Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Amarok]

<a tissue of lies>

A perfect description of theism

---

At work.

I just listed like 20 points that qualify for "facts or information". In those 20 points was the unbroken, reported personal experiences of God from like a billion people. Is a billion pieces of "fact or information" enough? 


Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, creator of all there is, the God partially revealed in the OT and then the incarnation described in the events of the NT as a God who sacrificed for us and who wants to have a personal relationship with us. 

Information from: natural theology, revealed theology, inferred systematic theology, personal experience of me and others.


I notice that you seem to have a need to keep the conversation as vague as possible. You actually asked for theists to answer your OP. But I think that you thought you would get answers that you could just dismiss with a condescending line or two about the Bible. Your actual knowledge of the subject is so weak that you need to keep things vague to mask it. If I'm right, you are nothing more than a simple-minded member of the atheist echo chamber. Congrats.

If I am wrong, you will address my evidence point by point as your OP implied you wanted to discuss. 

Which is it? Simple-minded or intelligent discussion.

---

I am happy to discuss each point with you in as much detail as you like. However, I am not going to have dueling Amazon book links. Pick one and give me the basics.

I'll start on the one you did actually expand on. The reason there must be a first cause is that a infinite amount of past causes/effects is not logically possible. There is no such possibility as an actual infinite number of anything in the real world. If there were an infinite number of past events, we could never have gotten to the events of today because there would still need to be an infinite amount of events that need to pass before we can get to today. 

No scientist has ever had a theory where things come into being ex nihilo.

Hawking Radiation for one example of "Something from exnihilo"

Along with spontaneous nuclear fission for things happening without causes.

 

He's still prattling on about his unfounded assertion that everything needs a cause

---

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something.

Only you would dilute that word so heavily but like Reformed Epistemology when theists can't win the rewrite the rules to favor themselves  .

---

---

I am happy to discuss each point with you in as much detail as you like. However, I am not going to have dueling Amazon book links. Pick one and give me the basics.

I'll start on the one you did actually expand on. The reason there must be a first cause is that a infinite amount of past causes/effects is not logically possible. There is no such possibility as an actual infinite number of anything in the real world. If there were an infinite number of past events, we could never have gotten to the events of today because there would still need to be an infinite amount of events that need to pass before we can get to today. 

No scientist has ever had a theory where things come into being ex nihilo.

Moving the goalposts fallacy.  You only asked for me to show there were indeed alternative explanations.  I have done so, whether you investigate them on your own or not.  Plus I already offered short summaries.

With quantum mechanics, scientists have already shown that the physical world can behave in non-intuitive ways.  So neither of your arguments, against infinities and against ex nihilo creation, may be correct in reality.

Not mention it's not your job to provide explanations to reject his unfounded attempts at slapping god stickers all over everything .

---

Fine. My point would have been there are problems with those alternate explanations so they might not actually be explanations to the Christian beliefs/worldview. Silly me, I thought you wanted to have a discussion on...well...a discussion forum. Well, I'm not doing both sides of it.

You can have your over-used quantum mechanics red herring--although I have no idea how it get's you around the infinity problem.

---

The argument "there can't be an infinite regression to the past" is reasonable when discussing the current nature of our universe.  Infinite regression can best be disproved by thermodynamics.

However, thermodynamics is a property of the current universe, since the big-bang.  Our laws of physics, and even the existence of time itself only has meaning from that moment onward.  There have been proposals that the big-bang actually created two universes, moving in opposite directions in time.

As for quantum-mechanics, we have no theory which can model a singularity, but we know it will be something new.  Quantum mechanics does away with strict causality, and deals with probabilities.  All possibilities are probed, while only one history seems realized in the long-term.

Trying to use common-sense regression ideas to explain the universe fails.  We know it fails.  We don't know all the answers, but inserting "God" has never increased scientific knowledge,, ever.  The big-bang is a better stopping point for infinite regression than any imagined deity, but few scientists think that is the beginning of "existence" itself.

And now he's trotting out the infinite regress canard

---

I just listed like 20 points that qualify for "facts or information". In those 20 points was the unbroken, reported personal experiences of God from like a billion people. Is a billion pieces of "fact or information" enough? 

Nope you listed nothing