Oh, I know there's still a long way to go. But I'm only proven to be hypocritical if the way I am acting is deliberately in contradiction with the way I am believing. I have already evidenced quite convincingly that is not the case, but I do want to keep this good discussion going.

> Your standard for evidence in day to day life is not consistent with your lack thereof for a god.

Not a bit. I have shown you the consistency of my day to day life with my position on cosmology, and now also with ontology. Your disagreements with the positions don't make me a hypocrite. My belief and actions are concordant, and my beliefs and my day to day life are consistent with each other. Your assessment that my positions are strong enough to warrant your assent doesn't make ME a hypocrite.

> Kalam’s cosmological argument simply determines a sort of prime mover who set everything in motion.

I agreed with this, and stated that's where the argument takes us. It's merely Point #1 of 12.

> For starters, you are reducing based on what’s in this universe certain rules about the universe itself.

That's the science and the evidence that I'm going by. I am following Georges Lemaître's math and current scientific understanding as the evidence that both logic and evidence take us to a prime mover.

> This argument relies on the idea that we know everything there is to know about our universe.

Actually it doesn't. It's a logical sequence that isn't served well by your analogy. The appearance of the shape of the earth doesn't make it necessarily so or illogically not. Such material phenomena can conform to any number of given shapes or laws. My logic in the ontological argument is based on necessity: If God is God, then he must be God. If God is not God, then God is logically impossible. It's a completely different thought process than that of the configuration of our perceptions of a material phenomenon such as the shape of the earth. For all the ancients knew, they may have been perceiving the flat top of an hour-glass-shaped earth, or a plane of a receding parabola-shaped earth. But the earth doesn't necessarily have to be, by definition, any particular shape. Observation, experimentation, and math gives us the true shape. But the question of God is different from that. If God does not exist, then it is impossible that he exists regardless of human perception or opinion (different than your earth analogy). But if there really is a God, then He must necessarily exist and also must necessarily be God.

But it still doesn't prove the existence of God, let alone the Christian God (which we are still far from in the chain of our discussion. What the argument does show, as I said in point #5, there’s actually evidence and good sense to say that God might exist and could actually be a reasonable explanation for what we observe (another piece of evidence behind my faith). And if God's existence is not contradictory to logic and to the evidence before us (which it is not), then perhaps God is logically necessary (I put the "perhaps" in out of deference for your disagreement with the argument), and the evidence of God in this argument is what comes before my admission that I believe.

But since you claim you've already responded to this and refuted it, we can move to the next piece of the puzzle (#3 of 12): a teleological argument.

1. We as humans don’t know of anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that wasn't indeed purposefully designed. Whenever we know of something that exhibits purpose (a reason for why it exists or why something happened the way it did), and whenever we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design (somebody thought it up and made it happen), it was indeed the designed product of an intelligent being. Whether a watch, a washer, or a window, if we can infer that there was a purpose behind it, it's safe to say that an intelligent being designed it for that purpose, or at least for a purpose.

2. There are many parts of the universe, the earth, and life as we know it that exhibit purpose—not just parts of the universe exhibit purpose, though, but even the universe itself. Every scientist asks "Why?" We assume purpose in what we observe around us. "Why do the planets spin?" "Why is the earth pitched at an angle?" We are always looking for the reasons and the purpose, assuming they are there and, not surprisingly, we find purpose in many parts of the universe and life.

3. Therefore, it's logical to assume that the universe could be the product of purposeful design.

4. Everything else we know that exhibits those characteristics was indeed designed; why should the universe be treated any differently?

Purpose doesn’t logically sprout all by itself. We invest things with purpose, give them purpose, and design them with purpose. When archaeologists dig something up, they can see that it was made, and they ask, "Hm, what was this for? What purpose did it have?" The universe has similar characteristics that are means to ends—cause and effect for a purpose. It's logical, then, based on everything else we know, to assume a designer when we see a design. That's the rationale behind the teleological argument.

As with the others, this argument is based in evidence—what we observe scientifically and experimentally—as the basis of my faith.

