Science can prove a god must exist

[Zaki Aminu]

.....First off in occams razor, the simplest explanation are usually the correct ones and to this point, I do not believe in infinities in this universe. However in explaining current string theory and singularities I will acknowledge that they might exist, however when you truly have anything in infinite dimensions fundamental laws break down and that is where occams razor comes in, i don't believe the laws of physics break down. In black holes I know due to the lack of surface volume your equation would leads to an infinitely dense structure in the singularity however I believe it is extremely compact......

The problem with this argument is that there is too much of it based on what you just believe or do not believe. Ultimate Truth must be able to continue existing as It is - regardless of what you believe or do not believe. Your belief or disbelief is entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether It Exists or not - or What It's Nature Is. Is this not so?

What you have here is a blind faith position, or at least one compromised by it - not a logical argument. Unless, of course, you can rigorously demonstrate why your belief or disbelief in each case is fully justified by logic.

---

The point of responding to CA or KCA was to show you that you have not been able to remove "god" from the problem of infinite regress. The argument used is not sound. Not really an issue for someone who has no problem with their creator having a creator, and so on and so forth ad infinitum, but since you have defined god as the unmoved mover, obviously a problem for you. If you're going to remove god from evidence (which you appear to have done) you aren't left with anything to argue your point with. You could propose some variant of any of the arguments for any other god, but they are all currently in need of some love. Besides, the cosmological argument, by definition, is an argument from evidence. On the one hand claiming that god cannot be measured, and then measuring god by way of invoking the known universe is a bit problematic.

What you seem to be arguing for here, is what we call a god of the gaps. Again, not really a problem, unless/until that gap is filled.

In all honesty though, as long as you aren't claiming that your god has sent commandments for us to follow, complete with punishments and holy texts etc....I like him already. The only reason I'm really offering any resistance here is that the OP states that science can prove a god must exist. Last I checked, science deals with evidence. The CA and KCA aren't evidence.

Ultimate Reality, by definition, is the basis of all else! It supports all else. As such, it is absolutely necessary for all that would survive to adjust themselves to It. This is not a demand made by Ultiamte Reality - it's just a fact that follows from the dependence of all else on It. This is the origin of the perception of cosmic "laws" promulgated from the Origin of all things. They do indeed exist - but have not arisen arbitrarily - but only as an unavoidable consequence of the Unconditional and Unconditioned Existence of Ultimate Reality.

In short, effects follow their causes - iinevitably. This is not some arbitrary rule made up by someone, but rather the same as affirming that a thing is itself! To depart from this line of reasoning is simply absurdist - even insane!