Scientific proof that God exists?

[golden27]

try to read the QURAN my friend and you will find if he does 

[Astargath]

You are trying to prove god here yet you know ''god'' has knowledge, understanding, wisdom and strength almost to infinity. How do you know all this? You said it yourself, we don't know what's outside the universe.

You claim the complexity of the universe is almost to infinity, how did you calculate this? How are you measuring the universe complexity?

Come on badecker, you are done, just admit it.

You are a bit right about me being done... in certain ways.

Since you are agreeing with the idea of the "knowledge, understanding, wisdom and strength" of God "almost to infinity," we can finally move on from here into the details that we have not covered so far.

Now that I am done with having to re-explain about the existence of the scientific proof for the existence of God, we can move on into how that scientific proof works.

Where did I agree with that idea? I asked you '' How do you know all this? You said it yourself, we don't know what's outside the universe.'' Since you just claimed something out of your ass.

You never explained how you know the complexity of the universe is almost infinite. Don't try to escape, your argument is garbage, debunked several times.

Since you can't come up with any science against what I say, you are agreeing with me, possibly in spite of yourself.

We know certain aspects of what MUST lie outside the universe, in a way similar to knowing that empty space (nothing) exists. We do it by scientifically measuring relationships between things that exist.

I suppose that, potentially, space (nothing) doesn't exist at all. It is possible that we and everything else exist on a plane, and the reason why we seem to have distance is because of energy transference and energy relationships between all planar objects (us and all material), in ways that we don't understand. But to think like this would be getting into flat earth science, somewhat.

The point is that, regarding C&E, entropy, and complexity as we scientifically know them, Something exists out there (as you have stated in some of your posts) that matches the scientific aspects of the definitions of the word "God."


In other words, this forum and thread are not places to go to get into the precise hows and whys of the operations of everything. But scientists essentially agree with the things that I say, even if they won't admit it, readily. Since you can't explain your supposed debunking of anything that I said, you have debunked your debunking, yourself, by not understanding what you say.

It's ok I will start again, you wont run away this time with your typical bullshit paragraphs.

Entropy: Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.


Cause and effect: We don't know that everything needs a cause, maybe some events happen spontaneously. There is actually evidence that some sub-atomic particles form and disappear for no reason, with no cause.

Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. The argument also suffers from the fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause. For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother.


Complexity: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Problems_with_the_above
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning

And again, debunked.

[BADecker]

It's ok I will start again, you wont run away this time with your typical bullshit paragraphs.

Entropy: Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.


Cause and effect: We don't know that everything needs a cause, maybe some events happen spontaneously. There is actually evidence that some sub-atomic particles form and disappear for no reason, with no cause.

Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. The argument also suffers from the fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause. For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother.


Complexity: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Problems_with_the_above
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning

And again, debunked.

Wow! You can do big copy and pastes!

Big bang is irrelevant because its theory only suggests that it might have existed, not that it did exist, and not that it was the thing that started the universe if it existed.

There are lots of effects that we haven't found the cause for. But we know that there is a cause for them, because we have found a great number of effects with a cause, and not even one that we can prove has NO cause. Scientific probability rules out the possibility for a non-cause effect until we find one.

You just blab your garbage over and over. You should feel sorry for me, since I have to repeat your fails over and over. Actually, it's fun.

[Vod]

science doesn't need to proof it, there is GOD

Science doesn't need to prove it to you - you are brainwashed. 

Millions of people are leaving the cults every month because there is zero proof of any kind of any god.

[BADecker]

science doesn't need to proof it, there is GOD

Science doesn't need to prove it to you - you are brainwashed. 

Millions of people are leaving the cults every month because there is zero proof of any kind of any god.

All you are saying is that there isn't any scientific proof that Vod exists. Just because there are some posts in the forum, isn't scientific proof.

 

[Astargath]

It's ok I will start again, you wont run away this time with your typical bullshit paragraphs.

Entropy: Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.


Cause and effect: We don't know that everything needs a cause, maybe some events happen spontaneously. There is actually evidence that some sub-atomic particles form and disappear for no reason, with no cause.

Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. The argument also suffers from the fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause. For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother.


Complexity: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Problems_with_the_above
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning

And again, debunked.

Wow! You can do big copy and pastes!

Big bang is irrelevant because its theory only suggests that it might have existed, not that it did exist, and not that it was the thing that started the universe if it existed.

There are lots of effects that we haven't found the cause for. But we know that there is a cause for them, because we have found a great number of effects with a cause, and not even one that we can prove has NO cause. Scientific probability rules out the possibility for a non-cause effect until we find one.

