The rise of secularism

I am not claiming anything: simply trying to set out the intelligent designer theory in a formal logic construct.

And even if the cause of the creation of any one particular universe was by divine activity, there is no compelling reason that said divine activist has to hang around and keep track of its evolution.

Well you are certainly entitled to hold to your opinion. I don’t know what your position is based on, but you are free to build your nonbelief on absolutely nothing if you so choose to do so. Good luck with that.

As a true agnostic I am open to be persuaded to change my opinion on anything. I therefore feel I should try to understand the positions of others even when all they ever seem to say is "God did it!" And, really, luck should not be a factor in determining the truth. Unless one holds that faith is a valid substitute for evidence.

For some reason I don’t believe you are sincere when you say you are open to be persuaded. Over the years I have offered evidence and you dismiss it all out of hand without any consideration. No, I don’t see anything that would lead me to believe you are even an agnostic. To me, you actually come across as a devout atheist. I guess claiming be be an agnostic makes you feel better about yourself. Like it puts you in a category of some special thinker. Sorry, but I just don’t see it.

Simply stating that your opinion ranks as evidence does not make it so. I always present a reasoned case as it why it fails to stand and all you can do in face of such reasoning is parrot "Willful denial" as if that explains anything. And I have always stated that there is no compelling argument that god does not exist. Your selective memory is just as effective has having a closed mind. If you have nothing new to add to your list of ad hominem attacks, perhaps you should now keep quiet.

Or go lie down in a darkened bedroom until you regain some degree of humanity. On second thoughts, perhaps not. Such a very long silence might cause some to think something bad had happened to you.

Ok from the website https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/does-god-exist?utm_campaign=youtube-targeting&utm_source=pd-google&utm_medium=search&utm_content=dge-responsive&utm_term=doesgodexist&gclid=CjwKCAiA0cyfBhBREiwAAtStHLTIjfmB6wgNSbFHsBjfAzo-xTdytSAAfUgTkMomxSkiO64UdwkswhoC5A4QAvD_BwE#anchor_one

God makes sense of the origin of the universe Have you ever asked yourself where the universe came from? Why everything exists instead of just nothing? Typically atheists have said the universe is just eternal, and that's all. But surely this is unreasonable. Just think about it a minute. If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, states, the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea. [1] But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist. This conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. In one of the most startling developments of modern science, we now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. For all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains, "the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing." [2] Of course, alternative theories have been crafted over the years to try to avoid this absolute beginning, but none of these theories has commended itself to the scientific community as more plausible than the Big Bang theory. In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches: It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. [3] That problem was nicely captured by Anthony Kenny of Oxford University. He writes, "A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing." [4] But surely that doesn't make sense! Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being. We can summarize our argument thus far as follows: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows. From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical. Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator. Isn't it incredible that the big bang theory thus confirms what the Christian theist has always believed: that in the beginning God created the universe? Now I put it to you: which makes more sense: that the Christian theist is right or that the universe popped into being uncaused out of nothing? I, at least, have no trouble assessing these alternatives! wrote:

So look at this and explain how the author is wrong

If the universe was indeed created by a god, there is no reliable evidence that it hung around to watch how things developed.   The god that created the universe is just as likely to be Odin as Yahweh.   Now that would be really ironic, if it turns out you should be praying to Allah.

I am persuaded by the case that there was once a point when T (time) = 0, If that was not so, there would be an infinite amount of past time and we would not yet have reached now. Ergo, the universe had a discrete beginning, but that does not lead to the only conclusion that it was the act of a personal, Christian, god that set things off.

So you agree that there has to be a God that exists outside of our universe who is responsible for creation. If that’s the case, you have to consider yourself a deist rather than an agnostic. Well, that’s progress

There is no compelling case that there is no god and there is no compelling case that there is one. I simply opined that if the universe had been created by a god, that god does not seem to have stayed around and taken any interest in where his creation had gone. Admitting that there could be a non personal god does not make you a deist: just someone who can keep an open mind.

I agree the universe had a starting point. That does no mean it was started by a god.

I presented compelling evidence for a God. In fact, you did not dispute anything in the article. Your Denialism is so ingrained in you that even when presented with compelling evidence, you can’t help denying there is a God responsible for creation.

Once more I have exposed your Denialism. So please stop asking for evidence. None will satisfy your nonbelief.

A list of annotated opinions is not evidence. And the case the author attempts to make would be equally valid for Allah or Odin. Luvkily for you his case is not valid. That is not denialism, it is being rational.

See…classic denialism. Hahaha

And the ad hominems keep rolling in. Is it not past your bedtime now? You really do need to catch up on your beauty sleep.

No ad hominem attack at all. Just pointing out how you dismiss any and all evidence for God. Hey, embrace your nonbelief and call yourself an atheist and release your true being.

You really should have gone to bed. That might have had some beneficial effect on your bile laden speech. Or perhaps we could get some kindly soul to take a baseball bat to your typing fingers. A painful cure but one recalls that one cannot make omelets without breaking eggs.

Bile laden speech? Come on, man. I'm trying to help you embrace who you truly are. Nothing but love for ya.

Perhaps you should invest in Grammerly or similar. Your speech pattern is that of a short burley thug who wanders around town looking for the next bout of fisticuffs he can join. Just saying. Love back at ya.

Hahaha...you perfectly described my life 35 years ago. Now, I'm just lovin' life and trying to help others discover the truth.

Good for you. But as someone once advised Oliver Cromwell (I think): "Sire, I beseech you, even unto the bowels of Christ, to consider that you might be wrong." (That might be a variation on the notion that the Devil can quote scripture to advance his cause.)

Oh, but here's rub....I'm not wrong. I know this sounds arrogant and maybe even condescending, but I know am 100% correct. I have experienced too much in my relationship with Jesus Christ to doubt Him. Not only have I seen His work first hand, I have experienced Him working in my life. As Alfred H. Ackley wrote:
He lives, He lives,
Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me
Along life’s narrow way.
He lives, He lives, salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know He lives:
He lives within my heart.

I know that you have faith in your belief. I do not deny it, but simply try to explain why it is not my belief.

I know exactly why it is not your belief.

Well, it certainly not willful denial. It is not my fault that there is no compelling case, one way or the other. If there was one, I, like every other honest agnostic, would accept that compelling case as part of our world view.

You have been blinded. That's why you can't see the truth. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Quoting scripture to show it is true can backfire. The Quran assures us that is the one word of god, so if you read it with an open mind, you would be obliged to convert to Islam.