The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence

[no one]

You ask a lot, DS.

I don't think logic is a language our host understands.

[Pat Mustard]

Second law of thermodynamics says that the energy is decreasing over time

Wrong, boy, the second law simply states that entropy cannot decrease with the passage of time. Therefore the universe as a whole cannot but get more disordered the older it gets (locally is a different story, some parts of the universe can get more ordered while the whole is becoming less ordered).

The energy contained within, though, remains constant.

[Abaddon_ire]

Can someone explain why noobs are so impressed with Kalam?

It's like they think that none of us have ever encountered it before.

And demolished it many times over.

Nogba, the Kalam arguments, which is what you are presenting, is well known and demonstrably false

[GrandizerII]

First of all please excuse my english, it's not my original language.

every thing that existes must have a reason that made him come to existence right ?
you can't create something from nothing.
nothing comes to existance by coincidence, but if you say so then what brings this law of coincidence in existance.
the coincidence law it self need something to bring him to existance

the probleme is that if every thing needs a first reason to existe,
nothing will existe in first place.

why is that ?
because we need that very first reason that doesn't need a reason to exist that will begin the chaine of causes.

this first causes is called god, that will catalyst the existance.

Calling the alleged first cause "god" does not make it true that the first cause is "god". And certainly does not mean that it must therefore be the god that you specifically believe in.

[Nogba]

First of all please excuse my english, it's not my original language.

every thing that existes must have a reason that made him come to existence right ?
you can't create something from nothing.
nothing comes to existance by coincidence, but if you say so then what brings this law of coincidence in existance.
the coincidence law it self need something to bring him to existance

the probleme is that if every thing needs a first reason to existe,
nothing will existe in first place.

why is that ?
because we need that very first reason that doesn't need a reason to exist that will begin the chaine of causes.

this first causes is called god, that will catalyst the existance.

Calling the alleged first cause "god" does not make it true that the first cause is "god". And certainly does not mean that it must therefore be the god that you specifically believe in.

Let's just call it the first cause then ?

[Pat Mustard]

Calling the alleged first cause "god" does not make it true that the first cause is "god". And certainly does not mean that it must therefore be the god that you specifically believe in.

Let's just call it the first cause then ?

Better yet the "alleged and totally unproven first cause, for which no evidence has been offered".

[Abaddon_ire]

Calling the alleged first cause "god" does not make it true that the first cause is "god". And certainly does not mean that it must therefore be the god that you specifically believe in.

Let's just call it the first cause then ?

Nope. You would have to then demonstrate that any "first cause" is required at all, and nobody can do that. It is entirely possible that there was no "first cause" at all. And you have no basis for claiming otherwise.

[brewer]

Anybody called POE yet?

[Aegon]

I don't know why any of this First Cause stuff is necessary. You can theoretically reject the notion of the first cause entirely, as all things seem to be relative to other things, i.e. are caused by something and cause something themselves. Actually, in my opinion (which means please be gentle if I sound stupid) it's easier to argue that there is no first cause because nothing is actually absolute and independent. It's what we know, it's what we've observed. I have no compelling reason to come up with a First Cause, and I definitely do not have any compelling reason to introduce a God into the equation to explain it.

[LadyForCamus]

As Vulc has already pointed out, even if we accept, for the sake of the argument, the premise that the universe had a cause, it doesn’t get you to god. You still need to present a well-evidenced, sound argument to support the claim that this cause is an all-powerful, all-knowing, conscious, intelligent, personal, divine being.

Spoiler Alert: The Quran is not that argument.