Everything you have pointed out scientifically against the existence of God, and against the science law that proves God, is science theory. It isn't known to be factual, even if it is factual.

Science law is what is known to be factual. Science law is what proves the existence of God.

You see, my argument is against the way you use the laws to prove god, the laws themselves do not talk about god or the creator of the universe, even if they are factual. You state a few laws and then deduce/assume god existence with them, my argument shows why your deduction/assumption is wrong. So it doesn't matter whether the laws you use are factual or not.

No. I show how the laws cannot exist together in a universe like ours without God. There is no assumption.

The thing you constantly do is assume that I am assuming. You do it because you don't take the time to calculate the proof for God out.

You try to show that but you are wrong as pointed out in my posts that you refute to answer to because, well, because you can't really, you know you can't, that's why you don't.

Your refutations are assumptions or assumption based.   

You keep saying that but you never point them out, it makes you look like a fool.

[jankekek]

If you dont submit to the law of the great one, you will never understand me, for even the great one knows I cannot submit for I AM that which I decide, you are irrelevant, being a scripting bbot.

[BrandonChong37]

Go watch the bill nye debate with that pastor. Pretty serious stuff lmao.

[Qwertyfied]

God does not need a scientific proof because science only talks about natural phenomenas. No science book can prove it. There are even some natural phenomena that science could not explain. That is why there is what we call the supernatural which is the evidences that God exists. If you are not religious, find a pastor that talks about the bible and does not focus on religion. Find a pastor that focuses on the bible. Whether you are a catholic like me or muslim or any religion. I know some of us are not that religious and think it is a waste of time. We waste our time in different nonsense things. We go to facebook, youtube and etc. We try many unuseful things in life and yet we cannot even try to connect with him. I have a simple tip. Whether you think it is just a brainwashing thing, whether you think it does not make you better. A day or an hour reading the bible or an hour of listening to your pastor talking. Just try and nothing will lose in your life. Sacrifice what's better here for the better life with him. Debates about religion won't find the answers. Find out yourself. Remember. Debates about it won't give answers. Imagine a world with people helping each other seeking for him. Thank you for reading. God loves you.

[Astargath]

God does not need a scientific proof because science only talks about natural phenomenas. No science book can prove it. There are even some natural phenomena that science could not explain. That is why there is what we call the supernatural which is the evidences that God exists. If you are not religious, find a pastor that talks about the bible and does not focus on religion. Find a pastor that focuses on the bible. Whether you are a catholic like me or muslim or any religion. I know some of us are not that religious and think it is a waste of time. We waste our time in different nonsense things. We go to facebook, youtube and etc. We try many unuseful things in life and yet we cannot even try to connect with him. I have a simple tip. Whether you think it is just a brainwashing thing, whether you think it does not make you better. A day or an hour reading the bible or an hour of listening to your pastor talking. Just try and nothing will lose in your life. Sacrifice what's better here for the better life with him. Debates about religion won't find the answers. Find out yourself. Remember. Debates about it won't give answers. Imagine a world with people helping each other seeking for him. Thank you for reading. God loves you.

So what is the evidence for god again?

[kendedese]

the existence of heaven and earth

[qwik2learn]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

[Astargath]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

[BADecker]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory.

This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true.

Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory.

[Astargath]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory.

This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true.

Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory.

How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? Last time I checked electric universe was pseudo-science. I know you love to believe in bullshit but give me a break will you?

[Nyenyepogi]

I believe that god exsists and he protect us to desctruction.

[BADecker]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory.

This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true.

Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory.

How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? Last time I checked electric universe was pseudo-science. I know you love to believe in bullshit but give me a break will you?

The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it. Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.

[qwik2learn]

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them.

You cannot disprove these tests, but you did try your best.
You cited Bosch, et al as an example of debunking. It was a thorough and well-researched paper (despite some errors). That means that someone tried very hard to debunk these tests; that paper is the best that you can hope for in terms of "debunking" unless you have a better paper to cite. You cannot "debunk" these tests by merely saying that they are not interesting, your very own source states that these tests are scientifically valid (i.e. methodologically sound).

[Sains]

the formation of the universe

[Astargath]

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them.