You just blab your garbage over and over. You should feel sorry for me, since I have to repeat your fails over and over. Actually, it's fun.

''Scientific probability rules out the possibility for a non-cause effect until we find one.'' No it doesn't as I said, it's a fallacy. ''fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause.''

Learn to read.

Even assuming all your premises are true, ultimately your argument fails to provide any evidence pointing to what actually created the universe, your complexity argument is very simple. You said it yourself too, whatever created the universe has to be more complex than it. Even if I agree on the premise too, it still doesn't say anything else about the possible creator/creators of the universe. Does it have to be sentient? How are you defining complexity? Again your argument fails to show why god has to be the creator of the universe.

[BADecker]

It's ok I will start again, you wont run away this time with your typical bullshit paragraphs.

Entropy: Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.


Cause and effect: We don't know that everything needs a cause, maybe some events happen spontaneously. There is actually evidence that some sub-atomic particles form and disappear for no reason, with no cause.

Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. The argument also suffers from the fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause. For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother.


Complexity: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Problems_with_the_above
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning

And again, debunked.

Wow! You can do big copy and pastes!

Big bang is irrelevant because its theory only suggests that it might have existed, not that it did exist, and not that it was the thing that started the universe if it existed.

There are lots of effects that we haven't found the cause for. But we know that there is a cause for them, because we have found a great number of effects with a cause, and not even one that we can prove has NO cause. Scientific probability rules out the possibility for a non-cause effect until we find one.

You just blab your garbage over and over. You should feel sorry for me, since I have to repeat your fails over and over. Actually, it's fun.

''Scientific probability rules out the possibility for a non-cause effect until we find one.'' No it doesn't as I said, it's a fallacy. ''fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause.''

Learn to read.

Let's see. Which point in and of the universe is the universe? Why, all of them combined, of course. Which point requires cause and effect? Why, all of them, of course. Equals, the whole universe requires cause and effect.

Scientific probability holds that when something is probable beyond a certain point, its opposite is impossible. Let's wait until we find that first non-C&E effect before we rule out scientific probability. After all, even your decision to rule out scientific probability on this point is a caused decision.

Even assuming all your premises are true, ultimately your argument fails to provide any evidence pointing to what actually created the universe, your complexity argument is very simple. You said it yourself too, whatever created the universe has to be more complex than it. Even if I agree on the premise too, it still doesn't say anything else about the possible creator/creators of the universe. Does it have to be sentient? How are you defining complexity? Again your argument fails to show why god has to be the creator of the universe.

You are simply talking about evaluating and describing God in terms of the universe. The existence of the universe proves that God exists, as I have shown you over and over. If you really want to learn about what God is, and how He works internally, you need to go to God and get the answers. Universe terms will never explain Him to you. Only He will be able to do that.

[Astargath]

It's ok I will start again, you wont run away this time with your typical bullshit paragraphs.

Entropy: Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.


Cause and effect: We don't know that everything needs a cause, maybe some events happen spontaneously. There is actually evidence that some sub-atomic particles form and disappear for no reason, with no cause.

Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. The argument also suffers from the fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause. For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother.


Complexity: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Problems_with_the_above
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning

And again, debunked.

Wow! You can do big copy and pastes!

Big bang is irrelevant because its theory only suggests that it might have existed, not that it did exist, and not that it was the thing that started the universe if it existed.

There are lots of effects that we haven't found the cause for. But we know that there is a cause for them, because we have found a great number of effects with a cause, and not even one that we can prove has NO cause. Scientific probability rules out the possibility for a non-cause effect until we find one.

You just blab your garbage over and over. You should feel sorry for me, since I have to repeat your fails over and over. Actually, it's fun.

''Scientific probability rules out the possibility for a non-cause effect until we find one.'' No it doesn't as I said, it's a fallacy. ''fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause.''

Learn to read.

Let's see. Which point in and of the universe is the universe? Why, all of them combined, of course. Which point requires cause and effect? Why, all of them, of course. Equals, the whole universe requires cause and effect.

Scientific probability holds that when something is probable beyond a certain point, its opposite is impossible. Let's wait until we find that first non-C&E effect before we rule out scientific probability. After all, even your decision to rule out scientific probability on this point is a caused decision.

Even assuming all your premises are true, ultimately your argument fails to provide any evidence pointing to what actually created the universe, your complexity argument is very simple. You said it yourself too, whatever created the universe has to be more complex than it. Even if I agree on the premise too, it still doesn't say anything else about the possible creator/creators of the universe. Does it have to be sentient? How are you defining complexity? Again your argument fails to show why god has to be the creator of the universe.

