Why there must be a God

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

The reason why I mentioned your fellow athiest agreeing with me is to show that someone else did understand what was being said regarding science in the first two posts. YOU obviosuly didnt understand which is why all your posts show you have not understood what was said in my first two posts.

I understand that someone else agreed with you. I'm telling you that it's irrelevant.
I'm also telling you that not agreeing with you is not the same thing as being not correct.

This has already been dealt with, I think you know it or just cant think logically enough in order to see it. It doesnt baselessly try to smuggle in a creator. Clearly I said we derive the neccessity of a unlimited, independent creator based on the fact that what you have mentioned of the finite universe exists since the aforementioned creator can be the only solution to how everything eixts. The basis is the material and finite universe and as you mentioned its undeniable charachteristics. Do note that I am not saying God is material or has colour or anything like this since these things themselves AS WE KNOW within our realm and hence limited and dependent i.e. not attributable to God. Therefore if you dont like using the word God dont use it just use the word creator since that would fit the equation. However I think God is fine too since as previosuly mentioned most people use the word to identifiy the unlimited, independent, self sufficient creator we are talking about. I have already said if we want further information about him we could only get them from the creator e.g. revelation.

I'm fully aware of what you said. I'm telling you it's wrong.
When I tell you that you're attempting to 'smuggle in an infinate creator' I mean that your conclusion (god) doesn't logically follow the premise (a finite universe.)

It cannot be demonstrated to be the case because the request for such a demonstration is illogical and basless. Since God is unlimited and independent and our realm is the opposite how can we test him, this we have already discussed. Likewise for the millionth time the creator is logically derived from our existence which we consider to be factual and true and that is the basis for deriving God. Therefore it doesnt assume God to be true, rather the truth is arrived at through logically understanding the truth of our existence and understanding their is only one possible solution is the same way x+3=5 where x must be 2.

And this is another thing - you've not only erroneously assumed that a creator of the universe exists, you've also unnecessarily assumed a number of characteristics of god - that it is omnipotent, unlimited, and independant and yet you have nothing in which to base this assumption upon.
Further, if god does exist in the manner in which you mentioned, even if anything you said was true, this god would have left his "footprint", such that it would be, somewhere. There would be artifacts, witnesses, and people would account for the same deity in similar ways - not to mention that even within the same religion no one has the same idea of what god is - and that's not even treading upon the hundreds of thousands of different religions - of which the modern concept of god that you're using has only existed briefly over the course of human history.
Yet, there are no signs that a god ever existed or affected humanity, life, or the universe in any manner whatsoever and the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of ways that the universe could have come into being without your imaginary friend.