Scientific proof that God exists?

[the joint]

Anybody can go look up what a dictionary says. What's the point? Words are constantly changing in meaning based on common usage. That's why we don't use a dictionary from the time of King James. That's why we have legal dictionaries that remain much in the meaning of the dictionaries at the time of the formation of the country, while popular dictionaries have words that look the same but often have a completely different meaning.

Why do you think that I attack science? How paranoid can you get? Science itself (yes, the science of your dictionary definitions) has determined over and over again that many formerly held "beliefs" about Evolution are, indeed false. Many of the things of Evolution were even proven to be fraudulent. Sound familiar? Sounds like religion and government and politics in a lot of ways.

You seem to need to learn that strict science is YOUR friend. It is pointing you away from the foolish falsehoods of political "scientific" scammers, to the truth of the Bible, but by deductive reasoning. Soon there won't be any scientific methods left to test for Evolution scientifically. They will ALL have proven that Evolution is scientifically impossible. Ever notice how the attempted scientific proofs for Evolution have been getting more and more abstract lately?

A few other things:

I was saying that you use inductive reasoning every day of your life, and if you didn't you'd be a vegetable.  For example, you wouldn't know how to make cereal in the morning, because taking a spoon, bowl, milk, and cereal and putting it all together is an inductive process.

Yes, you are using deductive reasoning when you make statements about the Universe based upon the Bible, but that deductive reasoning is horribly flawed.  You use the Bible axiomatically as your starting point and from there try to deduce true statements about the world.  The problem is that logic does not permit the use of axioms to prove themselves.  So, you can't just start with the assumption the Bible is correct because assuming the Bible is correct does not necessarily make it so.  If I started with the assumption that Humpty Dumpty is true and tried to deduce true statements about the Universe, you'd call me crazy.  However, it's no different than starting with the assumption that the Bible is true.

Soon there won't be any scientific methods left to test for Evolution scientifically.

There is only *one* scientific method.  There will never be more than one scientific method.  Your statement here makes no sense.

Ever notice how the attempted scientific proofs for Evolution have been getting more and more abstract lately?

Uh, *every* scientific theory is an abstract statement.

Science itself (yes, the science of your dictionary definitions) has determined over and over again that many formerly held "beliefs" about Evolution are, indeed false.

This is probably one of the best things about science.  As science is a method, science does not care what theories and conclusions are formed.  Science welcomes new evidence that overturns old theories. That's the beauty of it.  Science allows us to make more and more precise, refined theories as new evidence presents itself.  This is why we've come so far in technological development and in our understanding of isolated processes in the Universe.  This isn't a weakness, it's a strength.

[Saltzman Alaric]

This whole debate is stupid.

1. Human science is soooooo premature that humans don't even know how big the universe is, how does gravity and electromagnetism work and many other very very simple and basic parts of physics.  If science can't even understand the physical world that is observable, it really has no business commenting on the unobservable (yet), and anybody trying to use it to prove or disprove God's existence probably doesn't realize how silly they look.  Like a monkey trying to understand the complex grammar of a Shakespearean play when all it knows is sign language signs for simple verbs and simple nouns.  

2. Science at this early stage is inevitably usually wrong about most things that have been "proven".  Scientist are always right in their own mind until 10 or 50 or 100 years later another scientist comes along and shows that were magnificently wrong in a few assumptions.  

I am not arguing that there is or isn't a God here.  What I am trying to say is using today's science to discuss this topic is about as stupid as using first century astronomy and mathematics knowledge to explain why the Earth is bigger than the sun, why the Earth is flat, and just how far away the sun is as it rotates around the Earth.

[Saltzman Alaric]

And likewise religious people, you really don't have any business in here trying to use science to disprove science and prove religion.  That is just absurd.  Even if you are right, you just have made science stronger and not really furthered religion.  It is a game that at best you can tie at and at worst lose a lot.  