You are simply talking about evaluating and describing God in terms of the universe. The existence of the universe proves that God exists, as I have shown you over and over. If you really want to learn about what God is, and how He works internally, you need to go to God and get the answers. Universe terms will never explain Him to you. Only He will be able to do that.

''The existence of the universe proves that God exists'' No it doesn't and you are evading the questions. Where in your argument does it say that the universe can only have 1 creator and it has to be a god as opposed to multiple creators? Or multiple non-god creators?

Badecker 0 - Astargath 100

yet again....

[BADecker]

''Scientific probability rules out the possibility for a non-cause effect until we find one.'' No it doesn't as I said, it's a fallacy. ''fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause.''

Learn to read.

Let's see. Which point in and of the universe is the universe? Why, all of them combined, of course. Which point requires cause and effect? Why, all of them, of course. Equals, the whole universe requires cause and effect.

Scientific probability holds that when something is probable beyond a certain point, its opposite is impossible. Let's wait until we find that first non-C&E effect before we rule out scientific probability. After all, even your decision to rule out scientific probability on this point is a caused decision.

Even assuming all your premises are true, ultimately your argument fails to provide any evidence pointing to what actually created the universe, your complexity argument is very simple. You said it yourself too, whatever created the universe has to be more complex than it. Even if I agree on the premise too, it still doesn't say anything else about the possible creator/creators of the universe. Does it have to be sentient? How are you defining complexity? Again your argument fails to show why god has to be the creator of the universe.

You are simply talking about evaluating and describing God in terms of the universe. The existence of the universe proves that God exists, as I have shown you over and over. If you really want to learn about what God is, and how He works internally, you need to go to God and get the answers. Universe terms will never explain Him to you. Only He will be able to do that.

''The existence of the universe proves that God exists'' No it doesn't and you are evading the questions. Where in your argument does it say that the universe can only have 1 creator and it has to be a god as opposed to multiple creators? Or multiple non-god creators?

Badecker 0 - Astargath 100

yet again....

What? You can't even stick to the sub-topic that we are talking about. What's the matter. Finding out that all you have is propaganda talk?

Machines have makers. And machine universe has such a great Maker - as shown by C&E, entropy, and complexity, combined - that its Maker has to be God.

[Astargath]

''Scientific probability rules out the possibility for a non-cause effect until we find one.'' No it doesn't as I said, it's a fallacy. ''fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause.''

Learn to read.

Let's see. Which point in and of the universe is the universe? Why, all of them combined, of course. Which point requires cause and effect? Why, all of them, of course. Equals, the whole universe requires cause and effect.

Scientific probability holds that when something is probable beyond a certain point, its opposite is impossible. Let's wait until we find that first non-C&E effect before we rule out scientific probability. After all, even your decision to rule out scientific probability on this point is a caused decision.

Even assuming all your premises are true, ultimately your argument fails to provide any evidence pointing to what actually created the universe, your complexity argument is very simple. You said it yourself too, whatever created the universe has to be more complex than it. Even if I agree on the premise too, it still doesn't say anything else about the possible creator/creators of the universe. Does it have to be sentient? How are you defining complexity? Again your argument fails to show why god has to be the creator of the universe.

You are simply talking about evaluating and describing God in terms of the universe. The existence of the universe proves that God exists, as I have shown you over and over. If you really want to learn about what God is, and how He works internally, you need to go to God and get the answers. Universe terms will never explain Him to you. Only He will be able to do that.

''The existence of the universe proves that God exists'' No it doesn't and you are evading the questions. Where in your argument does it say that the universe can only have 1 creator and it has to be a god as opposed to multiple creators? Or multiple non-god creators?

Badecker 0 - Astargath 100

yet again....

What? You can't even stick to the sub-topic that we are talking about. What's the matter. Finding out that all you have is propaganda talk?

Machines have makers. And machine universe has such a great Maker - as shown by C&E, entropy, and complexity, combined - that its Maker has to be God.

''that its Maker has to be God.'' ''has'' how do you know it has to be God? How do you know it's not a few gods or other causes?

[Summer Li]

Fools who call themselves atheists, justifying their sin. The Bible says that the creation is the witness of the Creator. The whole universe proves the existence of God! The whole universe is subject to certain laws. The day is replaced at night, the seasons alternate in a certain direction, everything goes on as usual. It's not chaotic, it's not accidental. This is not even speaks about the human body! Everything is not accidentally arranged, but has its own wise design. Your heart, your brain did not happen because of evolution ....or because of explosion occurs....
If an explosion occurs in your kitchen, soup will not come out of it!
Darwin, who came up with the theory of evolution, before his death, found and took Christ.
If you look at a painting or a building, you do not have to prove the existence of the person who created it .... Is the universe no more amazing than a picture or a building?
Mortality statistics are terrible.
I wish you all  before the death to call on the name of Jesus Christ. The Bible says who will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.
The Bible says that after this life there will be a judgment and who has accepted Christ in this life, he will be acquitted at the trial.
Think, if it's true, then the eternal torments of hell await you, if not, you will not lose anything by accepting Christ as your Savior.
Today maybe your last day of life!