But neither of these is evidence of what you claim. I have been through this. Multiple times now. Kalam’s cosmological argument simply determines a sort of prime mover who set everything in motion. But there are a couple problems with this in the first place. For starters, you are reducing based on what’s in this universe certain rules about the universe itself. For example, if you went by the fact that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then you would conclude by your logic that the universe cannot do that either. But that is false. The universe itself, the fabric of space time, can and does expand faster than the speed of light. So there is no actual evidence to conclude that we don’t live in a pattern of infinite causality without a prime mover. There could be an infinite chain of universes ending and starting forever. Just because this isn’t logical WITHIN this universe does not prohibit the possibility that it is true of the universe itself. Or maybe this isn’t true, this is also possible since we have no idea. It could be really almost anything. You even yourself mentioned that a prime mover (I’m not gonna say god because you’re argument really doesn’t argue for a god, just for something that set everything we know in motion) is just as plausible as any other explanation. You are correct about that for the most part. That’s because none of them have evidence. So no one claims to know or “believe” which is true except for religious people. you don’t have evidence, you have the fact that it is just as minute a possibility as every other hypothesis of what came before the universe. This is not evidence for your claim at all, it is wishful thinkng.

I have refuted the ontological argument in another thread I think, in fact I think it was you that claimed it was true. But whatever, I’ll do it again. This argument relies on the idea that we know everything there is to know about our universe. Let me explain:

Thousands of years ago, humanity thought the Earth was flat due to the fact that when you looked down, it looked flat. That was the extent of their knowledge. So by their logic that was based on their assumptions through observation, the Earth is flat. So since the Earth being flat makes logical sense, you would say that it must be true. The only way your argument holds any water as evidence of any form is if we know whether there is a god or not, through scientific inquiry. Because then, all of our knowledge through which we base our logic, will be complete and irrefutably correct. If at that point we know a god exists, then yes he must make logical sense as well. Or if at that point we know he doesn’t exist, then yes he must be logically contradictory and nonsensical. This is true with the Earth being round as well. The Earth being round didn’t make logical sense until it was proven through science. That doesn’t make it any less true. Another example: right now, we can’t logically disprove the multiverse conclusively. It is logically conceivable even if some parts of the hypothesis are unclear. So since it isn’t completely logically nonsensical, are you saying that it definitely exists? No! We can’t know whether it is true/logically backed up conclusively, until we know it is true or not through science.

None of this is evidence of either a god or the Christian god. So you still have a long way to go in order to disprove my assertion that you are hypocritical. Your standard for evidence in day to day life is not consistent with your lack thereof for a god.

My first evidence was a cosmological argument that everything that has a beginning was caused by something already in existence. It's both a philosophical and scientific argument based in evidence and logic (since you are implying that my faith isn't based in evidence and that it's contrary to science). You had refutations to it, the main one of which was we have to suspend conclusion for now. But we can at least also say that theism is no less reasonable a conclusion than many other alternatives.

I mentioned I have about 12 of these, so we can move to the next. It's an ontological argument, mildly based in science and evidence (it overlaps gently with the cosmological argument), but more an argument from reason.

1. If God (a supreme, supernatural divine being) does not exist, his existence is logically impossible. That doesn’t mean he can’t be made up in someone’s imagination (which is still possible even if he doesn’t exist); what it means is that if God doesn’t really exist, the very concept of God is inconsistent or self-contradictory. His existence doesn’t even make sense.

2. But if God does exist, then it’s necessary that He does. It cannot be otherwise if He is truly God and if He truly exists.

3. Therefore (first conclusion), God’s existence is either impossible (inconsistent and self-contradictory) or necessary. There’s no halfway position.

4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, then even the concept of God and everything we think about him is contradictory. We are trying to make a reality what is not only nonsensical, but impossible.

5. But the concept of God is not contradictory. There’s actually good sense to it in many ways, for example, that something caused what we see. While some may not agree, it’s assuredly not contradictory.

6. Therefore (second conclusion), if God’s existence isn’t contradictory (if that choice is removed from the equation), then the only reasonable choice left is that God is logically necessary.

God is either impossible or necessary. Since He’s not impossible, then He must be necessary, and therefore He exists.

This argument can't stand alone, but it's another in a battery of evidences, both logical and evidentiary, for theism.

Time is a dimension, just like length, width, and height. The only difference is that we cannot move throughout time in any way other than forward at a set rate. There are plenty of scientific articles and theories that explain the nature of time. I am not going to teach you all of these things in a reddit post, look them up. It simply is not a source of controversy in the scientific community. What I can say is that just because something varies with context, does not mean that it is not objective. Gravity for example, is an objective and tangible thing. It does change force and its behavior depending on the mass of its source, but all of that conforms to laws and math. Time is no different.

Well clearly the people who did murder the children thought it was right. This alone shows that morality is not objective. Besides, of course the vast majority of people consider it wrong. Killing something that can survive and reproduce, prolonging our species, is irrational. Those that think it is okay to kill kids for fun simply wouldn't reproduce as much. Those that think it is wrong reproduce more. So naturally, the species would evolve to consider it wrong.