If you want to believe in the Bible, or Buddha's story, or the Quran, that is your choice.  Go ahead and believe in it, and just ignore all the scientist that will change their mind later anyway, but don't cherry pick some science and leave other science behind that contradicts with your tradition.  Take it as it is or leave it.  Religious people that try to use some science that doesn't contradict their tradition but ignore other science that does contradict their tradition just look silly.      

[the joint]

This whole debate is stupid.

1. Human science is soooooo premature that humans don't even know how big the universe is, how does gravity and electromagnetism work and many other very very simple and basic parts of physics.  If science can't even understand the physical world that is observable, it really has no business commenting on the unobservable (yet), and anybody trying to use it to prove or disprove God's existence probably doesn't realize how silly they look.  Like a monkey trying to understand the complex grammar of a Shakespearean play when all it knows is sign language signs for simple verbs and simple nouns.  

2. Science at this early stage is inevitably usually wrong about most things that have been "proven".  Scientist are always right in their own mind until 10 or 50 or 100 years later another scientist comes along and shows that were magnificently wrong in a few assumptions.  

I am not arguing that there is or isn't a God here.  What I am trying to say is using today's science to discuss this topic is about as stupid as using first century astronomy and mathematics knowledge to explain why the Earth is bigger than the sun, why the Earth is flat, and just how far away the sun is as it rotates around the Earth.

1) Correct, science is not equipped to conclude about that which cannot be observed.  So yes, it's basically an irrelevant thread as there never could be empirical proof for God.  The debate should instead center around 'a priori' knowledge and not 'a posteriori' knowledge.

2) Correct, the continuing refinement of theories is why science is awesome for its intended purposes.

Good post, although the only thing I would say is that you should remove the "(yet)" from your post as empirical methods of study can never possibly conclude about that which cannot be observed.  For that we have philosophy, mathematics, and metaphysics.

[BitChick]

No scientific evidence so far has pointed to anything besides evolution.  You can't just take one piece of evidence and say this doesn't prove everything, therefor it was gawd.  You have to look at everything we have discovered so far, and the more we find out the more we find that backs the theory of evolution.

You cannot use something written in the bible as evidence of the bible being impossible.  Much of the bible could have been fabricated by the authors, and stories being passed down from generation to generation explain the theme being the same.  Historical impact means nothing, Greek mythology had a huge one and you think that isn't real.  This thread is about science, you cannot use anything in the bible to prove the bible, because nobody is able to prove the accuracy of what was written.  

Almost all of the scientific evidence that has been interpreted to point at evolution, can also point at climate and environmental adaptation.

The Youtube video "Molecular Machinery of Life" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is one of many, many videos showing the operations in the cells. The kinds of operations shown are extremely complex. We don't see anything that is bringing this kind of "machinery" into existence. We have no evidence of the machinery being created from scratch. It is so complex that it would have taken the full 13 to 14 billion years that science wants to attribute to the age of the universe for it to come about by accident. And maybe that wouldn't have been long enough.

We as people and scientists are learning. We are adapting things of nature to work for us in many ways. Yet the complicated operations of a single living cell are way more complex that anything we can come close to inventing or making at this stage of the game.

The point is, we are so ignorant, that even if nature DID make life like it is, then nature itself would be God. What I mean is, the complexity of nature is here. It is so advanced beyond us, that whatever method it came into existence by, that method is God. And not only God, but GREAT GOD ALMIGHTY.

So, get it out of your head that there isn't any God. Rather, be logical and see that nature itself shows you that there has to be a God, even if it is only nature itself. And start looking for that God. If nature around us is what He can make, think of the great and wonderful things He will do for you when you acknowledge Him.

Denying God is like denying the facts of nature that science has discovered all around us.