You cannot disprove these tests, but you did try your best.
You cited Bosch, et al as an example of debunking. It was a thorough and well-researched paper (despite some errors). That means that someone tried very hard to debunk these tests; that paper is the best that you can hope for in terms of "debunking" unless you have a better paper to cite. You cannot "debunk" these tests by merely saying that they are not interesting, your very own source states that these tests are scientifically valid (i.e. methodologically sound).

Why are you repeating what I said? I already said I can't, are you blind? ''what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument''

My argument is:
1. How do you know the tests were well done if you are not an expert in the field? (You are taking for granted the opinion of the scientist that did them and you are believing them)
2. Why haven't this scientists that are so eager to prove telekinesis claimed prizes of millions of dollars around the world? Which would not only give them money but also help them prove what they are trying to prove because they would become famous
3. If there is indeed such thing as telekinesis why aren't we seeing the applications of it?
4. Science has ruled telekinesis and other ''magic'' like that as not true, pseudo-science and garbage. And this has been done after many many years of study where scientists actually took these things very seriously but eventually no one was able to prove them just like we don't believe in witches anymore.

[Astargath]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory.

This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true.

Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory.

How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? Last time I checked electric universe was pseudo-science. I know you love to believe in bullshit but give me a break will you?

The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it. Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.

You didn't really answer the question though. How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist?
''Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.'' How do you know that? Are you an expert in astronomy?

''The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it'' It seems to me the other way around because advocates of the electric universe usually use it to prove god.

[JLCoin]

This is a brilliant presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBwvhCDbTok

[BADecker]

Don't ignore the most important. From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.

You cannot explain away these data points by merely pointing to Randi's Prize; you have to think clearly and be capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.

Your claim that PK is "not proven" is asserted without evidence unless you address the data or conduct your own tests. You cited the experts (Bosch, et al) who conducted an exhaustive search for these types of tests, that is essentially your only source.

What is important is that PK is measured and tested by means of methodologically sound experimental procedures which are repeatable, and that your own source admits this. Furthermore, your own source failed at reproducing the results using their "File Drawer" explanation. Refusing to intelligently assess this new idea means that you are acting irrationally.

Yes I can, what I cannot do is disprove every single ''test'' or ''argument'' you throw at me simply because scientists are not interested in them so no one really tried to debunk them. My argument goes beyond specific tests that nutjobs still claim they have done and they worked. Scientists were interested in this phenomena long ago but as I said, they stopped because everyone realized it's not true, this is not like god where a good amount of scientists still actually believe in it, basically 99.9% of scientists have said telekinesis is not real, get over it. If your scammer scientists were interested in proving their stupid shit, they would have done so publishing the results in a lot of scientific journals and they would have claimed the prizes but they didn't. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

Scientists have made up all kinds of theories about the life-cycle of stars. But they have no proof for any of it. Google "electric universe" to find theory that opposes standard star theory, and that is more credible than, if not as well known as, current star theory.

This is simply an example of how you want to believe science theory to be true when it is not known to be true.

Stick with science law... the stuff that happens... rather than the reasons why you think it happens (science theory). If you do this, you just might see God in science, whereas you will probably miss Him in science theory.

How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist? Last time I checked electric universe was pseudo-science. I know you love to believe in bullshit but give me a break will you?

The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it. Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.

You didn't really answer the question though. How did you come up with the conclusion that ''electric universe'' is more credible than the current theories? Are you a scientist?
''Standard astronomy science is more messed up by far than electric universe science.'' How do you know that? Are you an expert in astronomy?

''The only people who call electric universe pseudo-science, are those who have something to gain by it'' It seems to me the other way around because advocates of the electric universe usually use it to prove god.

The point wasn't to go off topic into electric universe theory. The point was to show that standard scientific theory is an insecure thing, and that the only science that works is that which is engineered, often outside what the theory for the engineering says should happen. Then they change the theory.

So, why accept the ever-fluctuating theory as truth? Accept the science fact... cause and effect, entropy (not the theory of it), and complexity... which, when combined, prove God exists. There is no other way for these scientific laws to exist in a universe like we have.

So, why God? Because God fills all the criteria: intelligent design as shown by complexity, emotion, identity, great power in all of it. These things are all part of the universe. Nothing other than God fulfills these things. God might be very different than we imagine. But He has all these things for them to exist. That's why we call Him God.