Sure, the universe may have had a causative mechanism outside of itself, we just don't know. I would say it most likely did. But the fact is we do not know. Even assuming it did, that does not point to god. So I don't really understand why you would bring it up?
I actually would agree with your statement that some are more likely than others. But I would contend that God is not one of the more likely explanations. There is no evidence that points to the plausibility that it is true.

Finally I will answer your last paragraph. If I am wrong, prove me wrong. Offer this evidence from which you base your claim? Of course you may start with the idea that any god exists and then move on to Christianity specifically. Just know that you haven't done either yet and will need to do both in order to prove me wrong.

This discussion is getting so broad it's difficult to keep track of all the threads and respond to them.

> TIME

Rather than continuing a conversation where I'm claiming that time is real but it's immaterial and you are claiming it is objective. Then you say "We know time is constant and that it changes with speed and gravity". If time is constant, then it can't change. Unless you're contending that it changes at predictable rates and therefore is "knowable" even if it's not constant. I don't disagree with part of that, but if time can stretch and shrink and is relative to velocity and mass, then in what sense can we say time is objective? I was trying to show that time is real but not objective because it varies according to context. We measure time by the sun or by nuclear action (atomic clocks, nuclear vibration). I guess the most fundamental question is "What is time?" Does it exist? Is it tangible and objective or immaterial and relative? I agree that the effects of time may be "tangible, objective, observable things" (though "tangible" is vastly debatable), its effects are not the thing itself. To me time is both a philosophical construct, a metaphysical way we interact with our environment, and a scientific way to measure relativity. But there's nothing about the metaphysical reality of time that is tangible or objective.

> It is just incredibly likely due to the fact that murder for fun has happened before all the time.

You've missed my point. I was not claiming that people never murdered a child for the fun of it, I was claiming that there is no culture where such things are considered to be right.

> I am saying that it fails at proving anything other than the fact that the universe has a beginning and that something triggered that beginning. Nowhere does it prove any sort of god.

I agree. The point of Kalam's argument is not to prove any sort of a god, but to prove that the universe had a causative mechanism outside of itself.

> So every explanation, including God, the Multiverse, etc. is all baseless speculation.

I don't agree that every explanation is baseless speculation. We have the ability to observe and to reason; some have more credibility than others, and some have some deposit of evidence to support them.

> It is not a different question. Christians aren't just claiming god exists. They are claiming that the Christian god exists.

We are not to this discussion yet. We just can't solve all the problems of the universe in one post. My first line of reasoning is that my faith is based in evidence and it's not fundamentally hypocritical. My second line of reasoning, though it's a long and involved one of which we have barely scraped the surface, is that theism is a reasonable option in our analysis of the evidence. But you have already jumped to your conclusion ("anyone who believes in god is a hypocrite because they haven't demanded evidence to support it" and "being a christian as you are makes it even worse and even more hypocritical"). It's tough to argue against presuppositional bias.

You are actually making the argument to me that leap-years, imperfections in some of the arbitrary units of measurement we use to keep track of time, and the fact that an amount of time to do something is measured by correlating to to real events is actually evidence that time is not objective? That it changes? That is not constant? It's hard for me to know where to begin here. That is just fundamentally wrong. First of all, acting like time around our sun is different from time anywhere else is like saying that "a meter is only the length of a meter-stick, how long is a meter anywhere that isn't next to a meter-stick??" But that isn't even getting into the rest of that paragraph. Time is constant, the real world events we use to measure time is what's imperfect. For example, a year or a day. A year has meant the amount of time it takes for the Earth to go around the sun. A day means one rotation of the Earth. The problem with these (and the reason we have leap years and similar phenomena) is because they are imperfect measurements. The amount of time the Earth takes to go around the sun is changing not because time is not constant, but because of math and how orbits and gravity work. Same goes for days. So the scientific community has agreed on mathematical values for the amount of time in a year, day, second etc. because the real world counterparts they are based on, change due to forces we didn't understand when the idea of a day or a year were first introduced. We know time is constant and that it changes with speed and gravity. Its called relativity General and Special. These are tangible, objective, observable things.

Actually, all of those examples you mentioned that I said are biological processes are indeed observable and tangible. Go read about some Neuroscience and Biology. I am not going to explain that to you. Not enough time or room.