*facedesk*

All you have is the fine-tuned universe fallacy, which I've gone over so many times.  Complexity is not proof for a creator

All information had to come from somewhere or something that had information.  For example, computer software had to be created by someone that had enough intelligence or information to put that information into the software code.  Even if the hardware of a computer just evolved by chance (which we all know is completely impossible) it would still be a box of metal with no ability to do anything of value.  Why?  It takes software for the machine to run and be useful.

The same could be said for the human body.  Even if the human body happen to evolve where did the information "code" of how our cells interact with each other come from?  It is highly complex and that complexity had to come from somewhere and from something more intelligent than the design of our bodies.  We had to be created by someone.  There is no other explanation.  

All that said, complexity is indeed proof of a higher intelligent being that created the thing that was less complex than the creator of that thing, person, being etc. . .

No, it is not.  If everything complex required a creator than your god would also have to have one, and it's creator have one....  By your logic it would be impossible for a creator to exist because it gets in a infinite loop of needing creators.

Your example of a computer needing code really doesn't work here, as the first organisms didn't have any at all.  Over time evolution made them grow in complexity by making the ones that did thrive, so really it's more like self-patching code by finding out what does and doesn't work.

Check out this video, it does a pretty good job of covering it

But what if the creator of our universe just happened to be "all knowing?"  Then this creator would not have to be created.  For all the parts of our world to work so well together then someone or something smarter had to be involved in the design of it. This is just common sense.  Complexity does not increase over time by just "evolving" in any observable experimentation.

Well what gave the all knowing creator all of his knowledge?  You're not applying the same standards to your god that you are for evolution.  If you're going to make an argument at least make sure your own idea can stand up to it

We have seen evolution in labs right before our eyes.  Over time bacteria were able to evolve into getting energy from a food source that they could not use before (Source) 

As created beings we have limited knowledge and therefore cannot understand anything beyond what we were created to understand.  We were created within the limits of time with all things around us having a "beginning and an ending" but God is outside of time.  He "was and is and is to come."  He is eternal.   This eternal all knowing creator created us with limits in our knowledge and understanding but that said, many created beings think that they are "all knowing."  

[Buffer Overflow]

This whole debate is stupid.

1. Human science is soooooo premature that humans don't even know how big the universe is, how does gravity and electromagnetism work and many other very very simple and basic parts of physics.  If science can't even understand the physical world that is observable, it really has no business commenting on the unobservable (yet), and anybody trying to use it to prove or disprove God's existence probably doesn't realize how silly they look.

I posted this back in the summer:

God cannot be proved or disproved.

Shame it was ignored. Would of saved months of pointless arguing and anger.

[Saltzman Alaric]

Good post, although the only thing I would say is that you should remove the "(yet)" from your post as empirical methods of study can never possibly conclude about that which cannot be observed.  For that we have philosophy, mathematics, and metaphysics.

Oh come man. Have some faith. (pun intended) New branches and disciplines of science are regularly being created as time goes by.  And also lots and lots of theories are postulated in science not by what we can see, but by what we can't see.  If I remember for a long time that was the case with dark energy and dark matter, thus the "dark" in their name.  Just because it isn't directly observable doesn't mean science can't dabble around the subject and rule out other reasonable possibilities one by one.    

[Saltzman Alaric]

This whole debate is stupid.

1. Human science is soooooo premature that humans don't even know how big the universe is, how does gravity and electromagnetism work and many other very very simple and basic parts of physics.  If science can't even understand the physical world that is observable, it really has no business commenting on the unobservable (yet), and anybody trying to use it to prove or disprove God's existence probably doesn't realize how silly they look.

I posted this back in the summer:

God cannot be proved or disproved.

Shame it was ignored. Would of saved months of pointless arguing and anger.

Well, people are always going to think they are right.

If they didn't think they were right, they wouldn't have been thinking that way in the first place. 

And to that point, I don't see much point in sitting around putting my 2 cents in when people aren't going to listen anyway.

