Per request, here's some target practice.

[tavarish]

I'll just bold my replies.

Per the request of an atheist I’ll put these here for your target practice. I would like to add that they are not proofs that God exists. They are all suppositions on the nature of God if he were to exist. I apologize for the lateness of this reply, time and energy have been getting the better of me lately.

1-confirmation of evidences are objectifiable when tested against outside sources correct? That's the crux of the arguement right? We can't provide you the type of verifiable evidence you require beause it's not objectifiable, regardless of how logical or tangible? The holy spirit is what we use for translation and verification. Regardless of how illogical / irrational to you or how intangible when you asked what's our standard, there it is.

And how do you determine the holy spirit to be correct, as a means for assessing God claims?

2-Some theists feel God is a personal God, and a better statement would be our idea of God should be our own. Each of us (believers) has a holy spirit that reveals truth to us. Therefore the best idea you can have of God is your own.

A belief in God is subjective. This is not what I have issue with, it is the claim that God objectively and necessarily exists in reality.


A- Within our universe 99.9% of "things" have a cause.

What's the other .1 percent?

a1- The human race should have a cause

It does. it's called evolution by natural selection

a2- if Natural selection is the cause of the above then nature needs a cause

The things that we perceive to be natural, or the laws governing them?

a3- matter that exists can not come from nothing

In our understanding of the universe, yes

a4- matter then also needs a cause

Not necessarily. Why can't matter be eternal?

a5- the laws of nature and nature itself as well as all mater should have a cause. This cause would have to be more complex and powerful than anything we have yet to encounter.

I disagree. We as a species do not have evidence to support the argument that there was something "before" the Big Bang, as it argued that the Big Bang is where time, and a rapid expansion of the universe as we know it, developed. Why can't we say nature itself began at the Big bang, along with the laws of cause and effect?

a6-Aside from a complex super-intelligent, super powerful alien species presents itself (which we assume they would have already) the best cause would be a singular source.

Again, why assume a source or prime mover is needed? With no evidence to support anything, would not any claim be approached with the same plausibility?

a6- The best cause IMO is God, due to his nature of existing outside the universe, having the attribute of creator, and all powerful .

That singular source would also have to be more complex than the universe itself. You're proposing a solution that's essentially more complex than all of the factors in the problem. You also have no credible nor scientific evidence to support your claim.

This is the monumental problem with the kalam argument. It assumes that a prime mover is needed, and it posits that God is that prime mover, making a HUGE leap from observation into assumption and speculation.


B- A extremely large percentage of our perceivable (neither macro or micro) day to day lives world appears to have design

Elaborate - the things actually designed by humans, or things in nature? Also, "appears" doesn't lend any credibility to whether or not a statement is actually true. Take into account HOW you can recognize design from something naturally occurring.

b1- the cell is considered the smallest unit of matter alive

okie dokes.

b2- cells that reproduce show structure and formation and have a purpose or direction of action

yes - survival and reproduction.

b3- out of all the atoms, photons, light wavelengths and stars in the universe it is unlikely to prove by randomness that life came from non-life.

Likelihood has no bearing on if the entity actually exists or not. The fact that we're sitting here discussing this is very unlikely, yet it is occurring. Abiogenesis is a viable theory with its own issues. Just because one theory doesn't have adequate evidence to support it doesn't mean another theory is automatically true.

b4- Something would have to “breathe life” into lifeless atoms based off of A

...or it could have come about through natural processes, the likes of which we have not been able to reproduce as of yet. Or it could have been the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

b5- It would take a lot less faith (since faith is required by both with current understanding) to believe that we were designed by a creator rather than believe life from un-life. Due to God’s attributes in the creation story it’s more likely to believe in 1 simple answer until science can put life into un-life, which (based off various religions) was only attributed to Gods in the past.

Would it require no faith to say that we don't have a concrete answer yet? God isn't a simple answer when you're trying to evaluate something independently. Science has no bearing on any faith, it is interested in deducing the conclusion that comports most with reality. It separates fact from fantasy. If someone finds it easier to believe microscopic gila monsters constructed the universe, that's fine. It has no merit in the realm of science if he can't demonstrate it.

C - Synchronicity - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Coincidence - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence

D- The holy spirit
d1- there is a voice in side me that doesn't speak when I expect it to
d2- it comes at inopportune times when I wish I didn't have to hear what it said.
d3- it tells me of things I could have no knowledge of and guides me to things listed in C above.
d4- this things helps me understand when lost, speak when ask, and see when blind
d5- It manipulates the chemicals in my body when I wish it wouldn't, sometimes to my betterment, sometimes to mockery.
d6-Because of a 24 hr amnesia (car accident) I can discern experienced reality and rationalized reality. d7- Those around me don’t perceive me as delusional, nor do I perceive myself to be.
d6- I cannot discernibly say for sure but I see no reason for it to very likely come from an intangible extraneous source.

So you have a voice that talks to you and manipulates your actions, you have no good reason to believe it other than your subjective experience, and that somehow ties itself to a claim that a deity exists objectively?

This is telling of your psychological state and doesn't really give any insight into anything in the objective realm.


E- The bible
e1- a historic written collection of stories, perceptions and ideals.
e2- written from the POV of multiple authors all relatively pointing towards the same truths
e3- has some historic content, but mostly subjective, however this doesn't contend falseness nor any conspiracies.

It also doesn't contend truth or contingency with reality.

e4- When I read it in the most contextual and simple method I see little to no contention within it.

Irrelevant to the conversation.

e5- Including the dead sea scrolls and apocrypha, they all describe in detail the attributes I see as reflecting God’s nature.

Again, irrelevant. Anecdotal evidence is not consistent, nor is it credible.

F- Free will (or the perception of)
f1- particularly good article on my feelings here. http://www.ucg.org/bsc/04/freedomchoice.htm

That article leaves many questions unanswered and presupposes objective morality, which is it itself a conundrum.

G- Our understanding of our universe always falls short of absolutes

yes.

g1- "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths" (Proverbs 3:5-6)

I'd rather not.

g2- Having the "blank cheque" of God isn't a convenience, I'd personally rather have all of the answers
g3- Where our understanding fails, God is there to provide understanding , and has in the past

That's human nature. We're pattern seeking mammals and would prefer a conspiracy theory, or bad theory to no theory at all (paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens). You thinking you have all of the answers absolutely doesn't do any good to anyone else, nor does it make your answers correct. To know you have all of the answers would be intellectual stagnation. This is exactly what happened in the Dark Ages. Can you tell me ANYTHING in which our understanding has improved by the sole reasoning that God did it?

g4- standards without absolute goals fall short of the perfection required in the pursuit of truth.

Why is perfection required in the pursuit of truth? Does the human brain even operate in absolutes?

H- Not only human perception but human sense falls short of capturing even a small portion of our reality.

I'm pretty sure human perception is the only thing we have to judge such a claim with. How can you back up this claim?

h1- You eyes see everything, but our minds only subconsciously can focus on minutiae.
h2- that subconscious access is extremely difficult because our focus of will determines our perception.
h3- This varying scale of perception would then likely have a maximum and minimum.
h4- By God’s attributes listed he is the most likely source for the maximum of this scale

Again you're making a huge leap based on assumption.

The subconscious is hard to access, therefore God exists.

I’ll add more tomorrow. transcendental idealism, morality, prayer, etc. Running out of steam quick.