You are right, I have no evidence that anyone thought killing babies for fun was something that happened. It is just incredibly likely due to the fact that murder for fun has happened before all the time. There are many criminal cases on this. You also are confusing objective with inter-subjective. The novel "Sapiens: A History of Humanity" explains this very well. An example of objective reality is scientific facts about the universe. Examples of this are the biology of how animals function, the physics of how the universe works, and other things that really exist. Not fictions created by human consciousness. Subjective things are the other end. An imaginary friend or opinions for example. You can't prove them correct due to the fact that they exist in your own head and are unique to you. Then there is the inter-subjective category. A prime example of this is morality. Right and wrong does not exist without humans to make it up. All examples of morality in law are in writings created by humans. Killing a baby for fun is wrong simply because there is a common consensus that it is that way. The reason we all accept that is due to millions of years of evolution that has resulted in a carefully shaped morality that appears as intelligent design. Its similar to evolution in this way. It appears as we have always been this way and that we are designed when in reality we are a product of survival of the fittest. Again, I can't possibly explain this to you in a reddit post. But the science of where morality comes from is super interesting.

I understand that I may seem unreasonable asking for all your evidence. I am sorry to seem that way. It was not my intention. The problem is that I find your "evidence" reprehensible and not proof in any sense of the word for your claim (will explain in a minute). So I have no reason to think any of those other 12 pieces of evidence are any better until you provide them. Can you see my point? I appreciate that you provided another piece of what you think is evidence at the end of your post. But it is no better (I will explain that later in my post as well).

I know that is what Kalam's argument tries to prove. I am saying that it fails at proving anything other than the fact that the universe has a beginning and that something triggered that beginning. Nowhere does it prove any sort of god.

Okay surely you can see the contradiction with what you said next. First of all, I said that a god is POSSIBLE, not that there is any evidence to support it (because you still haven't provided any). Anything is technically possible since we have no idea what triggered the big bang. So I simply do not assume anything until evidence supports one of those infinite guesses. You and other religious people on the other hand, handpick one of those guesses because you want it to be true and assume that it must be fact for no reason. Then here is where the contradiction is. When I brought up other possible explanations for what triggered the big bang (none of which I "believe" until evidence is found to support it), you immediately dismissed them as baseless speculation. EXACTLY! You have hit the nail on the head. We have no idea what triggered it. So every explanation, including God, the Multiverse, etc. is all baseless speculation. The difference is that scientists accept this and continue their search for evidence. Christians and other religious people choose their baseless explanation out of a pool of a literally infinite amount and claim they know it as fact. Due to the sheer number of possible explanations, the probability that you are right is astronomically low.

Now then you try to argue that the difference is that God is rooted in facts and has much more support than the others. What facts? What evidence? What support? You are right that wild guesses about the origin of everything are only considerable if they haven't already been disproven. But there is literally an infinite set of guesses that have not been disproven. God is but one. Plus, like I said, when I say god, I mean any sort of intelligent higher power. If you go down to individual religions then the probability gets even worse. God has no more scientific backing than any other explanation of the origin of the big bang that is still on the table. If I am wrong, provide evidence (I will get to why what you have provided is not evidence in a bit).

Then you try to evade the issue of us being correct about god as a different question. It is not a different question. Christians aren't just claiming god exists. They are claiming that the Christian god exists. Not any other. If any other is the real god then you are just as wrong as if there is no god at all. Imagine if there is a god and it is actually just a hyper-advanced alien who created life as a cruel joke and controls the universe for no other reason that its amusement. Another possibility is that there is no afterlife? Maybe you still just die or maybe you are resurrected as a new person with no knowledge of your past life. None of these have evidence and all are just as likely as christianity. All would also make you wrong in your claim.

This post was that anyone who believes in god is a hypocrite because they haven't demanded evidence to support it while they have demanded evidence for other things. I still am sure this is true given the current information. But being a christian as you are makes it even worse and even more hypocritical. So no, they are not different questions.

I will discuss your evidence in a reply to this post due to character count limits.

> If you can’t provide evidence, then why should I just blindly believe you have it?

You shouldn't. Evidence matters.

> You thinking you have evidence != you having evidence.

I agree. "Thinking it" doesn't make it so. Agreed.

> Time is an observable and objectively verifiable phenomena.

I disagree. Time is immaterial and an unobservable and non-verifiable dimension. We create markers to measure time, but they are subjective. We choose to measure time by the sun; the ancients usually marked it by the moon, but as we know (leap days, leap years, adjustments) it's not objective—it keeps changing; we have to keep tweaking our subjective measures. And then what about space travel—how is time measured away from the sun? "Stardate 4790"?

> Memories, dreams, pain, and perception are all biological processes that we are learning a lot about through science.