[bl4kjaguar]

Post all of the scientific reasons and evidence that demonstrate that this is the case.
Then let people make their own conclusions once they have evaluated the evidence for your claim.
Is that fair?

Just like you. You either believe a little based on the things that I have said, or you don't. Do your own, what would you call it, homework? It doesn't hurt me that nobody can drag any pertinent info out of you, even with a team of horses.

Funny; when you assign homework you are supposed to tell the student where to look for answers. Have you provided references? Have you called my phone number to ask me for some pertinent info?

Your dogma is not appreciated here unless you can back it up; you are annoying us and leading us away from the truth you try to promote.

Christ never put pen to paper. Without the writings of Christ, the integrity of the Bible is in question.

[the joint]

Good post, although the only thing I would say is that you should remove the "(yet)" from your post as empirical methods of study can never possibly conclude about that which cannot be observed.  For that we have philosophy, mathematics, and metaphysics.

Oh come man. Have some faith. (pun intended) New branches and disciplines of science are regularly being created as time goes by.  And also lots and lots of theories are postulated in science not by what we can see, but by what we can't see.  If I remember for a long time that was the case with dark energy and dark matter, thus the "dark" in their name.  Just because it isn't directly observable doesn't mean science can't dabble around the subject and rule out other reasonable possibilities one by one.    

You're speaking here to the difference between the generally inductive process of the scientific method as a whole vs. the deductive process that occurs during individual scientific experiments.   Yes, you are correct that many scientific hypotheses are about unobservable phenomena, but those scientific hypotheses are always based upon the results of other empirical observations.  Those observations then lead us to inductively hypothesize about what caused the events that are observed.  

For example, when an apple falls from a tree and we see other things falling, we can inductively hypothesize that there is likely some unobservable law (gravity, as it turns out) responsible for these allowing these objects to 'fall'.  From that hypothesis we deduce an experimental design to test the strength of our hypothesis which is either accepted or rejected.

The observation of falling objects to create the hypothesis of a law that allows objects to 'fall' was, in itself, an informal experiment.  The hypothesis of this informal experiment is that if something is dropped then it will fall, and we've already tested that hypothesis informally because, on Earth, we always see things fall when dropped.  

What science cannot do, however, is test a purely abstract hypothesis, i.e. a hypothesis that itself was born out of non-empirical ideas.  For those hypotheses, we have the aforementioned, more abstract disciplines I spoke of earlier.  God as a hypothesis is purely abstract, and while such hypotheses are beyond the scope of science, they are not beyond the scope of philosophy.  From a philosophical standpoint, all you need to do to prove the existence of God is to ascribe a definition to God and logically argue whether such an entity must exist by necessity (or, conversely, that it cannot possibly exist, or perhaps even that it is not possible to conclude whether such an entity exists.

Speaking to my previous sentence, I personally like the approach taken by Christopher Langan who, instead of trying to inductively exploring the idea of God based upon evidence or trying to deduce God from a series of axioms, seeks to first remove layers of logical complexity in the Universe and see what remains when there are no more layers left to remove.  As it turns out, taking this approach, the case for God becomes incredibly strong.

Here's a nice article about scientific hypotheses: https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Hypotheses_Forget_About_It

[BADecker]

These responses are exactly the thing that I am talking about. Point them in the other direction. Point them at evolution, big bang, and old-age universe.

Let me pick on evolution. Evolution suggests that things have gone from a very simple state to an extremely complex state over a long period of time. What do we see in the universe and nature around us? Let's list some of them. We see:
1. Extremely great complexity;
2. Cause and Effect in everything;
3. Continual entropy;
4. No evident method for evolution to be happening;
5. A fossil record that shows that in the past there were more than 3 x the number of species than we see alive today;
6. A fossil record that doesn't conclusively show evolution.

Putting all these things together as simply stated above doesn't prove God. Yet these things are part of the reason that men of science have to twist math and nature in laboratories just to get something that they can suggest might appear to be evolution.

