Why there must be a God

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

TheDarkestOfAngesl, when you have tried to discuss the matter, however you have not refuted any of the points I made. Moreover from your comments it seems you have not understand any of the points I have made since otherwise you would not have made these comments. I will clarify:

What points have you actually made?
Moreover, how did my points not address the issues you were talking about?
You're very much oversimplifying the problems at hand and making unreasonable deductions because you believe things to be simpler than they are.

We cannot see the 2 in the equation x+3=5 but rather we deduce it from the rest of the equation. The 'supporting evidence whatsoever' is the rest of the equarion and likewise the supporting evidence for the creator is you and me and all that exists. Perhaps you are baffled and amazed because you are blind or in denial to see the evidences around you?

You can solve "X" by subtracting three from both 5 and "x+3" to get the simple equation of X=2.
However, your analogy is completely false as this is not how things are in reality.
You cannot simply add "goddunit' to any equation and declare that a hyper-intelligent and omnipotent being is the simplest answer to a simple equation. The reason is that because there is neither evidence nor reason for anyone to believe such a being exists, let alone has had any influence on anything in the universe. That is where the evidence points as the universe, life, and everything in between already has explainations that are perfectly logical and perfectly rational given the evidence presented before humanity that do not require an incomprehensibly powerful being at the helm of everything.

God is unprovable by science because by defintion God is unlimited and independednt and not a subject of cause and effect. Unicorns, Godzilla by defintion would be limited and dependant and subjects of cause and effect so science can hypothesis about these matters. You dont seem to be understanding the properties of the creator and the properties of creation. It is not a question of special treatment it is a question of logic.

You can say that god is unprovable by science, but intelligence is not. Further, artificial manipulation of reality despite reality itself can leave traces that scientific methods can detect.

More to my imaginary creature analogy, I can justify their entire existance by using the exact same arguements that you are - I can say that Cthulu (or the flying spagetti monster, or anything else) is omnipotent and 'beyond science' to justify anything about my erroneous beliefs that I choose to.

I agree with the first part but science as already mentioned is to examine all the tangible things which are subject to cause and effect so I do not know why you keept discussing this matter. It is not a fact that there are many truely unknown variables in terms of how life and the universe began. We may not know the details of all the causes and effects which detail how the universe began but whatever they are in the beginning the cause must have been an unlimted independant creator. This is the real reason for God to be neccassary so again you are missing the point.

That's really my point - instead of acknowledging that you do not know or understand these concepts, you've chosen to fill in the unknown gaps with a creator who is absolutely unnecessary and one of the least likely variables for the creation of anything in the universe, including the universe itself.
You have simply chosen to fill in the answer to a question without actually knowing the answer, assuming it's the simplest or best possible explaination when in fact the answers are not known.

In other words, you're simply making shit up and saying it's the best answer, when in fact it's not even a likely answer let alone a good one. I've done the whole 'cosmological arguement' song and dance before and it's just as much imaginative tripe as you'd find in modern comic books.

It is absolutely disgusting how you keep using science to this question when I have explained the limitation of science in my original response and even your fellow athiest agreed with me. Go back and read my first two posts and contemplate what is being said. You statements simply prove that it is you who are trying to cover for the lack of understanding of the scientific principles and decades of hard labor and scientific discovery. You are clearly misunderstanding the basic principles regarding what science can do.

Whether or not an atheist agreed with you is irrelevant. You've explained a great deal but all you've done is tell me stories based on nothing. I've already read your first two posts and I've responded to the first one. You've said little of value in terms of "Why there must be a god."

God is a completely unnecessary component of the universe and just about everything can have perfectly reasonsable explainations (and evidence, in many cases) that reject the need for an omniopotent creator in any scenario. You've done nothing to prove your case.