They are immaterial, immeasurable, unobservable, and non-objective. How is that science? (According to your definition, "Nothing objective and tangible in the universe is beyond the process of science.") These realities are neither objective nor tangible.

> If there a people who murder for fun, and have no problem exterminating races of people, of course there has been at least some who are okay killing babies! Infanticide is a known occurrence throughout history.

Of course infanticide is known throughout history, but not for fun. It's often for cultic sacrifice, and sometimes in conquest, but never for fun. "For fun" is always wrong everywhere all the time. Objective.

> Next you say basically, “I’m not going to give all my arguments because I don’t want them to be refuted.” I don’t have to point out why that is ridiculous.

Please don't be so judgmental. To lay out all 12 arguments (1) is a veritable WALL of text that no one wants to deal with; (2) it's impossible to respond adequately to all 12, so (a) responses have to be short and therefore inadequate, and (b) the discussion starts going all over the map trying to keep 12 plates spinning. So it's not ridiculous; I was actually trying to be both thoughtful and focused.

> All it does is prove that the universe cannot have existed forever.

I'm glad you're familiar with Kalam's argument. Then you should realize that the universe having a beginning is NOT its point; what it seeks to prove is that the universe had a CAUSE.

> Sure, a God is possible. But that is just one explanation.

And this was my only point. The evidence not only can lead us to God, but I consider that God is the strongest and most reasonable candidate for the explanation. The point behind that, whether or not you agree, is that my faith is based on evidence that came before it. The evidence: the universe had a beginning. The conclusion: God is a reasonable explanation for such beginning. The consequence: I form my faith around the evidence and the logic.

> Another possibility is that there is a higher dimension with completely different physics and science that our universe exists within.

Obviously this is complete speculative with no evidence to support it.

> A quantum event there could perhaps have triggered the Big Bang. ... death of a universe ... hyper-advanced civilization...

Again, unknown and completely speculative.

So again we are left with a mental debate: was the causative mechanism a higher unknown science, or was it metaphysical? There are other evidences for God (as yet undiscussed between the two of us), but there are no evidences for these speculative sciences which you hope will fill a gap. If we are just dreaming up possibilities, our options are endless. If we are looking at realistic evidence, the possibilities are far fewer. Since metaphysical realities exist, the metaphysical avenue is logically a more reasonable pursuit at the present than wild speculations.

> So even if the guess that there is a god turns out to be true (which it may), then how do you know that it is in any way similar to what any religion on earth has predicted?

This is a completely different question, one for which we barely have room here. But if there is such a God, then we could most likely only know about him if he chooses to reveal himself to us. Then we have to interpret that revelation and discern the truth, but it most likely wouldn't be a scientific pursuit to discern divine revelation.

> And if it is what a religion on Earth has predicted, then how do you know your religion is correct? You can’t.

Don't jump to inappropriate conclusions. If God truly exists, and has truly revealed himself, then truth matters and would logically be part of the equation: That God has revealed himself as he is, and that the truth about him is achievable. Otherwise his revelation is fairly void. If he's going to bother to reveal himself, he needs to bother to make the truth about himself knowable.

> It is this simple: you believe something is without a doubt real when there is no evidence to support the specific existence of that thing, let alone your personal interpretation of it.

Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. I just gave you one evidence that was a foundation for my faith. As I said, there are 11 more. While 1 doesn't make a case, all 12 (or so) create a formidable wall of probability.

So let's go to the next one. This is one is mildly based in scientific observation (that something caused what we see), and is a second piece of the puzzle after the cosmological evidence that could, by your admission, lead us rationally to a theistic conclusion. It's an ontological argument that comes from Dr. Alvin Plantinga, who argues that God is a necessary being.

1. If God (a supreme, supernatural divine being) does not exist, his existence is logically impossible. That doesn’t mean he can't be made up in someone's imagination (which is still possible even if he doesn't exist); what it means is that if God doesn't really exist, the very concept of God is inconsistent or self-contradictory with truth and reality. His existence doesn't even make sense.

2. But if God does exist, then it's necessary that He does. It cannot be otherwise if He is truly God and if He truly exists.

3. Therefore (first conclusion), God's existence is either impossible (inconsistent and self-contradictory) or necessary. There's no halfway position.

4. If God's existence is logically impossible, then even the concept of God and everything we think about him is contradictory. We are trying to make a reality what is not only nonsensical, but impossible.

5. But the concept of God is not contradictory. There's actually good sense to it in many ways, for example, that something caused what we see. While some may not agree, it's assuredly not contradictory.