That's human laboratories, not nature's "laboratory." They aren't the same. Men need to make very controlled "situations" to get what they want. Nature shows what exists.

The 6 things mentioned above make two very apparent points:
A. We simply don't know for a scientific fact about how things came into being. We are still at base one;
B. Of all the things that we can logically surmise about where we come from, God in all strong probability holds the top position.

Although nature may not prove God from the things listed above in the simplistic form they are listed, they point to God more than any other popular idea, and maybe more than any other idea whatsoever. It's self evident.

[BADecker]

Post all of the scientific reasons and evidence that demonstrate that this is the case.
Then let people make their own conclusions once they have evaluated the evidence for your claim.
Is that fair?

Just like you. You either believe a little based on the things that I have said, or you don't. Do your own, what would you call it, homework? It doesn't hurt me that nobody can drag any pertinent info out of you, even with a team of horses.

Funny; when you assign homework you are supposed to tell the student where to look for answers. Have you provided references?

The universe is at your disposal.

Have you called my phone number to ask me for some pertinent info?

Why would I? After reading your garbage responses, I don't have any reason. However, if you want to pay me enough, I might consider tutoring you.

Your dogma is not appreciated here unless you can back it up; you are annoying us and leading us away from the truth you try to promote.

At least I have a high enough IQ that I can understand it a little.

Christ never put pen to paper. Without the writings of Christ, the integrity of the Bible is in question.

Better to have others speak about you, rather than attesting to yourself. After all, you could be lying. The more the witnesses that affirm what you speak, the better chance there is that you are telling the truth.

[bl4kjaguar]

There is no proof that the Bible is the only printed word of God.
If you question BADecker on the integrity of the Bible, he will freak out because you are attacking his dogma.
BADecker is not willing to discuss anything that could contradict his dogma, and he likes it that way.
Decksperiment wrote several pages trying to get this point across, among others...

[BADecker]

There is no proof that the Bible is the only printed word of God.
If you question BADecker on the integrity of the Bible, he will freak out because you are attacking his dogma.
BADecker is not willing to discuss anything that could contradict his dogma, and he likes it that way.
Decksperiment wrote several pages trying to get this point across, among others...

Huwt youw itty, bitty, feewings, did I?  

[bl4kjaguar]

There is no proof that the Bible is the only printed word of God.
If you question BADecker on the integrity of the Bible, he will freak out because you are attacking his dogma.
BADecker is not willing to discuss anything that could contradict his dogma, and he likes it that way.
Decksperiment wrote several pages trying to get this point across, among others...

Huwt youw itty, bitty, feewings, did I?  

I pierced your dogma.

[the joint]

These responses are exactly the thing that I am talking about. Point them in the other direction. Point them at evolution, big bang, and old-age universe.

Let me pick on evolution. Evolution suggests that things have gone from a very simple state to an extremely complex state over a long period of time. What do we see in the universe and nature around us? Let's list some of them. We see:
1. Extremely great complexity;
2. Cause and Effect in everything;
3. Continual entropy;
4. No evident method for evolution to be happening;
5. A fossil record that shows that in the past there were more than 3 x the number of species than we see alive today;
6. A fossil record that doesn't conclusively show evolution.

Putting all these things together as simply stated above doesn't prove God. Yet these things are part of the reason that men of science have to twist math and nature in laboratories just to get something that they can suggest might appear to be evolution.

That's human laboratories, not nature's "laboratory." They aren't the same. Men need to make very controlled "situations" to get what they want. Nature shows what exists.

The 6 things mentioned above make two very apparent points:
A. We simply don't know for a scientific fact about how things came into being. We are still at base one;
B. Of all the things that we can logically surmise about where we come from, God in all strong probability holds the top position.

Although nature may not prove God from the things listed above in the simplistic form they are listed, they point to God more than any other popular idea, and maybe more than any other idea whatsoever. It's self evident.

