Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Mister Agenda]

As a 21st Century educated American you should be able to see the flaws in the Big Bang Theory yourself. It partially works on an individual star basis when a star goes supernova but not for the creation of the universe. Think about it and you will see why.

Um, you're so ignorant of what you're speaking about that you don't seem to be able to comprehend the true extent of your ignorance. The evidence points to a universe that existed in a hot, dense state, then rapidly expanded. The theory does not address how long the universe existed in that dense state before expanding, or the cause of the expansion, it's pretty much a straight up description of what observations indicate happened, like describing the cause of death of a dinosaur with lots of T Rex teeth in it. It has nothing to do with supernovas.

---

If I know God, and a billion other people know God, I consider that pretty good evidence for God. If God is supernatural, and you look for proof only by natural means you won't find him. I can understand why you consider the existence of God to be illogical, but it's hard to convince someone who knows God that he really doesn't know him.

And if a billion other people know a different God? And if another billion people know multiple gods? What's the most logical conclusion for a person who doesn't 'know' any gods to reach from that information?

---

If 4 billion people on the planet claim to know Susan and they can't agree about what Susan is, I may not know exactly what she is, but I would definitely be convinced that she exists.

If the vast majority of people agreed that God is fictional, would you think that was a good argument that you should cease believing that God is real?

---

I'm not buying the Big Bang Theory because it's silly. The quantum foam theory is most likely closer to the truth. That's because we are almost certain that once hydrogen forms it clumps together into giant balls and goes nuclear to create stars. And then the stars cook up the heavier elements. That process wouldn't have happened under the Big Bang.

The 'quantum foam theory' is that a quantum vacuum fluctuation gave rise to the 'Big Bang'.

---

Countless people believe in Noah's flood but it's not true. Based on the evidence Americans aren't very smart about a lot of things so claiming that the Big Bang is true because a lot of people believe it isn't a wise thing to do.

It's not true because a lot of people believe in it. It's not even true because a lot of experts believe in it, although that's an entirely different kettle of fish. It's just the most likely explanation for the available evidence, and the people most qualified to evaluate the evidence agree on it, despite there being a Nobel Prize in it for any of them who can show it's wrong.

Hell, most of them don't even know which country they live in or where it is.

Most astrophysicists and cosmologists don't know where their country is? Because those are the people the rest of us are talking about.

Chances are I can get you to admit that the Big Bang is silly by asking you a series of questions.

Chances are I can get you to admit that you're a moron by asking you a series of questions, if you're stupid enough to play along. If you actually had something, it wouldn't take a game to show it.

---

That's what I just said above. God has revealed himself in creation, so no one has an excuse not to believe in him. From that point is where the differences of revelation come in.

If God, then existence.
Existence, therefore God.

The syllogism affirms the consequent and is invalid. The following syllogism makes the same mistake:

If I am Bill Gates, I am rich.
I am rich, therefore I am Bill Gates.