6. Therefore (second conclusion), if God's existence isn't contradictory (if that choice is removed from the equation), then the only reasonable choice left is that God is logically necessary.

God is either impossible or necessary. Since He's not impossible, then He must be necessary, and therefore He exists.

To respond to your first explanation of why you won’t give evidence. If you can’t provide evidence, then why should I just blindly believe you have it? The entire argument of whether theists are hypocrites hinges on whether you have evidence from which you base your belief. If you can’t provide any evidence, then you admit I am correct. You thinking you have evidence != you having evidence. Of course I believe you think you have evidence. How else would you rationalize your belief? You need to provide objective evidence to prove me wrong. Otherwise, you are talking circles. Thankfully, later in your post you do bring up something you call evidence. I will get to that in a bit.

My argument about science is simply common sense. Everything we know for sure about the objective universe that exists is known through science. Everything we know about humanity itself that is not just a subjective creation of our consciousness is known through science. If I am wrong, please provide an exception to that rule.

Then you tried to refute my two statements with examples. But it’s hilarious to me how you tried to do that. Time is an observable and objectively verifiable phenomena. Memories, dreams, pain, and perception are all biological processes that we are learning a lot about through science. Intuition is simply observing behavior and interpreting what will happen based on your past experience with people. Of course all of these things exist. They are all verifiable and exist tangibly. So you haven’t exactly disproved what I said. Provide an example of something that is absolutely true that does not have scientific backing. In Otherwords, provide something that is knowable but not knowable through science.

If there a people who murder for fun, and have no problem exterminating races of people, of course there has been at least some who are okay killing babies! Infanticide is a known occurrence throughout history.

Next you say basically, “I’m not going to give all my arguments because I don’t want them to be refuted.” I don’t have to point out why that is ridiculous.

Then you go on this long winded explanation of Kalam’s argument. I am familiar with that argument. All it does is prove that the universe cannot have existed forever. Of course the vast majority of scientists agree with this. Everything we know, including time itself, began with the Big Bang. Now obviously something triggered the Big Bang. But the fact is that we have no evidence to support any singular explanation. Sure, a God is possible. But that is just one explanation. Another possibility is that there is a higher dimension with completely different physics and science that our universe exists within. A quantum event there could perhaps have triggered the Big Bang. If a god could have existed forever, then who is to say this realm we know nothing about hasn’t existed forever? Or there is the possibility that the Big Bang was created from the death of an older universe. Or even that our universe is a simulation of a hyper advanced civilization. Or that a hyper advanced civilization is capable of just creating universes! Any of these and more could be true, but they are just guesses. The difference is that scientists don’t pretend to know which is correct, they accept many possibilities and understand that we have no idea which is true yet. So acting like we not only know the answer, but have detailed knowledge of the being that supposedly created us, is completely ridiculous. So even if the guess that there is a god turns out to be true (which it may), then how do you know that it is in any way similar to what any religion on earth has predicted? And if it is what a religion on Earth has predicted, then how do you know your religion is correct? You can’t. And here lies my point. Your arguments and beliefs start with faith in what you want to be true. Not evidence. How did I conclude this is true? Well let’s walk through the logic. As a Christian, you believe that the Bible is the word of god. That must be true in order for your faith to be correct. So you have a pre-held belief that the Bible, which is just a story, is in some way divine word. Then when you learn there are things about our universe we don’t understand, like what was before the beginning of this universe as we know it, you don’t just accept that we don’t know like any competent scientist does. Instead, you say “it must be god”. Not only god but the Christian god. Then you use the fact that we don’t know something as evidence for what you want to be true being true. This is flawed logic and clearly starting with a pre held belief. You simply cannot know for sure that any god exists let alone the Christian god if you start with the evidence and draw conclusions from it. To determine a god exists right now, by definition requires assumption based on the religion you believe. If you didn’t have blind faith that the Bible is the word of god, then you would admit that we simply have no idea what came before the Big Bang. God is one of infinite possibilities, and Christianity is but a tiny fraction of every possibility of what a god is.

Science doesn’t claim to know where the Big Bang came from. Nor does it know whether a god exists. It simply acknowledges what we don’t know instead of assumig something fills that gap in knowledge with no evidence to support it. If a logical argument that does nothing but show that a god is one of an infinite amount of possibilities of where the universe came from is the only “evidence” you are willing to provide of God’s 100% certain existence (which you must believe since you are a Christian), then you have proven my point for me.

It is this simple: you believe something is without a doubt real when there is no evidence to support the specific existence of that thing, let alone your personal interpretation of it. If there is a real god, we cannot know it is real yet.

