Search results

But you are redefining the name as well. You are redefining God to mean "The universe". We already have a name for the universe. That name is: "The Universe." Deciding that "God" is a better name for it is not justifiable (at least as far as I can see) for two reasons. First, you've provided...

Something which clearly violated things we know to be true. The moon turning into a disco ball, or something? But that could be explained away by aliens with sufficient technology. Maybe a bit in the Bible describing some scientific knowledge that is cl;ear about what it is talking about, but...

Why should the process by which something comes about determine how well that thing does something?

This sounds like taking the word "God" and using it to refer to something for which we already have a perfectly adequate word. I can claim that my toaster is God, but me using the word God to refer to my toaster doesn't mean it is God.

I see no reason to believe that a thing exists if evidence that can withstand scrutiny and does not rely on logical fallacies has not been presented for that thing. I have seen no evidence for the existence of God that does not withstand scrutiny or rely on logical fallacies.