Who throws the dice for you?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Actually, all you showed is that you either don't realise when you're begging the question or that you'll deliberately lie in order to defend your faith.

The 'only' was crucial because it negates the 'if': there is no alternative to the 'condition' therefore it's not a condition, it's an assumption. The construction of an IF statement is IF, THEN, ELSE. If there's no ELSE, the IF is irrelevant.
Quite the contrary. I wonder if you'll ever learn to live with that?

Don't be silly. The "only" doesn't negate the "if". It negates the possibility of an explanation other than God.

The argument is valid. There is no begging the question.

For the record, the point of the argument was not to summarize my position. The point of the argument was to show you there is no begging the question. You can take the "only" out if you like.

"I've presented you a question with only one answer, based on an assumption. How dare you accuse me of begging the question!"

... thus negating the 'if'! If there's no 'else' there's no reason for an 'if'!! Don't ever try to program an IF statement, you'll probably end the universe.
How about I re-write the 'hypothesis' properly for you:

1. Problem: We see events which cannot be explained by local physical causes
2. Hypothesis: There is a 'control method' for 'events which cannot be explained by local physical causes'
3. Null-hypothesis: there is no 'control method' for 'events which cannot be explained by local physical causes'
4. Definition: <insert definition of 'events'>
5. Experiment: Observe and recreate 'events' in order to create definitions of possible 'control methods'
6. Result: Factually demonstrate the existence of God
7. Holy shit!

I predict that you will fail at 6.

Should you, somehow, fulfill the above requirements, you might then posit:

Premise 1: God is demonstrably existent
Premise 2: God interacts with quantum events in measurable ways
Premise 3: God-controlled quantum events have an appearance of randomness
Conclusion: God is the control mechanism behind the appearance of randomness in quantum events

Ahh...I see how you are misunderstanding now.

You are conflating premise 1 and premise 2.

If you take premise 1 by itself you should see the "if" isn't magically negated by the "only"

Premise 1: A is true only if B is true.
Premise 2: B is true.
Conclusion: A is true.

You see the condition in premise 1 is this.....either B is true or it isn't.

Premise 1: God exists only if events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Premise 2: Events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

Premise 1: Thunder and lightning exist only if they are caused.
Premise 2: Thunder and lighting exist.
Conclusion: Therefore Thor exists.

Premise 1: Loki exists only if events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Premise 2: Events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Conclusion: Therefore Loki exists.

[quote='Ben Davis' pid='651914' dateline='1397639952']Again....no begging the question.

If you do not get this...I'm afraid you are just a lost cause. This is my last response on this tangent.