I didn't name or list the evidence because this is a query about the nature of faith, not the substantiating arguments/evidence for the existence of God. I was merely establishing that faith is grounded in evidence, in contrast to faith ignoring evidence or being an a priori conclusion before evidence. That was the nature of this post, so that was the direction of my comments.

Again, you failed to prove your point that science is the only path to knowledge. You feel that you tore down my arguments, which you didn't succeed in doing, but also failed to vindicate your own. For instance, here are statements you have made that prove, in your own words, that all knowledge is not achievable by science:

1\. NOTHING is beyond science.
2\. "Truths that aren't tangible don't literally exist."

Now, I understand that you have created a demarcation to support your point: "...objective and tangible..." Of course I agree with you. The scope of science is a study of that which of objective and tangible. But there are many types of knowledge and paths to knowledge that have nothing to do with the objective and tangible. Science is limited to the objective and tangible, but even more limited than that. Science is often also limited to the reproducible phenomena that can be studied under controlled conditions and give confirmatory results.
You seem to be claiming that things that aren't objective and tangible don't really exist. What about time? memories? intuition? perceptions? logic? pain? dreams? Do these things not exist? You can see why I feel you are placing far too much on the shoulders of science. Science can only do its area; it can't do all areas of knowledge.

> There have certainly been people who believe that killing babies for the fun of it isn’t wrong.

Where's your evidence? Substantiate, please.

> If you have evidence, name it.

There are about a dozen logical arguments for the existence of God. I have learned from many previous experiences that posting all 12 is a ludicrous waste of time. People blow them off with inadequate rebuttals and try to move on as if this is all sheer nonsense. Perhaps a better approach would be to take them 1 at a time to determine the quality of each argument. The first 8 or so are from reason; the next several are from science, and the last ones are from experience. We can start with the first one, an argument from causality (which is a logical argument but overlaps with science).

1\. Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence.
2\. Then there has to be at least one being that is distinct from and pre-existing all beings that began to exist.
3\. Therefore that first being is uncaused, and there is at least one first, uncaused being.

My claim is that science gives us no evidence of anything that began to exist spontaneously of its own volition. We know of nothing that at any time began to exist from its own nature (How can something pop itself into existence when it doesn’t exist?) If it had a beginning, it had a cause outside of itself. Can we agree that the universe had a beginning? (That's the first question.) Everything that had a beginning was brought into existence by something else that already existed, whether technological, mechanical, or even biological. Something had to have already existed.

So we have to examine the various alternatives:

1\. The universe spontaneously generated. It was its own causal mechanism. To me this flies in the face of both logic and science. We know nothing like this, and science has shown us nothing like this.

2\. There is no such thing as a first cause. The universe is an endless string of cause-and-effect. According to Kalam's cosmological argument, this is impossible. We cannot arrive at the present unless there was a beginning. Regardless of the logic of that, however, science tells us the universe had a beginning.

Kalam's argument, in a nutshell: Think of it this way: Suppose you go to the grocery store and, approaching the deli counter, you plan to take a ticket for your proper turn. But on the ticket-dispenser, you see a sign that says, "Before taking this ticket, you must take a ticket from the machine on the right." You reach for that machine, but it also has a similar sign on it. The third machine has the same sign. And the fourth. This could go on forever (which is Kalam's point), unless you finally get to a machine somewhere in the line that allows you to take a ticket. Unless there is a beginning, there can be no present.

3\. If the causal mechanism of the universe was not a thing (it was not matter, since science tells us the universe had a beginning and that it was a dimensionless singularity where all the laws of nature were non-existent and non-functioning), and since it was not, therefore, "scientific" (tangible and objective; physics, chemistry, biology), then we have to wonder if the causal mechanism was a metaphysical being with the capability to motivate the Bang. This is not assuming a God (I have not yet proven the existence of the spiritual realm), but it's bringing into the equation the only alternative to a material causal mechanism: an immaterial, metaphysical one.

In other words, the evidence tells us if something always existed, and it is not objective and tangible, not subject to scientific laws, and incapable of spontaneous generation, then logic tells us the cause must have been immaterial, eternal, and metaphysical. God is a possible, if not reasonable, choice as to that causal mechanism.

This is merely the first line of a dozen of evidence of the existence of God. Again, this is support that (from your original post) I am not guilty of hypocrisy, and secondly that evidence precedes faith. I'll be glad to hear your reply.