Okay, so, let's look at this statement you make:

Putting all these things together as simply stated above doesn't prove God. Yet these things are part of the reason that men of science have to twist math and nature in laboratories just to get something that they can suggest might appear to be evolution.

While I'm not suggesting that there haven't been poor experimental methods (and, by the way, experimental methods are different from the more general scientific method), and while I'm also not suggesting that some scientists mistakenly commit unnecessary fallacies by intentionally trying to fit data to match a hypothesis, can you point to a single example of this with regards to evolution?  I'm not saying they don't exist, but I have the impression that you're saying things without ever having the awareness to recognize specific examples as they arise.

If you can't find an example with regards to evolution, then I'll accept another concrete example of where "men of science...twist math and nature in laboratories."

The 6 things mentioned above make two very apparent points:
A. We simply don't know for a scientific fact about how things came into being. We are still at base one;
B. Of all the things that we can logically surmise about where we come from, God in all strong probability holds the top position.

A)  Correct, we have no concrete scientific facts about how things came into being.  Fortunately, that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.  Evolution is *only* concerned with exploring the biological and environmental processes that lead to adaptive changes in the genome.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life, nor does it ever attempt to explain the origin of life.  Evolution also makes no comment about religion.

B)  I, too, believe God is the most probable and logical cause of the Universe, but your arguments in no way support this.  Your reasoning continues to be shockingly horrible.  You can be correct for the wrong reasons, and you have demonstrated more wrongful reasons to believe in something than I imagined possible from someone who clearly can read, speak, and write the English language.  Simply put, you haven't put forth one legitimate argument for the necessary existence of God, nor have you put forth one legitimate counterargument to evolution, except in a few recent posts where you have obviously begun piggybacking off the ideas of others.

[the joint]

Here's a fantastic article about theories, and about how various disciplines (i.e. philosophy, and its abstract and empirical children, mathematics and physical science respectively) differ in their capacity to explore different kinds of theories.

Go here: http://ctmu.org/ and click "here" at the end of the first bullet point to get to the article.

I guarantee that religious and scientific-minded alike will learn something from reading it.

[BADecker]

There is no proof that the Bible is the only printed word of God.
If you question BADecker on the integrity of the Bible, he will freak out because you are attacking his dogma.
BADecker is not willing to discuss anything that could contradict his dogma, and he likes it that way.
Decksperiment wrote several pages trying to get this point across, among others...

Huwt youw itty, bitty, feewings, did I?  

I pierced your dogma.

Life is about, at times, feeling comfortable. So, since I am not adverse to you feeling comfortable, I won't object to your statement. But, so that I feel comfortable, neither will I accept it.

[BADecker]

These responses are exactly the thing that I am talking about. Point them in the other direction. Point them at evolution, big bang, and old-age universe.

Let me pick on evolution. Evolution suggests that things have gone from a very simple state to an extremely complex state over a long period of time. What do we see in the universe and nature around us? Let's list some of them. We see:
1. Extremely great complexity;
2. Cause and Effect in everything;
3. Continual entropy;
4. No evident method for evolution to be happening;
5. A fossil record that shows that in the past there were more than 3 x the number of species than we see alive today;
6. A fossil record that doesn't conclusively show evolution.

Putting all these things together as simply stated above doesn't prove God. Yet these things are part of the reason that men of science have to twist math and nature in laboratories just to get something that they can suggest might appear to be evolution.

That's human laboratories, not nature's "laboratory." They aren't the same. Men need to make very controlled "situations" to get what they want. Nature shows what exists.

The 6 things mentioned above make two very apparent points:
A. We simply don't know for a scientific fact about how things came into being. We are still at base one;
B. Of all the things that we can logically surmise about where we come from, God in all strong probability holds the top position.

Although nature may not prove God from the things listed above in the simplistic form they are listed, they point to God more than any other popular idea, and maybe more than any other idea whatsoever. It's self evident.