[BADecker]

''that its Maker has to be God.'' ''has'' how do you know it has to be God? How do you know it's not a few gods or other causes?

By the definition of "God," of course.   

[Santoribtc50]

So you can only believe in things that you are not sure of. When you are sure of something that you know, you don't believe it any longer. You are beyond that... beyond simply having to believe it. You KNOW it.
Once you are in the judgment, you will KNOW that God exists.

[Astargath]

''that its Maker has to be God.'' ''has'' how do you know it has to be God? How do you know it's not a few gods or other causes?

By the definition of "God," of course.   

Many things are defined as creators of the universe, therefore Zeno from dragon ball is the creator of the universe!!!!

[BADecker]

''that its Maker has to be God.'' ''has'' how do you know it has to be God? How do you know it's not a few gods or other causes?

By the definition of "God," of course.   

Many things are defined as creators of the universe, therefore Zeno from dragon ball is the creator of the universe!!!!

You sure went the long route to express that you recognize that God exists, scientifically proven! But, what is important is that you finally admitted your recognition of such.

[Astargath]

''that its Maker has to be God.'' ''has'' how do you know it has to be God? How do you know it's not a few gods or other causes?

By the definition of "God," of course.   

Many things are defined as creators of the universe, therefore Zeno from dragon ball is the creator of the universe!!!!

You sure went the long route to express that you recognize that God exists, scientifically proven! But, what is important is that you finally admitted your recognition of such.

Nope, you said by definition, how many gods fit that definition? How many things are defined as creators of the universe, how do you know it's ''god'' and not ''zeno'' or any of the others?

Another way to show how wrong you are is by making you understand that simply because a made up word has a made up definition, it doesn't mean it's true, that¡s in fact what you are trying to prove, you can't use the definition of what you are trying to prove, to prove it lmao.

[BADecker]

You sure went the long route to express that you recognize that God exists, scientifically proven! But, what is important is that you finally admitted your recognition of such.

Nope, you said by definition, how many gods fit that definition? How many things are defined as creators of the universe, how do you know it's ''god'' and not ''zeno'' or any of the others?

Another way to show how wrong you are is by making you understand that simply because a made up word has a made up definition, it doesn't mean it's true, that¡s in fact what you are trying to prove, you can't use the definition of what you are trying to prove, to prove it lmao.

Now you want to play around with semantics, again.

From a standpoint of science, you can call God by any name you want. As long as the being behind the name fits the God of the universe, God might even be happy with the name you call Him by.

I wonder how long it will take science to find out the name that God calls Himself by.

[Karlblaise1]

Well Prayer works.
Ain't that scientific?

[Astargath]

You sure went the long route to express that you recognize that God exists, scientifically proven! But, what is important is that you finally admitted your recognition of such.

Nope, you said by definition, how many gods fit that definition? How many things are defined as creators of the universe, how do you know it's ''god'' and not ''zeno'' or any of the others?

Another way to show how wrong you are is by making you understand that simply because a made up word has a made up definition, it doesn't mean it's true, that¡s in fact what you are trying to prove, you can't use the definition of what you are trying to prove, to prove it lmao.

Now you want to play around with semantics, again.

From a standpoint of science, you can call God by any name you want. As long as the being behind the name fits the God of the universe, God might even be happy with the name you call Him by.

I wonder how long it will take science to find out the name that God calls Himself by.

You are the retard who is using semantics to prove god's existence. As I previously said, your argument DOES NOT rule out the possibility of different gods or creators creating the universe, you keep claiming it's 1 god only but how do you know this?

[BADecker]

You are the retard who is using semantics to prove god's existence. As I previously said, your argument DOES NOT rule out the possibility of different gods or creators creating the universe, you keep claiming it's 1 god only but how do you know this?

Poor little fella. Having trouble, aren't you. Can't even remember what we are talking about, right? Okay. I'll say it again, just for you, because I feel sorry for you:

As I said, because of the complexity of the physics of the universe, even if there were multiple entities who together created the universe, they still would need to work as One, or the universe wouldn't work. The entities would not be the God of the universe. They might be gods or lords in the sense of having some strength or control, but they would not and could not be the God of the universe, simply because of the complexity we see in all things. God is One.