Somehow you have written an entire post arguing that you base all of your beliefs on evidence, including god. But you haven’t provided one piece of evidence to support god. You claim that god is outside science, but then you claim you know he exists because you have evidence to support it. If there was evidence to support it, then it would be science. Can you not see the flaw there? Please provide this evidence that you claim to have. But bear in mind, personal experience, and the Bible are not evidence of you need me to explain why, then I will. But I sincerely hope you have the intellect to understand why they aren’t.

I apologize for my overly broad statement. Let me clarify. Nothing objective and tangible in the universe is beyond the process of science. The quality of music is not objective nor tangible. The math theorem you mentioned is a ridiculous example. Of course we know that is true! The rules of numbers and math don’t just change randomly for no reason. We created the concept of numbers to explain order and value in a language we comprehend. So yes, that number is proven through logic. I don’t understand what you mean by proving things through philosophy. Philosophy is not a method of proving anything, it is a form of posing questions. To go through your other examples, forgiveness is not an objective or tangible thing. Guilt in a courtroom is actually determined in a very scientific way. Science is used to determine the objective truth of what the accused did. Then whether what they did is wrong is up to interpretation (often a jury’s) of the word of law. Law being another construct of humanity. There is no reason to suggest that when someone is about to jump from a ledge, we will not at some point in the future have technology that can read his neurons and the pattern at which they fire to determine whether he will jump. We know the brain functions like an extremely complex computer, discovering how it works specifically is just something we haven’t figured out yet. I’m a bit confused by what you mean when you say abstract truth. From what I can gather, you just mean “truths” that aren’t tangible or objective. Which, again, is not something that literally exists. They are fabrications humanity has made to provide order to the world and explain things. Finally, you claim god is not philosophically or logically provable. First of all, nothing is philosophically “provable”. If it is provable, then it is scientifically true. Science is just realty and the discovery of it. If the Christian god is real, then it is a physical entity. It must objectively exist. If Jesus was the son of god and did supernatural feats, then god is a physical being at least in some sense. There is no reason to believe that he is not subject to logical scrutiny.

Next you claim that there is plenty of reason to suggest that god is beyond science. You claim that philosophical questions are outside the scope of science. You are right about that (However you also said that math is. Which is flat out ridiculous and nonsensical) That is why philosophical QUESTIONS do not come with an sssumed answer. A basic example is the tree falling in a forest. It is a question. The philosopher doesn’t state, “trees don’t make a sound in the forest” or “trees do make a sound in the forest”, it is simply a question meant to inspire thought. The question “is there a god?” Does that as well. But theists like yourself do not ask any question. You state not only that there is a god, but that god is exactly the same as what you and no other religion claims it is. This is not philosophical, this is something stated as fact. And facts are subject to science.

You then claim that you know 100% surely that god is real based on evidence. You know what the method of discovering things based on evidence is? SCIENCE! So first you claimed that god isn’t proven by science or objective evidence, then you claim that you know he exists because of evidence (which you have still yet to share). But this is a no win scenario for you, because if you have evidence, then god is scientifically provable, I would accept that. But if you don’t have evidence, then you have no reason to believe he exists, and therefore are believing something completely baseless. But let’s say it does turn out that god is unknowable for humanity. Well then by very definition he would be unknowable and none of us could ever know he exists. So whether or not he is real, we wouldn’t know. So why do you assume that he is? Again, if you have evidence and he is therefore scientifically probable, please share it.

Next you claim that culture and socialization are not determinants of what we believe. That is flat out wrong. We have objective evidence through statistics and studies as well as thorough social, geographical, and cultural experimentation and research that for the vast majority of people, belief in a god is dictated by where they live and how they were brought up. There are exceptions, but there is undoubtedly a correlation. If you think that humans are completely unbiased by their circumstance, then I don’t know what to tell you. It’s plain wrong.

There have certainly been people who believe that killing babies for the fun of it isn’t wrong. Why do we not value their morals as highly as ours? Simply because we are the majority. And that majority is due to the fact that our species advances and survives more to reproduce if we don’t kill babies for no reason. So those that think it is wrong we’re the ones to survive and pass on their genes, those who did not think it is wrong, didn’t have as many (if any) children and their genes died out. This is evident today, because nowadays, the most developed civilizations in the world with the most power and population, think that killing babies for any reason is wrong. This is the science of morality and where it came from. It’s a fascinating field.

I will end it with this. If you have evidence, name it. If belief is truly secondary to evidence, then provide objective evidence, otherwise, your kind of in a tough situation because you will be showing that you believe something without evidence. Which by the way is exactly the opposite of what you claim your world view to be in the last sentence of your post.