Okay, so, let's look at this statement you make:

Putting all these things together as simply stated above doesn't prove God. Yet these things are part of the reason that men of science have to twist math and nature in laboratories just to get something that they can suggest might appear to be evolution.

While I'm not suggesting that there haven't been poor experimental methods (and, by the way, experimental methods are different from the more general scientific method), and while I'm also not suggesting that some scientists mistakenly commit unnecessary fallacies by intentionally trying to fit data to match a hypothesis, can you point to a single example of this with regards to evolution?  I'm not saying they don't exist, but I have the impression that you're saying things without ever having the awareness to recognize specific examples as they arise.

If you can't find an example with regards to evolution, then I'll accept another concrete example of where "men of science...twist math and nature in laboratories."

You sound like a logical sort of chap. So, my answer would have to be, all of it.

Stand up all of the evidence for evolution against the 6 things that I listed above (include in #1, "... along with extreme simplicity), and you have enough evidence that anything that can be called evolution is sheer foolishness.

[BADecker]

These responses are exactly the thing that I am talking about. Point them in the other direction. Point them at evolution, big bang, and old-age universe.

Let me pick on evolution. Evolution suggests that things have gone from a very simple state to an extremely complex state over a long period of time. What do we see in the universe and nature around us? Let's list some of them. We see:
1. Extremely great complexity;
2. Cause and Effect in everything;
3. Continual entropy;
4. No evident method for evolution to be happening;
5. A fossil record that shows that in the past there were more than 3 x the number of species than we see alive today;
6. A fossil record that doesn't conclusively show evolution.

Putting all these things together as simply stated above doesn't prove God. Yet these things are part of the reason that men of science have to twist math and nature in laboratories just to get something that they can suggest might appear to be evolution.

That's human laboratories, not nature's "laboratory." They aren't the same. Men need to make very controlled "situations" to get what they want. Nature shows what exists.

The 6 things mentioned above make two very apparent points:
A. We simply don't know for a scientific fact about how things came into being. We are still at base one;
B. Of all the things that we can logically surmise about where we come from, God in all strong probability holds the top position.

Although nature may not prove God from the things listed above in the simplistic form they are listed, they point to God more than any other popular idea, and maybe more than any other idea whatsoever. It's self evident.

The 6 things mentioned above make two very apparent points:
A. We simply don't know for a scientific fact about how things came into being. We are still at base one;
B. Of all the things that we can logically surmise about where we come from, God in all strong probability holds the top position.

A)  Correct, we have no concrete scientific facts about how things came into being. Fortunately, that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.  

This is one of the most profound and glaringly accurate, direct-to-the-point statements you havge made.

Evolution is *only* concerned with exploring the biological and environmental processes that lead to adaptive changes in the genome.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life, nor does it ever attempt to explain the origin of life.

Try telling that to all the kids in grade school, high school, college, medical school, etc., who are virtually forced to study evolution as though it were some kind of logical process, if not the absolut truth behind all life.

Evolution also makes no comment about religion.

Probably, yes. But why would a religion that tries to ignore the whole idea of religion even mention anything about religion at all?

B)  I, too, believe God is the most probable and logical cause of the Universe, but your arguments in no way support this.  Your reasoning continues to be shockingly horrible.  You can be correct for the wrong reasons, and you have demonstrated more wrongful reasons to believe in something than I imagined possible from someone who clearly can read, speak, and write the English language.  Simply put, you haven't put forth one legitimate argument for the necessary existence of God, nor have you put forth one legitimate counterargument to evolution, except in a few recent posts where you have obviously begun piggybacking off the ideas of others.

No? My idea isn't to bolster arguments. My idea is to set down some points that will help you and others clarify for yourselves - that is, instigate valid internal arguments within yourselves - about why or why not God or evolution or something else might be valid. I see from your discussion that it is working. I also see that you have very subtle ways for evading the point.